Obama promises more than 600,000 stimulus jobs

There are 109543 comments on the Newsday story from Jun 8, 2009, titled Obama promises more than 600,000 stimulus jobs. In it, Newsday reports that:

President Barack Obama promised Monday to deliver more than 600,000 jobs through his $787 billion stimulus plan this summer, with federal agencies pumping billions into public works projects, schools and summer youth programs.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at Newsday.

Since: Aug 11

Hagerhill, KY

#115936 Jun 18, 2012
Teddy R wrote:
<quoted text>
Don't be silly. I don't have to prove a premise, nor am I required to alter my statement to something else because you are unable to refute it as I've stated it.
Still more lame deflection.
My statement remains PROVEN: In the long run, all other things - WHICH INCLUDES OTHER EXPENSES - remaining equal, taxes levied on corporations are simply passed on to, and therefore paid by, their customers in the prices of their products.
You're dismissed. Again.
Since you have never seemed to have run a business Teddy, yes, you're partially correct that expenditure increases are passed down to the consumer, but only to a point. One can only charge for goods and services what the market will bear. It is entirely possible to charge ones way out of business. If a business has an expenditure it cannot pass down to the consumer, the business must then find a way to slim down the delivery process to recoup the losses to stay in the black.

Economics 101 doesn't seem to be your forte' imho.

Class dismissed.

Since: Aug 07

South Central Virginia

#115937 Jun 18, 2012
Teddy R wrote:
<quoted text>
My premise of ceteris paribus is made for a specific purpose, and is entirely valid for purposes of this discussion.
When discussing the resulting effect of changing one variable (in this case, corporate tax rates) in a complex system, the universally accepted analytical practice is to hold all other variables constant in order to isolate the effect of the variable in question.
Only a clumsy partisan hack would argue otherwise.
My statement therefore remains PROVEN: In the long run, all other things remaining equal, taxes levied on corporations are simply passed on to, and therefore paid by, their customers in the prices of their products.
You remain dismissed.
Are you really going to continue flinging poo on yourself this way?
Actually, your premise is good for classroom work of a rudimentary level. Not for real life which is what we are discussing.

A tax increase can result in the following:

1. Straight pass through of 100% of the increase to the customer.

2. An offset of the tax increase through increased productivity; reduced prices from suppliers; less wage expenses (the company freezing wages until the taxes are absorbed.;) reduced expenses (turning the thermostat down or up depending on time of year to reduce utitlity expenses; or a combination of the above.

3. A combination of 1 & 2 above resulting in a partial pass through of tghe tax increase to customers.

It should be noted that even businesses in the same industry will have different stituations that will force them to respond differently based on their own circumstances.

But you keep tap dancing. It suits you.

Since: Aug 11

Hagerhill, KY

#115938 Jun 18, 2012
The company I worked for compensated by speeding production up. The consumer didn't see a nickel's worth of increase.
joe

San Anselmo, CA

#115939 Jun 18, 2012
nac wrote:
<quoted text>
Haha, enlighten me as to what the blind followers think fast & furious was all about please. This should be good...
Another right wing deflection. You don't know what it was about and can't explain it so claim I should do it for you. So, you define it if you can, Mr. Independent.

This should be good...
TSM

El Paso, TX

#115940 Jun 18, 2012
okboston wrote:
<quoted text>
Actually, your premise is good for classroom work of a rudimentary level. Not for real life which is what we are discussing.
A tax increase can result in the following:
1. Straight pass through of 100% of the increase to the customer.
2. An offset of the tax increase through increased productivity; reduced prices from suppliers; less wage expenses (the company freezing wages until the taxes are absorbed.;) reduced expenses (turning the thermostat down or up depending on time of year to reduce utitlity expenses; or a combination of the above.
3. A combination of 1 & 2 above resulting in a partial pass through of tghe tax increase to customers.
It should be noted that even businesses in the same industry will have different stituations that will force them to respond differently based on their own circumstances.
But you keep tap dancing. It suits you.
Okboston you are Clueless!! To engage you would break one of my most adhere to rule “Better to keep your mouth closed and be thought a fool than to open it and remove all doubt"? Boston the Floors Yours!!
Teddy R

Mclean, VA

#115941 Jun 18, 2012
gaytor_bayt wrote:
<quoted text>
Since you have never seemed to have run a business Teddy, yes, you're partially correct that expenditure increases are passed down to the consumer, but only to a point. One can only charge for goods and services what the market will bear. It is entirely possible to charge ones way out of business. If a business has an expenditure it cannot pass down to the consumer, the business must then find a way to slim down the delivery process to recoup the losses to stay in the black.
Economics 101 doesn't seem to be your forte' imho.
Class dismissed.
You get a C+, gatorbait.

Makeup question to salvage your grade:

1) If there were ways to "slim down the delivery process to recoup the losses to stay in the black" available to you _before_ corp taxes were increased on your business, WHY DIDN'T YOU, and produce better profits? Why are you waiting until you're in a loss-making position before effecting changes for efficiency? Answer - You're an incompetent, lazy manager. You're fired.

And an extra credit question - get this right and you MIGHT pass the test:

2) If you are a competent manager, already running your business at maximum efficiency so there is no possible way to further "slim down the delivery process," when US corporate taxes are raised on your business, pushing you beyond the point where "expenditure increases (can be) passed down to the consumer" because "one can only charge for goods and services what the market will bear," WHAT HAPPENS?

(Big hint - as you seem to need it - from your own post: "It is entirely possible to charge ones way out of business).

Class dismissed.
Teddy R

Mclean, VA

#115942 Jun 18, 2012
okboston wrote:
<quoted text>
Actually, your premise is good for classroom work of a rudimentary level. Not for real life which is what we are discussing.
A tax increase can result in the following:
1. Straight pass through of 100% of the increase to the customer.
2. An offset of the tax increase through increased productivity; reduced prices from suppliers; less wage expenses (the company freezing wages until the taxes are absorbed.;) reduced expenses (turning the thermostat down or up depending on time of year to reduce utitlity expenses; or a combination of the above.
3. A combination of 1 & 2 above resulting in a partial pass through of tghe tax increase to customers.
It should be noted that even businesses in the same industry will have different stituations that will force them to respond differently based on their own circumstances.
Your #1 is correct.

Your #2 is refuted by the simple observation that the profit motive drives any well-run and well-managed business to have already implemented any available efficiencies in order to realized increased profit.

Your #3 is just as fallacious as #2, for the same reason.

Thus my statement remains PROVEN: In the long run, all other things remaining equal, taxes levied on corporations are simply passed on to, and therefore paid by, their customers in the prices of their products.

Now, if you wish me to modify my statement to this:

"In the long run, all other things remaining equal, taxes levied on corporations are simply passed on to, and therefore paid by, their customers in the prices of their products, IF THE CORPORATION IS NOT TAXED OUT OF BUSINESS ALTOGETHER," then I would agree to this.

I would dismiss you again, but it's clear you really ARE compelled to continue flinging poo on yourself this way, aren't you?
Teddy R

Mclean, VA

#115943 Jun 18, 2012
gaytor_bayt wrote:
The company I worked for compensated by speeding production up. The consumer didn't see a nickel's worth of increase.
Compensated for what?
Teddy R

Mclean, VA

#115944 Jun 18, 2012
joe wrote:
<quoted text>
Another right wing deflection. You don't know what it was about and can't explain it so claim I should do it for you. So, you define it if you can, Mr. Independent.
This should be good...
You're such a childish pouter.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Fast_a...

Now carry on. Tell us why Holder is stonewalling and why he won't turn over what Congress is demanding.

Since: Aug 07

South Central Virginia

#115945 Jun 18, 2012
Teddy R wrote:
<quoted text>
You get a C+, gatorbait.
Makeup question to salvage your grade:
1) If there were ways to "slim down the delivery process to recoup the losses to stay in the black" available to you _before_ corp taxes were increased on your business, WHY DIDN'T YOU, and produce better profits? Why are you waiting until you're in a loss-making position before effecting changes for efficiency? Answer - You're an incompetent, lazy manager. You're fired.
And an extra credit question - get this right and you MIGHT pass the test:
2) If you are a competent manager, already running your business at maximum efficiency so there is no possible way to further "slim down the delivery process," when US corporate taxes are raised on your business, pushing you beyond the point where "expenditure increases (can be) passed down to the consumer" because "one can only charge for goods and services what the market will bear," WHAT HAPPENS?
(Big hint - as you seem to need it - from your own post: "It is entirely possible to charge ones way out of business).
Class dismissed.
You really are that ignorant of the process aren't you?

In most businesses, making the process more efficient often means that you use CAPEX to purchase new equipment. Many times you might want to wait until your other equipment has been totally depreciated OR the CAPEX is not worthwhile without some other problem forcing the issue.

For always trying to run as efficiently as possible and spending the money necesaary to do that without watching expenses, YOUR FIRED!

Since: Aug 07

South Central Virginia

#115946 Jun 18, 2012
Teddy R wrote:
<quoted text>
Your #1 is correct.
Your #2 is refuted by the simple observation that the profit motive drives any well-run and well-managed business to have already implemented any available efficiencies in order to realized increased profit.
Your #3 is just as fallacious as #2, for the same reason.
Thus my statement remains PROVEN: In the long run, all other things remaining equal, taxes levied on corporations are simply passed on to, and therefore paid by, their customers in the prices of their products.
Now, if you wish me to modify my statement to this:
"In the long run, all other things remaining equal, taxes levied on corporations are simply passed on to, and therefore paid by, their customers in the prices of their products, IF THE CORPORATION IS NOT TAXED OUT OF BUSINESS ALTOGETHER," then I would agree to this.
I would dismiss you again, but it's clear you really ARE compelled to continue flinging poo on yourself this way, aren't you?
The profit motive often says to wait until an expense can pay for itself. Unlike you, I would not spend dollars to save dimes. YOUR FIRED!
nac

Selden, NY

#115947 Jun 18, 2012
joe wrote:
<quoted text>
Another right wing deflection. You don't know what it was about and can't explain it so claim I should do it for you. So, you define it if you can, Mr. Independent.
This should be good...
Anyone that isn't bound by the constraints of having to blindly defend a party/administration can easily explain it.

The DOJ allowed smugglers to take tens of thousands of guns from the US to Mexico. The guns would be used in crimes there and "loose US gun laws" would be blamed. It was an attempted scheme to weaken the 2nd Amendment.

You have said twice that "I don't know what it is about." Well there you go, it's not complicated. Now let me hear your take on the matter.

By the way, criticizing democrats does not make me right wing. I hate and criticize the republican criminals as well. My position is that the false left/right paradigm is one of the biggest problems this country faces.
bozo3341

Nashua, NH

#115948 Jun 18, 2012
we tried three stimulas plans they did not do what was promised. they did run up national debt.

Gov can't not stimulate economies. Russia, Cuba all tried and failed. Economies are stimulated when Consumers have money , confidence in the gov in charge and future to plan ahead and spend money.

Our problem is Federal state and city governments take too much money out of the economy leaving consumers with too little money to effect the direction of our economy.

The people in charge of federal state and city government today have guided us to where we are today. if you like your economic statis today vote for the people in charge

If you need change vote for new faces ideas parties to lead cause the people running things now do not know how to change anything or they would have done so by now.
Teddy R

Mclean, VA

#115949 Jun 18, 2012
okboston wrote:
<quoted text>
You really are that ignorant of the process aren't you?
In most businesses, making the process more efficient often means that you use CAPEX to purchase new equipment. Many times you might want to wait until your other equipment has been totally depreciated OR the CAPEX is not worthwhile without some other problem forcing the issue.
For always trying to run as efficiently as possible and spending the money necesaary to do that without watching expenses, YOUR FIRED!
O rly. So you think good management is running the capital PPE into the ground just to minimize CAPEX even when analysis shows a CAPEX expenditure has returns in excess of cost of capital, and positive effect on corporate Net Worth, eh?

Well, now - that's a fascinatingly original theory.

In that case, Professor Obvious, would you please explain to the class how a CAPEX expenditure has doesn't produce returns in excess of cost of capital, and positive effect on corporate Net Worth on its own merits suddenly does produce positive returns in excess of cost of capital just by virtue of receiving an increased corporate tax bill?

Take your time, Professor. Give us time to stop laughing and thanking the stars you aren't CFO of the businesses we own and work for.

Not only are you fired - you never got hired to begin with - and American business is much the better for it.

Oh - and I fear we're running out of poo here, no matter how much you insist on continuing to bury yourself in it. The game ends when we're out of poo - fair warning.
Teddy R

Mclean, VA

#115950 Jun 18, 2012
okboston wrote:
<quoted text>
The profit motive often says to wait until an expense can pay for itself. Unlike you, I would not spend dollars to save dimes. YOUR FIRED!
Stop it - you're killing me.

An individual capital expense either does or does not pay for itself at the EBIT level REGARDLESS of the corporation's overall tax expense.

Keep your day job (assuming you have one) OKB - you don't have a future in corporate finance.
joe

San Anselmo, CA

#115951 Jun 18, 2012
nac wrote:
<quoted text>
...The guns would be used in crimes there and "loose US gun laws" would be blamed. It was an attempted scheme to weaken the 2nd Amendment.
You have said twice that "I don't know what it is about." Well there you go, it's not complicated. Now let me hear your take on the matter.
Where is your reference for this "story". Especially the junk about "loose US gun laws would be blamed" and "an attempted scheme to weaken the 2nd Amendment".

Ooops, your vaunted un-bias is looking a little biased, isn't it. Why not stick to chatting it up with little Teddy.
joe

San Anselmo, CA

#115952 Jun 18, 2012
Teddy R wrote:
<quoted text>
You're such a childish pouter.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Fast_a...
Now carry on. Tell us why Holder is stonewalling and why he won't turn over what Congress is demanding.
Jeez, what a blowhard you are. I'm sure nac will appreciate you answering questions for him, though you reference doesn't say anything about "weakening gun laws" as the basis for an attack on the 2nd Amendment.

You are a pompous fool, contrary to your own misconceptions. Ta.
joe

San Anselmo, CA

#115953 Jun 18, 2012
bozo3341 wrote:
we tried three stimulas plans they did not do what was promised. they did run up national debt.
Gov can't not stimulate economies.
Where have stimulus plans "run up the national debt"? Could you back something up, please?
nac

Patchogue, NY

#115954 Jun 18, 2012
joe wrote:
<quoted text>
Where is your reference for this "story". Especially the junk about "loose US gun laws would be blamed" and "an attempted scheme to weaken the 2nd Amendment".
Ooops, your vaunted un-bias is looking a little biased, isn't it. Why not stick to chatting it up with little Teddy.
I need no reference, it is my interpretation of what happened. You asked, I obliged. I then asked you for your take.

I evaluated the facts and decided that I believe it was ultimately intended to be used to take on the 2nd amendment... maybe I'm right, maybe I'm wrong. I don't know how it shows my bias, however, since both parties are involved in it.

At any rate, what is your take? Are you willing to form an opinion, or do you need your party to tell you what your opinion is? Will they kick you out if you think for yourself?
nac

Patchogue, NY

#115955 Jun 18, 2012
And by the way... Teddy is waaay to much of a left wing moonbat for my taste!

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Barack Obama Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Obama strongly urges Senate to work through rec... 5 min RayOne 6
News Barack Obama, our next President (Nov '08) 7 min American Independent 1,233,358
News BARACK OBAMA BIRTH CERTIFICATE: Suit contesting... (Jan '09) 7 min Rogue Scholar 05 189,993
News The President has failed us (Jun '12) 8 min positronium 328,514
News Obama pays tribute to fallen service members at... 38 min Jim Schammer 1
News SC state senator refers to candidate as 'raghead' (Jun '10) 45 min serfs up 1,173
News Once slow-moving threat, global warming speeds ... (Dec '08) 1 hr positronium 53,570
More from around the web