|
|
| Next: No Internet Connection |
| Author |
Message |
xavierx
Joined: Nov 06, 2004
Posts: 5427
|
 Posted: Sun Jan 04, 2009 7:22 pm Post subject: Obama to create jobs - in the government |
|
|
http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2009/01/prez-elect-make.html
| Quote: |
n his radio address today, President-elect Obama uses some new language when discussing what he wants the stimulus package to achieve in terms of jobs.
...
He says the "No. 1 goal of my plan ... is to create three million new jobs, more than 80 percent of them in the private sector.”
If you do the math: 20 percent of three million means 600,000 new government employees.
... |
More, including a link to the audio, at the source.
My concern - this would be a 33% increase in the size of the federal government!
(currently at 1.8 million). This means 1/3 more people getting paid from our taxes, in government that has so much waste already.
Fair disclosure: I'm a government employee - an Engineer for the Navy, which means I have to actually work for my money. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
pasquanel
Joined: Jun 20, 2005
Posts: 507
Location: Maine
|
| Posted: Sun Jan 04, 2009 10:17 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
| Barack Obama is the President elect and while I disagree with most of his philosophy I do wish him well and I sincerely hope he proves me wrong!
I do have one problem though how the h**l does the Fed. Gov. create new jobs when the only money they have is what they tax out of you and me?? Federal jobs are taxpayer funded, this helps the problem how? I'm not an economist I don't play one in real life or my virtual life but this just doesn't make any sense at all! BHO wants to rebuild our infrastructure , great but it's all tax money!! There are not that many of us who pay taxes thanks to our over complicated tax code. Flat tax would fix this but it's too simple I suppose.
So the other answer to the problem is print more money and print more we have!! But all this does is devalue what I/we have managed to save in spite of these gov. parasites!  |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ejward
Joined: Jan 06, 2003
Posts: 7054
|
| Posted: Mon Jan 05, 2009 2:36 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| And Bush increased the non-military federal spending by 35%. The largest increase in government spending in 30 years. There have been more government jobs created under Bush than at almost any other time in our history. Where's the outrage over that? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mommabear
Joined: Feb 20, 2003
Posts: 6319
|
| Posted: Mon Jan 05, 2009 6:17 pm Post subject: |
|
|
First off, (for xavierx in particular). I saw nowhere in Obama's speech or even in the writer's comments that the 600,000 jobs were all going into the Federal Government.
In general:
Obama:
| Quote: |
That is how we will achieve the number one goal of my plan—which is to create three million new jobs, more than eighty percent of them in the private sector.
|
Jake Tapper (ABC):
| Quote: |
| If you do the math: 20 percent of three million means 600,000 new government employees. |
Obama said "private" sector. So the opposite of that would be the "public" sector. That could also include State and Local governments, and not just Federal jobs.
That could and probably does mean that many of the jobs lost due to budget cutbacks in state and local governments, including school administrators, staff and teachers, may be restored. Any "new" jobs created will probably be a result of the stimulus plan working as it is intended...hopefully. Not all government jobs, State, Local and Federal are unneeded and wasteful.
The Bush Administration also implemented a lot of cutbacks in the Federal sector too; if not directly by actively cutting jobs, but by simply not filling sorely needed positions as they became vacant due to retirements and natural attrition.
Government employees spend on consumer goods, buy houses and pay taxes too, you know. They can't be left out of the economic growth equation. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
CowpokeBob
Joined: Feb 07, 2006
Posts: 1501
Location: South Carolina, USA
|
| Posted: Mon Jan 05, 2009 6:21 pm Post subject: [Login to view extended thread Info.] |
|
|
| pasquanel wrote: |
Barack Obama is the President elect and while I disagree with most of his philosophy I do wish him well and I sincerely hope he proves me wrong!
I do have one problem though how the h**l does the Fed. Gov. create new jobs when the only money they have is what they tax out of you and me?? Federal jobs are taxpayer funded, this helps the problem how? I'm not an economist I don't play one in real life or my virtual life but this just doesn't make any sense at all! BHO wants to rebuild our infrastructure , great but it's all tax money!! There are not that many of us who pay taxes thanks to our over complicated tax code. Flat tax would fix this but it's too simple I suppose.
So the other answer to the problem is print more money and print more we have!! But all this does is devalue what I/we have managed to save in spite of these gov. parasites! |
Well put Pasquanel. However if you look closely at Obama's job plan you see how it helps since government employees are more likely to support a Democrat (big government) vs a Republican (small government). Further I think you will find all those infrastructure projects are nothing more than political pork projects which will get awarded to those who best support the agenda. Remember that most if not all infrastructure projects are awarded through a bidding process conducted by the states or the feds. That it will create jobs albeit not the highest paying types is just a side benefit behind the real reason. And if it all sounds like the way politics is done in Illinios that is probably no coincidence either. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ejward
Joined: Jan 06, 2003
Posts: 7054
|
| Posted: Mon Jan 05, 2009 9:11 pm Post subject: [Login to view extended thread Info.] |
|
|
| CowpokeBob wrote: |
| pasquanel wrote: |
Barack Obama is the President elect and while I disagree with most of his philosophy I do wish him well and I sincerely hope he proves me wrong!
I do have one problem though how the h**l does the Fed. Gov. create new jobs when the only money they have is what they tax out of you and me?? Federal jobs are taxpayer funded, this helps the problem how? I'm not an economist I don't play one in real life or my virtual life but this just doesn't make any sense at all! BHO wants to rebuild our infrastructure , great but it's all tax money!! There are not that many of us who pay taxes thanks to our over complicated tax code. Flat tax would fix this but it's too simple I suppose.
So the other answer to the problem is print more money and print more we have!! But all this does is devalue what I/we have managed to save in spite of these gov. parasites! |
Well put Pasquanel. However if you look closely at Obama's job plan you see how it helps since government employees are more likely to support a Democrat (big government) vs a Republican (small government). |
Republican = small goverment? Not in this century. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
pasquanel
Joined: Jun 20, 2005
Posts: 507
Location: Maine
|
| Posted: Mon Jan 05, 2009 10:17 pm Post subject: [Login to view extended thread Info.] |
|
|
Personally I am a registered Independent, conservative by nature with Libertarian leanings. I am very disappointed with the Republican Party due in large part to their uncontrolled spending and their willingness to sell their souls for the easy way out. When ever anybody says "its wrong but it's the lesser of two evils" you are seeing someone who has comprised their core values (assuming they had any to begin with).
So on the one hand I applaud George W Bush for keeping me and mine safe for the past seven years but he has let us all down in other areas.
His handling of the border and the economy have been disastrous. I"m sure many of you would list other failings as well. It's not my intent to run the President down but I remain very concerned as to where we are heading.
Barack Obama has mentioned his "trickle up" plan which apparently gives (stimulus package) borrowed money (probably from China) to people who did not earn it. They in turn will go out and buy products (made in China from Walmart) that they would not normally be able to afford.
The money goes back to China and we (The American People) still owe the debt of the initial loan.
Now comes my question: How can this possibly make any sense to educated people? The plan is we are going to spend our way out of debt?
Please someone help me out here we buy things we can't afford using money we borrowed from the people who produced the goods and this is going to help? It sounds an awful lot like standing in a bucket and trying to lift us up by pulling on the handle.  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ejward
Joined: Jan 06, 2003
Posts: 7054
|
| Posted: Mon Jan 05, 2009 10:30 pm Post subject: [Login to view extended thread Info.] |
|
|
Where did the Bush stimulus check come from? For somebody who gives tax breaks to the rich to grow the economy, it seems a little odd that he would have to give a check to the middle class when the economy went in the toilet don't you think?
Owing money to China is never a good idea. Owning money to anyone is bad in my opinion in the long term. But short term, what are we going to do? Everybody seems to be in favor of dumping huge sums of cash into the economy in one form or another.
If I do get a tax break, it's just going to to to pay down credit cards. I'm not sure how that helps the economy. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
tony7914
Joined: Dec 24, 2004
Posts: 4965
Location: Peru Indiana
|
| Posted: Mon Jan 05, 2009 11:40 pm Post subject: [Login to view extended thread Info.] |
|
|
| ejward wrote: |
Where did the Bush stimulus check come from? For somebody who gives tax breaks to the rich to grow the economy, it seems a little odd that he would have to give a check to the middle class when the economy went in the toilet don't you think?
Owing money to China is never a good idea. Owning money to anyone is bad in my opinion in the long term. But short term, what are we going to do? Everybody seems to be in favor of dumping huge sums of cash into the economy in one form or another.
If I do get a tax break, it's just going to to to pay down credit cards. I'm not sure how that helps the economy. |
Apparently we are going to borrow allot of money we don't have one more time Dim sum anyone? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ejward
Joined: Jan 06, 2003
Posts: 7054
|
| Posted: Tue Jan 06, 2009 12:46 pm Post subject: [Login to view extended thread Info.] |
|
|
| tony7914 wrote: |
| ejward wrote: |
Where did the Bush stimulus check come from? For somebody who gives tax breaks to the rich to grow the economy, it seems a little odd that he would have to give a check to the middle class when the economy went in the toilet don't you think?
Owing money to China is never a good idea. Owning money to anyone is bad in my opinion in the long term. But short term, what are we going to do? Everybody seems to be in favor of dumping huge sums of cash into the economy in one form or another.
If I do get a tax break, it's just going to to to pay down credit cards. I'm not sure how that helps the economy. |
Apparently we are going to borrow allot of money we don't have one more time Dim sum anyone? |
We're borrowing it for the war. At least this borrow goes in my pocket. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bern
Joined: Mar 12, 2007
Posts: 1432
Location: ann arbor
|
| Posted: Tue Jan 06, 2009 2:08 pm Post subject: [Login to view extended thread Info.] |
|
|
| ejward wrote: |
| And Bush increased the non-military federal spending by 35%. The largest increase in government spending in 30 years. There have been more government jobs created under Bush than at almost any other time in our history. Where's the outrage over that? |
Right here, for one. Most fiscal conservatives I know have written off Bush years ago. We haven't had to yell loudly because the liberals were doing that for us; just for the wrong reasons. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mommabear
Joined: Feb 20, 2003
Posts: 6319
|
| Posted: Tue Jan 06, 2009 5:43 pm Post subject: [Login to view extended thread Info.] |
|
|
| Quote: |
CowpokeBob said:
Further I think you will find all those infrastructure projects are nothing more than political pork projects which will get awarded to those who best support the agenda. Remember that most if not all infrastructure projects are awarded through a bidding process conducted by the states or the feds. |
I think you're forgetting something here. The Governors are crying to get back the Federal monies that were taken from them because of all the cuts and other "budget balancing" procedures. The majority are plans the States already have in place and are ready to go, but because of those cuts in funding from the Feds, the States don't have the money for infrastructure.
They're not all pork. Trust me. You should drive our streets and highways in Indy and you'd see how badly they are needed. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
tony7914
Joined: Dec 24, 2004
Posts: 4965
Location: Peru Indiana
|
| Posted: Tue Jan 06, 2009 6:43 pm Post subject: [Login to view extended thread Info.] |
|
|
| mommabear wrote: |
| Quote: |
CowpokeBob said:
Further I think you will find all those infrastructure projects are nothing more than political pork projects which will get awarded to those who best support the agenda. Remember that most if not all infrastructure projects are awarded through a bidding process conducted by the states or the feds. |
I think you're forgetting something here. The Governors are crying to get back the Federal monies that were taken from them because of all the cuts and other "budget balancing" procedures. The majority are plans the States already have in place and are ready to go, but because of those cuts in funding from the Feds, the States don't have the money for infrastructure.
They're not all pork. Trust me. You should drive our streets and highways in Indy and you'd see how badly they are needed. |
Downtown sucks for sure, to bad some of the money being spent on the never ending 465 construction (lots of pretty bridges and 4 lanes one way in many places) can't be spent in other places. (if you think Indy roads are bad you should try driving in Carol county lol!)
Most bikers have found This. to be useful in our area, seems to get a quicker response on repairs. You might give it a shot down there and see what happens. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mommabear
Joined: Feb 20, 2003
Posts: 6319
|
| Posted: Tue Jan 06, 2009 7:11 pm Post subject: [Login to view extended thread Info.] |
|
|
Thanks for the link, tony. I'm sure it'll come in handy eventually. Right now we just practice preventive care driving/riding. We make sure we pee before we hit the roads.  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
CowpokeBob
Joined: Feb 07, 2006
Posts: 1501
Location: South Carolina, USA
|
| Posted: Tue Jan 06, 2009 7:21 pm Post subject: [Login to view extended thread Info.] |
|
|
| mommabear wrote: |
| Quote: |
CowpokeBob said:
Further I think you will find all those infrastructure projects are nothing more than political pork projects which will get awarded to those who best support the agenda. Remember that most if not all infrastructure projects are awarded through a bidding process conducted by the states or the feds. |
I think you're forgetting something here. The Governors are crying to get back the Federal monies that were taken from them because of all the cuts and other "budget balancing" procedures. The majority are plans the States already have in place and are ready to go, but because of those cuts in funding from the Feds, the States don't have the money for infrastructure.
They're not all pork. Trust me. You should drive our streets and highways in Indy and you'd see how badly they are needed. |
Taken from them? Not hardly. Yup, the plans are in place and ready to go all right. Just like that bridge to nowhere. Incidentally we have one of those here in SC they keep trying to build so I'm not refering to the more well known one. Maybe they can build it this time with some of this stimulus money. Can I say pork, you betcha.
I don't have to drive your streets to know they need fixing. I've got plenty of my own to drive on. Partly becasue there are too many unneeded roads to maintain. If the states planned a little better and spent a little less on pork projects that aren't needed they could do a lot better than they do. Your probably right that not all the projects are pork, just most of them. There's also no reason for me to believe that the states will do something different with the money this time. The main reason I have to drive on my bad roads is becasue the lion's share of the highway funds around here goes to political pork projects instead of fixing what really needs it. I stand behind my comments and we'll see what comes of it. Not holding my breath though. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bern
Joined: Mar 12, 2007
Posts: 1432
Location: ann arbor
|
| Posted: Tue Jan 06, 2009 9:10 pm Post subject: [Login to view extended thread Info.] |
|
|
| mommabear wrote: |
| [I think you're forgetting something here. The Governors are crying to get back the Federal monies that were taken from them because of all the cuts and other "budget balancing" procedures. The majority are plans the States already have in place and are ready to go, but because of those cuts in funding from the Feds, the States don't have the money for infrastructure. |
Maybe you can explain something to me. Why do the states need money from the Fed? Why don't they just levy the taxes they need and not depend on fed handouts? Then the fed could levy fewer taxes. The total amount would be the same anyway.
Our founders set up a federal system so that the Fed did certain things that involved the whole country, such as foreign relations, etc, and the states did things that were more local in nature, such as roads, schools, etc. Since the taxpayers pick up the tab anyway, why don't the states collect taxes for their projects, and the fed for theirs? That way the tax paying public has a better idea how their money is being spent. (or maybe that is what the politicians are trying to hide)
Anyway, since you seem to like the system, please expain to me why it is good to do it this way. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mommabear
Joined: Feb 20, 2003
Posts: 6319
|
| Posted: Wed Jan 07, 2009 6:03 am Post subject: [Login to view extended thread Info.] |
|
|
| bern wrote: |
| mommabear wrote: |
| [I think you're forgetting something here. The Governors are crying to get back the Federal monies that were taken from them because of all the cuts and other "budget balancing" procedures. The majority are plans the States already have in place and are ready to go, but because of those cuts in funding from the Feds, the States don't have the money for infrastructure. |
Maybe you can explain something to me. Why do the states need money from the Fed? Why don't they just levy the taxes they need and not depend on fed handouts? Then the fed could levy fewer taxes. The total amount would be the same anyway.
Our founders set up a federal system so that the Fed did certain things that involved the whole country, such as foreign relations, etc, and the states did things that were more local in nature, such as roads, schools, etc. Since the taxpayers pick up the tab anyway, why don't the states collect taxes for their projects, and the fed for theirs? That way the tax paying public has a better idea how their money is being spent. (or maybe that is what the politicians are trying to hide)
Anyway, since you seem to like the system, please expain to me why it is good to do it this way. |
I don't know how it got started, Bern. Probably had something to do with Eisenhower (sp?) when he started the Interstate Highway System, in the 50's. And precisely because the States did do all their roads and it was a hodge-podge. Roads often stopped at the State line. The country needed a way to get goods from point A to point B, quickly and efficiently.
For a simple explanation: Out of that highway system, little towns along the way grew. Truck drivers needed places to stay overnight. Motels were built. Shops and restaurants sprang up to accommodate their needs as they traveled. Then families realized they could visit grandma, who lived several hundred miles away in another state, and get there and back in a reasonable amount of time, stopping overnight in those little towns to rest and eat.
I think you get the idea. Without the highway infrastructure and Federal Assistance we have now, we'd still be living and conducting commerce in the 19th Century. The States do provide some of their own funding, but do you think States can afford to pay for it all on their own? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bern
Joined: Mar 12, 2007
Posts: 1432
Location: ann arbor
|
| Posted: Wed Jan 07, 2009 8:53 am Post subject: [Login to view extended thread Info.] |
|
|
| mommabear wrote: |
I think you get the idea. Without the highway infrastructure and Federal Assistance we have now, we'd still be living and conducting commerce in the 19th Century. The States do provide some of their own funding, but do you think States can afford to pay for it all on their own? |
I actually agree with you that that may well be how it started. But, as with health care and other things, it sometimes is good to step back and rethink things.
Regarding the fed sending lots of money to the states for various purposes, not just highways: All the money comes from the taxpayers ultimately. Money the states get from the fed comes from the taxpayers, and instead of going straight to the state capitol, it gets filtered through the federal bureaucracy. It certainly does not increase during that time, and probably decreases considerably in the aggregate.
I think the states would be much better off if they levied their own taxes for their own purposes and did not depend on the fed to mandate and filter and spend. And the taxpayers would be better off in knowing more intimately where their money is going. And with less going to Washington, there will be less available there for foreign adventurism and other things we all disapprove of. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ejward
Joined: Jan 06, 2003
Posts: 7054
|
| Posted: Wed Jan 07, 2009 10:13 am Post subject: [Login to view extended thread Info.] |
|
|
| CowpokeBob wrote: |
| mommabear wrote: |
| Quote: |
CowpokeBob said:
Further I think you will find all those infrastructure projects are nothing more than political pork projects which will get awarded to those who best support the agenda. Remember that most if not all infrastructure projects are awarded through a bidding process conducted by the states or the feds. |
I think you're forgetting something here. The Governors are crying to get back the Federal monies that were taken from them because of all the cuts and other "budget balancing" procedures. The majority are plans the States already have in place and are ready to go, but because of those cuts in funding from the Feds, the States don't have the money for infrastructure.
They're not all pork. Trust me. You should drive our streets and highways in Indy and you'd see how badly they are needed. |
Taken from them? Not hardly. Yup, the plans are in place and ready to go all right. Just like that bridge to nowhere. Incidentally we have one of those here in SC they keep trying to build so I'm not refering to the more well known one. Maybe they can build it this time with some of this stimulus money. Can I say pork, you betcha.
I don't have to drive your streets to know they need fixing. I've got plenty of my own to drive on. Partly becasue there are too many unneeded roads to maintain. If the states planned a little better and spent a little less on pork projects that aren't needed they could do a lot better than they do. Your probably right that not all the projects are pork, just most of them. There's also no reason for me to believe that the states will do something different with the money this time. The main reason I have to drive on my bad roads is becasue the lion's share of the highway funds around here goes to political pork projects instead of fixing what really needs it. I stand behind my comments and we'll see what comes of it. Not holding my breath though. |
Who decides what roads are unneeded? I'm sure the people that live on them don't think they're unneeded. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ejward
Joined: Jan 06, 2003
Posts: 7054
|
| Posted: Wed Jan 07, 2009 10:15 am Post subject: [Login to view extended thread Info.] |
|
|
| bern wrote: |
| mommabear wrote: |
| [I think you're forgetting something here. The Governors are crying to get back the Federal monies that were taken from them because of all the cuts and other "budget balancing" procedures. The majority are plans the States already have in place and are ready to go, but because of those cuts in funding from the Feds, the States don't have the money for infrastructure. |
Maybe you can explain something to me. Why do the states need money from the Fed? Why don't they just levy the taxes they need and not depend on fed handouts? Then the fed could levy fewer taxes. The total amount would be the same anyway.
Our founders set up a federal system so that the Fed did certain things that involved the whole country, such as foreign relations, etc, and the states did things that were more local in nature, such as roads, schools, etc. Since the taxpayers pick up the tab anyway, why don't the states collect taxes for their projects, and the fed for theirs? That way the tax paying public has a better idea how their money is being spent. (or maybe that is what the politicians are trying to hide)
Anyway, since you seem to like the system, please expain to me why it is good to do it this way. |
Which state should pay for an interstate highway? Having each state take care of their own section is going to lead to huge inconsistencies in the degree of repair. Some states will decide to just do local roads. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
| |
|
|
General