You probably got laid off twice because you are the stupidest worker and low haning fruit. Good luck with that business. I hope it is something that even a moron can do because you ARE a moron

but we can keep on blaming everyone from ceo’s to wall street and not look at the system that created this economic decline.

bet many of these unemployed lined up to vote for reagan economics and the trickle down theory that trickled up.

the end result very small middle class.

today on npr radio a person with an mba was working for ten dollars per hour.

look to india for the future of america.

with communism man exploits man with capitalism it is the other way around.

how few americans understand that simple axiom.

Only s complete fool would begin a regressive tax in the midst of a recessionary period, during which consumer spending is shrinking already…and smokers are consumers and spend a whole lot of money each year.

So let’s increase the tax on a certain product to try to force people to stop buying that product, while tying this supposed “increase” in tax revenue to an expansion of SCHIPS…a contradictory policy which 1) will no doubt negatively impact the revenue of tens of thousands of small businesses across America, leading to even more lay offs of workers, adversely affecting even more American children and 2) will probably lead to an underfunded SCHIPS, because if the rabid anti-smokers are successful in getting smokers to quit or cut back, then projected tobacco tax revenue will sharply decrease. DUUUHHH!!

Yep, April Fool’s Day was definitely a fitting day for this latest arch-conservative prohibition effort to begin.

“Job Loss Figures Deliver a Blow to Bush . . . George Bush yesterday became the first US president since Herbert Hoover in the Depression to preside over a loss of jobs when the last set of employment figures published before next month’s election showed only a modest improvement in September. On the day that President Bush was preparing for his second televised debate with his Democrat challenger, John Kerry, he was given the unwelcome news that more than 800,000 jobs had been shed in the past four years” (Retrieved December 29, 2008, from http://www.buzzle.com/editorials/10-8-2004-60283.asp).

Submitted by Andrew Yu-Jen Wang, J.D. Candidate
B.S., Summa Cum Laude, 1996
Messiah College, Grantham, PA
Lower Merion High School, Ardmore, PA, 1993

I think the BEST way out of the economic crisis in the LONG run is to invest in industries where we can export goods and technology while at the same time promoting the making and keeping of GOOD PAYING MIDDLE CLASS JOBS. Our economy went into BOOM times after the GI bill created the greatest middle class on the Planet in the 50’s even with the highest tax rate in the upper 80s and even 90 percent. We need greater amounts of people doing productive work and making enough money to do more than just survive but also eat out and buy new cars and TVs

WRONG on so many levels

This is a chicken or egg argument but there are a few flaws. First a company must survive to produce said product for it to be bought. If the point of government spending is “more people working” why have the Auto companies continued to lay off workers after the bailout? That logic does not hold.
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

I WORK in the railroad industry. Carnagie was one of the founders of the railroad I work for. He was PAID by the government for every mile of track he laid and was GIVEN land on each side of the right of way ALSO given him to develop to buy the rolling stock. The government investment in creating the railroads was HUGE. So your example works better as MY example. Public cost private profit.

Damn our Founding Fathers were business men. How much of our defense is based upon contracts our government has with Weapons, and Vehicle manufacturers. You may think I am pulling this out of my ass, but I venture to state that more innovation has originated outside our government then from within, though it may be close, and both have benefited.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

You are missing the obvious point. HOW much of the research and devolopment for high tech is done WITH TAXPAYER DOLLARS by the pentagon? The dfense contracts ARE an example of GOVERNMENT not private innovation. Think internet. It STARTED as the Arpanet for the defense dept and was developed for private enterprise with TAX DOLLARS.

Sorry I didn’t realize you were laying down so many concrete facts. I am so overwhelmed by your momentous argument, in which you claim… well I am not sure what your incredible claim is, except “govment throw monies on problem, no longer see problem” (caveman voice)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

I guess that would be because you are stupid since I made the argument clear enough. MUCH of what YOU are calling private investment is REALLY social investment. For some reason you just seem congenitally unable to understand that. Since MUCH of that government investment benifitted the economy THEN there is no reason to just keep saying it wont NOW. I am sorry but I dont know how much simpler I can make this. Just what part of it cant you understand?

Technically speaking he does kick back a larger amount and percentage then you. On the same note your argument could be used for supporting those who do not have kids not having to pay school taxes, since they get LESS out of it.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Not really. Since they benifit EVERY time they get change or arent killed because someone cant read a stop sign or a poison warning they STILL get a HUGE benifit from everyone being educated. Also NO he doesnt pay any since he is dead and when he did I am betting a lot of his income was capital gains which are taxed at a LOWER level than I pay.

“The road to hell is paved with good intentions” I know what a tax increase is “meant” to do but no one is all that sure if that is what it will do or if it the best method. That’s why we have these debates.
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

If YOU think the government is ALWAYS inefficient or that ONLY the entrepenuer should be served no matter WHAT it does to the economy then you are stupid

As I have stated above my overall objective is to better understand points and counterpoints to what I think. So far Ralph and Eugene and others have been helpful, and would like to keep this an open dialog. I can feel a bit of aggression building towards me so it may be best to step back for a while.

There have been plenty. Since 1976.

Using delicate words to describe a race to the bottom still gets us to the bottom.

I put it that way because that is what is being done. It is not a side step, it is an account of what is actually happening. The government is purchasing toxic assets from the banks to keep them solvent. This will promote more lending, leading to more money in individuals hands (if all goes as planned). The issue is that that money that the bank is lending come from the actual purchase of the toxic assets (an issue skirted around at G20) so in some form whether electronic or tangible, the money will exist. The money supply will grow.

One of the big downs sides of this is that the only way the government has to shrink money supply is by selling assets, usually T-bills, in exchange for cash. But with this plan the main assets they will have to sell are toxic, crippling their ability to shrink the supply.

I posted this on another post, But I think it sums up what I am saying.

http://www.marketskeptics.com/2009/03/fed-is-planning-15-fold-increase-in-us.html

equals:

“as much” – as is prudent and warranted

to

“as many” – as are able and willing to work

Really???

You call the pittance they were given to stay alive (compared to what was given to Wall Street) an “exorbitant amount of money”. And of course they are laying people off and that’s because people aren’t buying cars because they can’t afford them or they can’t get a loan to buy them.

You still haven’t addressed the fact that if we allow the auto industry to fail many shall businesses that support the auto industry will also fail. I thought you were a champion of the small business.

Our economy needs to live on “us making things”

not

Vince Shlomi selling them.

Me thinks Nitch is a not to bright concern troll who hasn’t yet made one valid argument.

So giving them an exorbitant amount of money and having them still fire people is a better answer. They do not keep the restaurant up the street open. I would say keeping them is more hurtful then losing them.

I have a feeling there would be plenty of unemployed lining up to work in new american auto industry. Along with that a better business model that could change the face of the automobile industry. We have the big 3 all making clones of the same turd, relentlessly polluting our world, yet you find that as a better option then letting them be replaced by true American ideals?