Story Comments
Posted by: Will1313 5 months, 1 week ago
This page is a permanent archive of the comment below and its replies.
To view this comment in the context of the full discussion for the story, use this link.
-
92%
Will13135 months, 1 week ago
-
10%
beavith15 months, 1 week ago
-
-
-
20%
beavith15 months, 1 week ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
what's so hard to understand?
Reply
its pretty simple math.
$787B/50 states.= $15.74B per state.
Ohio has spent 84 MILLION.
under this simplistic assessment (since Vermont isn't going to get what California gets), Ohio has successfully committed 0.005% of its porkulus.
that's 1/2 of 1%.
like i said. its closer to Boehner's assessment than that 'progressive' truthslayer.-
75%
Will13135 months, 1 week ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
When U.S. House Minority Leader John Boehner told a newscaster Sunday that not a single stimulus-funded road contract in his home state of Ohio had been let, he was wrong.
Reply
The Ohio Department of Transportation has OK'd 52 stimulus-funded road and bridge projects at a cost of nearly $84 million.
Boehner told Fox News Sunday host Chris Wallace that in "Ohio, the infrastructure dollars that were sent there months ago," as part of the economic recovery package, "there hasn't been a contract let, to my knowledge."
---------
well I guess you have to replace libsRfunny as the dumbest poster.. on Propeller.. we'll leave out Endoscopy.. he's in a catagory all by himself...
HE SAID NONE HAD BEEN LET.. WHEN IN FACT THERE WERE 84 MILLION DOLLARS WORTH AND ANOTHER 43 MILLION VOTED ON.. WHA T PART OF HE SAID NONE DON'T YOU UNDERSTAND.. ARE YOU SARAH PALIN..-
-
0%
beavith15 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
one minute difference between your self congratulatory post and my response. do you think i wait for your pithy answer? i put propeller down and went and did some stuff.
Reply
and hit home? LOL!! you can barely comprehend what you read...
-
-
0%
beavith15 months, 1 week ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Will.
Reply
reading is fundamental. RIF.
1/2 of 1% is a ridiculously small fraction. its very simple. if i owe you a dollar and gave you 1/2 of a cent, would that be closer to giving you nothing or giving you the dollar?
ooooo. AND $43M more? good. that's a whopping 3/4 of 1 cent.
semantics can be difficult. but do try and keep up.
BTW. i think you have some spittle on your sleeve.-
100%
dunkirk5 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
ROFLMAO, if reading is fundamental then understanding what you read seems to be beyond you Beavey. The entire amount isnt for road projects AND road projects had been approved but dont let that FACT stand in your way. Boehner pulls another boner is a truism.
Reply
-
-
-
-
-
-
100%
flyonthewallzz5 months, 1 week ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Okay Beavith:
Reply
I am not smart enough to do the macro economic stuff.
But numbers and proportions interest me.
The $787 Billion is the cost over a 10 year time frame.
"The CBO estimated that enacting the bill would increase federal budget deficits by $185 billion over the remaining months of fiscal year 2009, by $399 billion in 2010, by $134 billion in 2011, and by $787 billion over the 2009-2019 period."
Out of that $288 billion is tax relief and $27.5 billion is for highway and bridge construction projects. So if Ohio has contracted $127 million so far... and the represent an average of 1/50th of allocated resources..I think that amounts to $6.35 Billion. Or the ability to sustain that spending for about 4 years. With the hump occurring in 2010.
For the sake of perspective I looked at the economic-stimulus-act-2008 to compare. (which did not include spending other than from IRS) That bill was a one year blow-out of $152 billion.(compared to $185 for the last 3/4's of 2009)
I seem to remember a lot of talk about flat screen TV's, but I really don't know many folks that actually have one. It had about a year to prove itself...and stuff got worser.
The way it broke down was that $68.9 Billion was spent on Rebates for Individuals and $44.8 billion went to Business Tax Deductions. The rest is a bit messy. But it boiled down to the business sector that previously had contributed about 9% to revenue receiving, what appears to me a lions share of the benefits. It is worth noting that revenue from corporate taxes for the month of May was -$1.6 billion dollars. (we paid them)
It was supposed to work..and yet another stimulus package had to be brought forth.. and unemployment skyrocketed.
I have been reading about Iceland and Ireland and how thier bubbles grew as a result partially by dramatic cuts in corporate and investment taxation. The bubbles popped and regular folks got left holding the flacid rubber remnants.
I believe 2/3s of the current running deficits can be attributed to lack of revenue and about 1/3 is spending. The 2001 tax cuts did not pay for themselves..not even close.
I think when the dust settles at the end of this fiscal year 50% of revenue will come from social insurance contributions. The bulk of that is collected from the first penny to $106G of earned income. The number of folks that show no adjusted gross income has just about doubled, These folks get money paid to them from Outlays..and it makes it appear that receipts have grown.
But looking at these folks... a good deal of them are socking the maximum amount into there IRA's and claiming some pretty decent short term capitol gains losses.-
50%
beavith15 months, 1 week ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
FOTW
Reply
'I am not smart enough to do the macro economic stuff.'
you're doing fine.
you're numbers are fine, too.
what i'm trying to point out with the simple assessment, and the illiterati can't grasp without going all partisan was that the payout, under the porkulus, was a tiny fraction of what was promised. Boehner did mispeak when he said none. BFD. truth be told, what has been paid out is a pittance.
i wonder if the likes of Will would have been offended at all if Boehner had said something like "the porkulus has only sent fractions of a penny to my state" woud Media Maters have weighed in with their slanted slam ON Boehner?-
100%
flyonthewallzz5 months, 1 week ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Please call me Fly:
Reply
You will save yourself a letter, and I won't read like I have a boot in my mouth.
In 2006 I seriously considered the Jack Kemp tax cut concept thing. I looked at the numbers hard and did the best I could to kick the moonbat out of my head.
The numbers just plain flat out do not support the argument.
Tax cuts do not increase revenue. Believe me: I have had my share of trouble with the IRS and I would gladly jump onto that wagon if I could justify it.
Unfortunately it appears to me that the tax-cuts are just throwing expensive candy to a share of the population that could afford to pay them, in order to gain politically.
No doubt there are folks on the left looking for candy as well, but I have not tested that side as carefully. II figure that is why stuff should be looked at from as many sides as possible.
I think choosing to go to war and paying for it as well as the tax cuts with deficit spending contributed greatly to the situation we are in now. The history of taxation is tied directly to wars. It would be correct to say that the amount of money paid out to individuals by our government has exploded and needs to be looked at it a real serious way. But I really do not see a clean debate happening in that area.
I keep looking back to that "between the Wars" time, when the scope of government was reduced taxes where cut, the Market was given freedom..and it crashed..big time.
It sucks..because I would much rather keep as much of my hard earned money as I can.
But..opinion here...after the New Deal, the Marshal Plan, the GI Bill, a milkman could own his own home and his wife could stay home and take care of the kids. Yep the rich and industry where getting socked with a high tax burden but the taxes hit on money they pulled out to play with. The financial industry has numbers that support the argument that it cost less to own a home than to rent a comparable space.
I am not sure when it became critical for both parents to be income earners in order for a family to maintain middle class status..
Sure it is probably impossible to engineer another huge middle class that was enjoyed in the 50's and 60's. But it is worth while to consider what stuff looked like then.-
Neutral
beavith15 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
you got it Fly. you say:
Reply
"Tax cuts do not increase revenue. Believe me: I have had my share of trouble with the IRS and I would gladly jump onto that wagon if I could justify it."
there are detractors, but the Laffer Curve is standard economic theory. it would seem that the democrats fear Laffer theory because it denies their desire to foment class warfare.
at the time, the war and tax cuts seemed like an insurmountable hurdle. now we have the stimulus that makes that era look downright reasonable.
then you say:
I am not sure when it became critical for both parents to be income earners in order for a family to maintain middle class status..
Sure it is probably impossible to engineer another huge middle class that was enjoyed in the 50's and 60's. But it is worth while to consider what stuff looked like then.
a lot of two earner family is all about speeding up the treadmill to buy the extras. then the extras become necessary, then they can't get off the treadmill. its a vicious cycle. the middle class was a spin off from WW2. engineering another? beats me. holding back people, on the other hand, from being successful, or raiding their wealth is not what america is about.-
Neutral
flyonthewallzz5 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
http://www.propeller.com/story/2009/07/07/hows-the...
Reply
Well beavith: I am not sure if this is the best way..but I got back to my shop this afternoon and thought about what you have said, as well as one of my favorite conservative commenters here (Nostalgia), and it seems that my reply is a close fit to both conversations.
I think this is the discussion, between liberals and conservatives that I value the most.
I can easily respect what you have to say, but feel compelled to try to explain why I hold my opinion. I do not think the reasons are what you perceive, and I realize that we will always have a core disagreement, but I think that is cool.
I hope you get a chance to look at the comment, I did a bit of work to dig up the data. And I always appreciate it when someone finds the error in my conclusions.
I hope to have a "Laffer curve" conversation some day when I have the time to support my argument with numbers and history. My future son-in-law is a very conservative banker who's father is a policeman.
He majored in finance and accounting, I asked him about the Laffer curve and for the first time he drew a blank. Apparently it was not something taught where he went to school.
Maybe it is an MBA thing?
The kid is an eagle scout, like my son and you, he is a sharp kid with a good head for numbers, the word "Laffer" drew a blank with him, and when I explained it:he put it in an unimportant box.
He has a permit to carry a concealed firearm, but does not own one yet.
He has always voted Republican, and I think my daughter is marrying a good man.
-
-
-
-
-
-
loading ...
german-shepard
tchef
spkguy
Beau7890
fsev41
flyonthewallzz
dunkirk
smithichie
bluetexasvalley
antibrainwasher
Progressive
JEBUS08
beavith1
Post Reply
You are not signed in to Propeller.com. Please sign in to post a reply.