Obama's failed stimulus program costs more than the Iraq war.

[Home&Marine]

Like it or not, war is good for the economy.

We succeeded in Iraq when we captured Saddam Hussein and the Iraqi's put him to death. The rest of our involvement in Iraq was not needed for U.S. interests other then it did boost our economy by keeping more Americans in work.

Sad but true. In the past it helped restart the economy and ran a bunch of Worthless Bathurds to Canada. Sending a bunch of Thugs through Service will solve many problems. I'd said numerous times in the past that We Needed A Good War.

Yo'Bama has done a Spectacular Job in Saving and Adding Jobs To The FEDERAL GOVERNMENT. They (the Democrats) count the Census People and then they count the Other Jobs they "Think" they saved. Bull Malarkie.

[DeltaT]

Quick, someone remind me what good an income tax cut is to somebody without a job?

I'm purtty sure that somewhere in the obamacare bill and the financial take-all-the-money-you-have-left bill there will be a penalty for not having a job! Don't ya think!

I just found out a few days ago that in the obamacare crap there is a 3.8% tax added to when any of us sell our homes in the future if we are at some age.

[Home&Marine]

I'm purtty sure that somewhere in the obamacare bill and the financial take-all-the-money-you-have-left bill there will be a penalty for not having a job! Don't ya think!

I just found out a few days ago that in the obamacare crap there is a 3.8% tax added to when any of us sell our homes in the future if we are at some age.

Yea, that falls under "Share The Wealth". You Will Be Penalized Because You Worked Hard (and the Tax Moolaa given to the WPS that Chooses to Sit on the Porch and Wait On The Check)!

[RoBoTeq]

Tax cuts were 37% of the Stimulus package. So it is part of this conversation. You make a claim about more jobless without backing it up.

If I didn't know you better, I'd think this was a joke. You may be the only one in the world over ths age of 3, under the age of 110 who has access to any media whatsoever who does not know that the jobless rate has been in the tank since Obama took office.

Every U.S. state experienced job losses during the recent downturn, but thanks to the right mix of industries, natural resources, and skilled workers, some states have a far lower unemployment rate than the 9.5 percent national average.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/38838429...s-us_business/

The top ten states with the least unemployment are evenly mixed between Republican and Democrat states, so it is the individual states that are making the difference and not the Federal government.

While 9.5% unemployment is really bad, the actual number of Americans who are without jobs is much worse;

How nation's true jobless rate is closer to 22%

Last Updated: 6:33 AM, January 12, 2010
Posted: 2:22 AM, January 12, 2010

http://www.nypost.com/p/news/busines...hnMcCi537pucaJ

[printer2]

Tax cuts may be 37% of the stimulus package,but socialized spending amounts to 45% of the allocated money for ARRA. Also note that there is ample evidence to support the lack of job growth by simply looking at the national unemployment numbers. How much evidence do you need? Also take a gander at the sluggish market which was supposed to rebound nicely and certainly did nothing of the sort. When you mature a bit, you'll understand that government intervention into the market by way of takeovers and the Fed extorting the citizenry serve no purpose at all in strengthening capitalism.

So you are saying the 45% (any source for that figure) was spent on social spending. What do you consider social spending? Unemployment benefits to the poor smuck that lost his job and now has no way to pay his bills? He could always bail out of the house his family is in and push a shopping cart down the streets. Mind you that might depress the housing market more sending the economy in more of a tailspin. I wonder where those benefits went after those wasted dollars slipped through his hands.

“More and longer unemployment benefits have helped Iowans most affected by the recession meet their basic living needs while they search for new jobs. It also has saved jobs for Iowans who, but for the stimulus, might have also found themselves without work,” said Andrew Cannon, a co-author of the report for the nonpartisan Iowa Fiscal Partnership (IFP).

http://www.iowafiscal.org/100225-ARRA-UI.html

Hate to think all that bad socialized spending may have done someone some good. But it is all relative, relative to if you have a job.

[printer2]

I'm purtty sure that somewhere in the obamacare bill and the financial take-all-the-money-you-have-left bill there will be a penalty for not having a job! Don't ya think!

I just found out a few days ago that in the obamacare crap there is a 3.8% tax added to when any of us sell our homes in the future if we are at some age.

So tell me if it is so. I hear Americans can deduct their mortgage payments (interest) from their taxes. I find that odd as up here we can not do that. From my way of thinking the federal government is subsidizing your living expenses. Basically the government is deferring the tax you would pay without the deduction and collecting when you sell your house. Seems fair to me.

[DeltaT]

So tell me if it is so. I hear Americans can deduct their mortgage payments (interest) from their taxes. I find that odd as up here we can not do that. From my way of thinking the federal government is subsidizing your living expenses. Basically the government is deferring the tax you would pay without the deduction and collecting when you sell your house. Seems fair to me.

And, of course it seems fair to you. You would think that because, apparently, you believe that the "government" is in control of and should be in control of everything. And it's the "governments" money, not the citizens who worked for it.

I think I could attempt to spend a life time in an attempt to get you to see how we work down here. And I don't think it would still get through.

In my real estate days I had a lot, and I mean a lot, of Canadian real estate investors come to the US to buy real estate. Why do you think that is so? It's a rhetorical question. I don't plan on answering it.

[cool-in-cayman]

So tell me if it is so. I hear Americans can deduct their mortgage payments (interest) from their taxes. I find that odd as up here we can not do that. From my way of thinking the federal government is subsidizing your living expenses. Basically the government is deferring the tax you would pay without the deduction and collecting when you sell your house. Seems fair to me.

So if the government doesn't tax you for something then they are *subsidizing* you.
What ever the government allows you to keep is also a subsidy then?
Maybe you didn't mean it that way or maybe you did. Either way it seems like there are many who think of the government this way which is a very scary thought.

[printer2]

And, of course it seems fair to you. You would think that because, apparently, you believe that the "government" is in control of and should be in control of everything. And it's the "governments" money, not the citizens who worked for it.

I think I could attempt to spend a life time in an attempt to get you to see how we work down here. And I don't think it would still get through.

In my real estate days I had a lot, and I mean a lot, of Canadian real estate investors come to the US to buy real estate. Why do you think that is so? It's a rhetorical question. I don't plan on answering it.

Canadians buy real estate in the US for a few reasons, to get somewhere warm in the winter, to diversify their portfolios (Even I have a portion invested in the US, also in the East, some in Europe.).

It is not a question of believing in government but in believing those that get tax breaks, basically free money, is being paid for by the rest of us. It would not be a big deal but that tax deduction (subsidy) you get helps to put your government further in debt.

Funny how I am the socialist that thinks that subsidies are a bad thing (you should pay your share of what it takes to run the country) and you the conservative wants a handout.

[printer2]

So if the government doesn't tax you for something then they are *subsidizing* you.
What ever the government allows you to keep is also a subsidy then?
Maybe you didn't mean it that way or maybe you did. Either way it seems like there are many who think of the government this way which is a very scary thought.

It is a subsidy when some one else has to pay more to give you the tax break. Or even worse, your government takes on debt to give you the break.

[cool-in-cayman]

It is a subsidy when some one else has to pay more to give you the tax break. Or even worse, your government takes on debt to give you the break.

l

The government spends the money it does not produce it. Tax payers subsidize the government.

When the government spends money it does not have, the bond holders are doing the subsidizing.

[printer2]

l

The government spends the money it does not produce it. Tax payers subsidize the government.

When the government spends money it does not have, the bond holders are doing the subsidizing.

And your children will be paying those bond holders so you can get your tax break today.

The government only redistributes funds in the way its citizens ask it to. I have no problem with the government spending money, as long as they go through the process of collecting it. If we do not like how much they are spending they will feel it in the next election.

Politicians get away with giving us 'free' stuff (tax breaks, infrastructure projects...) by putting off paying for it in the future. The thing is no future politician ever collects the money to pay it off. Until they get in the trouble Greece is in and others outside the country (the bond holders, usually through the IMF) decide how you can run your country.

[pdrake65]

And your children will be paying those bond holders so you can get your tax break today.

The government only redistributes funds in the way its citizens ask it to. I have no problem with the government spending money, as long as they go through the process of collecting it. If we do not like how much they are spending they will feel it in the next election.

Politicians get away with giving us 'free' stuff (tax breaks, infrastructure projects...) by putting off paying for it in the future. The thing is no future politician ever collects the money to pay it off. Until they get in the trouble Greece is in and others outside the country (the bond holders, usually through the IMF) decide how you can run your country.

Not to dumb down this dicussion ,but if the government would stop spending money on so many BS projects we wouldn't need to have tax breaks or matters of collecting money. It is really not needed to run an efficient government.