ultima said:
Kasz216 said:
ultima said:
Kasz216 said:
ultima said:
Kasz216 said:
ultima said:
CommunistHater said:
In Response. When you sign off on 1 trillion in out of the ordinary spending for job creation, every unemployed person becomes your fault. |
So it's totally OK for Bush to spend about that much money on war, but not okay for Obama to ask a third of that so more jobs can be created?
@mrstickball - Read his sig.
|
That's a bad comparisson.
Think of it this way.
It it ok to drink 3 beers?
Is it ok to drink 1 beer when you have a severly damaged liver?
When the Iraq war started we were "healthy".
Also... you know. Iraq was a bipartisian effort... no matter how people try to run from that now.
If the democrats were against it... it wouldn't of passed.
It's ironic... you keep making the same falacies of logic you were accusing CommunistHater of making.
|
That's a very bad analogy. Beer worsens the damaged liver case. This money is supposed to fix the economy, not damage it further.
As for Iraq war being a bipartisan effort, I never said it wasn't, but you can't be inconsistent with something like this. If you try to spread an individual's fault over a group for Bush, then you must do so for Obama as well, which would lead to both men not really being at fault. After all, the parties aren't (weren't) against it.
I also think it's kind of funny that you call me out on making "falacies of logic", when your own argument is far (very far) from perfect.
|
"supposed to..." and what it actually ends up doing aren't always the same thing.
|
I'm sorry, but you expect Obama to just sit by and watch unemployment rise? Isn't 10% a really high number? You're saying that they shouldn't even try because it might not work?
|
Can people stand by instead of applying leeches to people with the flu?
|
You still seem to think that what they do won't help the economy. Why do you think that? And I know you're not alone on this, so maybe I'm being really naive.
|
Because it's never happened the economy before.
People used to give credit to FDR. However in reality, Kensyian economics didn't help there... even people who support them accept that now. Though they claim "FDR just didn't spend enough."
FDR actually hurt private jobs by making so many public jobs and constraining private money.
Since Obama has pledged to not raise the deficit. This money is going to have to be paid for in some form of taxes. To do so, he's going to have to tax somebody. Now he can't tax the poor, and he promised to not tax the middleclass. So he's going to be taxing the people who already make jobs... the rich.
He's going to be taxing people, to give breaks to those same people so they have incentive to create jobs.
He's raising taxes on people... to give those people tax breaks... problem being, a lot of that money will be spent on administration... so it's not even a zero sum game. It's taking money away.
Government can't create private jobs. Government can only get smaller so private people have more money for which to create private jobs with.
