(09-28-2011 02:26 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  21byn PER YEAR for 230,000 jobs??

wow

What if I told you it was really 37 billion to create 290,000 jobs? Would that make you feel better?

(09-29-2011 02:25 PM)UM2001GRAD Wrote:  

(09-28-2011 02:26 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  21byn PER YEAR for 230,000 jobs??

wow

What if I told you it was really 37 billion to create 290,000 jobs? Would that make you feel better?

Oh yeah...well then thats totally cool. Lets make it a cool trillion and 1 job. That would the the best case scenario...JOBS JOBS JOBS!

(09-29-2011 02:34 PM)ImMoreAwesomeThanYou Wrote:  

(09-29-2011 02:25 PM)UM2001GRAD Wrote:  

(09-28-2011 02:26 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  21byn PER YEAR for 230,000 jobs??

wow

What if I told you it was really 37 billion to create 290,000 jobs? Would that make you feel better?

Oh yeah...well then thats totally cool. Lets make it a cool trillion and 1 job. That would the the best case scenario...JOBS JOBS JOBS!

How about if a large portion of those jobs were part-time rather than full-time? What do you think now?

Sheesh. RWT is right: SOAF quoted a poorly written/researched article. But RWT's link to junkscience makes a really telling point about EPA ignoring the law. I'm pretty sure we don't want agencies deciding which laws to obey and which ones to ignore, but this particular instance is unusual because it appears EPA is applying common sense. Not something I'm used to seeing, and I work with that agency daily. I know this is a really egregious example but if this constitutes a trend for EPA I may be in trouble...

(09-29-2011 02:36 PM)UM2001GRAD Wrote:  

(09-29-2011 02:34 PM)ImMoreAwesomeThanYou Wrote:  

(09-29-2011 02:25 PM)UM2001GRAD Wrote:  

(09-28-2011 02:26 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  21byn PER YEAR for 230,000 jobs??

wow

What if I told you it was really 37 billion to create 290,000 jobs? Would that make you feel better?

Oh yeah...well then thats totally cool. Lets make it a cool trillion and 1 job. That would the the best case scenario...JOBS JOBS JOBS!

How about if a large portion of those jobs were part-time rather than full-time? What do you think now?

Even better. Hopefully they will all be filled by "undocumented/illegal" immigrants so REAL AMERICANS won't actually go back to work. Again you and I are on the same wavelength...JOBS JOBS JOBS!

(09-29-2011 02:01 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(09-29-2011 11:45 AM)Hambone10 Wrote:  Wow, seriously? C'mon Tom. You're not stupid.

You did see the didn't you

But first off, in order to enforce the law the EPA would have to request those funds and staffing requirement from Congress. And we all know that there is no point in even wasting time in that. It would never happen.

I'm not trying to defend the EPA here in this thread. They shouldn't just ignore the law, but should be working to get it altered and maybe they are, I don't know. But the purpose of the false article and this thread was to somehow paint this as something negative on Obama and once again it isn't the case and makes the supposed braniacs, like my stalker and OwlXX/XX/XX, looks like fools in their silly responses without any research.

The Supreme Court case that started all this was from 2007. Yes, the current EPA head was appointed by Obama, but she was confirmed unanimously by the Senate. But I have yet to see any evidence that this current course of action has been directed by anybody in the White House.

Surely you know that the complaint from the right is that Obama hasn't created many jobs for the money we've spent, right? And you know that another is that we aren't enforcing immigration laws, and another that the high cost of compliance with regulation (including "green" regulation) makes businesses not invest... and another that MOST of the jobs that have been created (or many or lots or whatever adjective you want to use) have been government jobs, right? All of those complaints are pretty well summed up in this event.

It isn't about whether or not Obama did it, it is about whether or not Obama is asking for MORE activities like this, or fewer of them. Like it or not, He ASKED for this job. If something is wrong, and I believe even the EPA is telling you its wrong, then it is up to him to fix it. Unfortunately, as "the green movement" has a strong voice from the left, we are more likely to here that NOT complying with this bill is going to cost us 230,000 jobs. Hyperbole? Probably... but not totally inconsistent with reality.

That's what I meant by you're not stupid.

(09-29-2011 02:25 PM)UM2001GRAD Wrote:  

(09-28-2011 02:26 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  21byn PER YEAR for 230,000 jobs??

wow

What if I told you it was really 37 billion to create 290,000 jobs? Would that make you feel better?

This response is so ignorant I feel bad for you... kinda feel bad for the horse

(09-29-2011 05:36 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(09-29-2011 02:25 PM)UM2001GRAD Wrote:  

(09-28-2011 02:26 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  21byn PER YEAR for 230,000 jobs??

wow

What if I told you it was really 37 billion to create 290,000 jobs? Would that make you feel better?

This response is so ignorant I feel bad for you... kinda feel bad for the horse

Seriously, what if the number was actually 37 billion in costs to create 290,000 jobs, many of which are just part-time. Would you have a problem with that more than the current projection? If so, why?

(09-29-2011 06:35 PM)UM2001GRAD Wrote:  

(09-29-2011 05:36 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(09-29-2011 02:25 PM)UM2001GRAD Wrote:  

(09-28-2011 02:26 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  21byn PER YEAR for 230,000 jobs??

wow

What if I told you it was really 37 billion to create 290,000 jobs? Would that make you feel better?

This response is so ignorant I feel bad for you... kinda feel bad for the horse

Seriously, what if the number was actually 37 billion in costs to create 290,000 jobs, many of which are just part-time. Would you have a problem with that more than the current projection? If so, why?

Well first of all, if tax payers are forking over 37 billion to create jobs, then they're not really creating jobs, they're just giving away money because the jobs were never really needed (if you have to create them then they were never needed - PERIOD!) Jobs are created by the private sector, not by pumping money into the government. When I go to Costco, Walmart or any other place and spend my money I do more to create jobs than by having the government take it from me and then decide what job is important and what isn't. Besides, do you know of any government jobs that get eliminated or go unfilled? It's probably not many, so what are the new jobs going to be, privagte or governemt? If private, then why are we paying for them? And if government needed the jobs they'd already exist - and then some.

BTW, part time jobs are usually minimum wage, no benefits, and don't really sustain a house hold, but merely supplement the main wage earner's income. Would you or Maxine Waters be happy if the only jobs blacks could get were 290,00 part time, no benefit, deadend jobs or would you call that racist?

And guess who exempt from all these new regulations? Government and Major Corporations are in bed together and it sucks.

(09-29-2011 06:35 PM)UM2001GRAD Wrote:  Seriously, what if the number was actually 37 billion in costs to create 290,000 jobs, many of which are just part-time. Would you have a problem with that more than the current projection? If so, why?

For a President "laser-focused" on job creation, I think ANY NEW (key point, NEW) legislation or expansion of compliance to enforce recent legislation should create many more jobs and/or cost less. If this is what it takes to enact this legislation, then rather than NOT enforce legislation, we should put off the enactment.

Yes... I think jobs without significant new spending (as compared to the number of jobs) are more important right now than INCREASED environmental standards. Before you start, That's not the same as suggesting we dump trash into the rivers to save a buck.

(09-30-2011 02:09 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(09-29-2011 06:35 PM)UM2001GRAD Wrote:  Seriously, what if the number was actually 37 billion in costs to create 290,000 jobs, many of which are just part-time. Would you have a problem with that more than the current projection? If so, why?

For a President "laser-focused" on job creation, I think ANY NEW (key point, NEW) legislation or expansion of compliance to enforce recent legislation should create many more jobs and/or cost less. If this is what it takes to enact this legislation, then rather than NOT enforce legislation, we should put off the enactment.

Yes... I think jobs without significant new spending (as compared to the number of jobs) are more important right now than INCREASED environmental standards. Before you start, That's not the same as suggesting we dump trash into the rivers to save a buck.

Come on, you righties absolutely love to talk about cost per job. You morons have been doing it for years now and thinking that it makes perfect sense. You're not going to backpedal now are you?

(10-02-2011 07:07 PM)UM2001GRAD Wrote:  

(09-30-2011 02:09 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(09-29-2011 06:35 PM)UM2001GRAD Wrote:  Seriously, what if the number was actually 37 billion in costs to create 290,000 jobs, many of which are just part-time. Would you have a problem with that more than the current projection? If so, why?

For a President "laser-focused" on job creation, I think ANY NEW (key point, NEW) legislation or expansion of compliance to enforce recent legislation should create many more jobs and/or cost less. If this is what it takes to enact this legislation, then rather than NOT enforce legislation, we should put off the enactment.

Yes... I think jobs without significant new spending (as compared to the number of jobs) are more important right now than INCREASED environmental standards. Before you start, That's not the same as suggesting we dump trash into the rivers to save a buck.

Come on, you righties absolutely love to talk about cost per job. You morons have been doing it for years now and thinking that it makes perfect sense. You're not going to backpedal now are you?

You're the liberal who believes we can tax and regulate our way to prosperity, global warming is man made, that the people paying 90% of the taxes aren't paying "their fair share," and that to disagree with a liberal loon goofball of a president, a president who will go down as the worst in history and will be the poster boy (is that racist?) of what a president shouldn't be is nothing but racism, and you call us morons????

(10-02-2011 07:07 PM)UM2001GRAD Wrote:  

(09-30-2011 02:09 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(09-29-2011 06:35 PM)UM2001GRAD Wrote:  Seriously, what if the number was actually 37 billion in costs to create 290,000 jobs, many of which are just part-time. Would you have a problem with that more than the current projection? If so, why?

For a President "laser-focused" on job creation, I think ANY NEW (key point, NEW) legislation or expansion of compliance to enforce recent legislation should create many more jobs and/or cost less. If this is what it takes to enact this legislation, then rather than NOT enforce legislation, we should put off the enactment.

Yes... I think jobs without significant new spending (as compared to the number of jobs) are more important right now than INCREASED environmental standards. Before you start, That's not the same as suggesting we dump trash into the rivers to save a buck.

Come on, you righties absolutely love to talk about cost per job. You morons have been doing it for years now and thinking that it makes perfect sense. You're not going to backpedal now are you?

Exactly where did I do that? (backpedal). We've spent hundreds if billions and created very few jobs.... For a President "laser-focused on creating jobs, he sucks.

And you lefties love to argue the immaterial because you can't rationally argue anything meanngful.

I believe you said the stimulus wasn't big enough... Is this an example of something we should be spending money on?

(10-02-2011 09:05 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(10-02-2011 07:07 PM)UM2001GRAD Wrote:  

(09-30-2011 02:09 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(09-29-2011 06:35 PM)UM2001GRAD Wrote:  Seriously, what if the number was actually 37 billion in costs to create 290,000 jobs, many of which are just part-time. Would you have a problem with that more than the current projection? If so, why?

For a President "laser-focused" on job creation, I think ANY NEW (key point, NEW) legislation or expansion of compliance to enforce recent legislation should create many more jobs and/or cost less. If this is what it takes to enact this legislation, then rather than NOT enforce legislation, we should put off the enactment.

Yes... I think jobs without significant new spending (as compared to the number of jobs) are more important right now than INCREASED environmental standards. Before you start, That's not the same as suggesting we dump trash into the rivers to save a buck.

Come on, you righties absolutely love to talk about cost per job. You morons have been doing it for years now and thinking that it makes perfect sense. You're not going to backpedal now are you?

Exactly where did I do that? (backpedal). We've spent hundreds if billions and created very few jobs.... For a President "laser-focused on creating jobs, he sucks.

And you lefties love to argue the immaterial because you can't rationally argue anything meanngful.

I believe you said the stimulus wasn't big enough... Is this an example of something we should be spending money on?

I agree that you can't just divide the dollars spent by the number of jobs and get the approximate wage of the employee. You can't just hire people without first expanding your business and that costs lots of money. That being said I don't think anyone can argue rationally that the government has spent this money wisely and we all agree there is a lot of waste here. I can even see 500,000+ for one job (including everything that entails) but the numbers were seeing far exceed that.

(10-02-2011 09:05 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(10-02-2011 07:07 PM)UM2001GRAD Wrote:  

(09-30-2011 02:09 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(09-29-2011 06:35 PM)UM2001GRAD Wrote:  Seriously, what if the number was actually 37 billion in costs to create 290,000 jobs, many of which are just part-time. Would you have a problem with that more than the current projection? If so, why?

For a President "laser-focused" on job creation, I think ANY NEW (key point, NEW) legislation or expansion of compliance to enforce recent legislation should create many more jobs and/or cost less. If this is what it takes to enact this legislation, then rather than NOT enforce legislation, we should put off the enactment.

Yes... I think jobs without significant new spending (as compared to the number of jobs) are more important right now than INCREASED environmental standards. Before you start, That's not the same as suggesting we dump trash into the rivers to save a buck.

Come on, you righties absolutely love to talk about cost per job. You morons have been doing it for years now and thinking that it makes perfect sense. You're not going to backpedal now are you?

Exactly where did I do that? (backpedal). We've spent hundreds if billions and created very few jobs.... For a President "laser-focused on creating jobs, he sucks.

And you lefties love to argue the immaterial because you can't rationally argue anything meanngful.

I believe you said the stimulus wasn't big enough... Is this an example of something we should be spending money on?

Here you are talking about cost per job

So do you stand behind your idiotic cost per job rhetoric or not?

(10-03-2011 04:09 PM)UM2001GRAD Wrote:  

(10-02-2011 09:05 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(10-02-2011 07:07 PM)UM2001GRAD Wrote:  

(09-30-2011 02:09 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(09-29-2011 06:35 PM)UM2001GRAD Wrote:  Seriously, what if the number was actually 37 billion in costs to create 290,000 jobs, many of which are just part-time. Would you have a problem with that more than the current projection? If so, why?

For a President "laser-focused" on job creation, I think ANY NEW (key point, NEW) legislation or expansion of compliance to enforce recent legislation should create many more jobs and/or cost less. If this is what it takes to enact this legislation, then rather than NOT enforce legislation, we should put off the enactment.

Yes... I think jobs without significant new spending (as compared to the number of jobs) are more important right now than INCREASED environmental standards. Before you start, That's not the same as suggesting we dump trash into the rivers to save a buck.

Come on, you righties absolutely love to talk about cost per job. You morons have been doing it for years now and thinking that it makes perfect sense. You're not going to backpedal now are you?

Exactly where did I do that? (backpedal). We've spent hundreds if billions and created very few jobs.... For a President "laser-focused on creating jobs, he sucks.

And you lefties love to argue the immaterial because you can't rationally argue anything meanngful.

I believe you said the stimulus wasn't big enough... Is this an example of something we should be spending money on?

Here you are talking about cost per job

So do you stand behind your idiotic cost per job rhetoric or not?

I see you have absolutely no balls whatsoever. I suspected as much.

As to your claim... I didn't start the thread, and only made the final response asking you if that sounded like a good deal to you because you spent the entire thread arguing the immaterial of how Cal is ranked or that the math on the ROI calculation wasn't right as opposed to the material of considering whether or not it was an effective use of funds. I've asked you the same question here. Remember, that was a JOBS bill, in other words, the PURPOSE of that bill was primarily to create jobs. As usual, you never answered the question. Impotence isn't a flower, amigo.

I'm sorry your brain can't multi-task. Probably has something to do with the over-inflated ego attempting to compensate for the lack of testicles further complicated by your presence in an educational environment where your students probably don't respect you and neither the girls NOR boys failing your class will give you the time of day in an effort to improve their grade. They'd rather explain the "F" to mom and dad than spend 15 minutes talking to you.

I've backpedaled from nothing. The jobs bill doesn't create enough jobs for the money spent... and this is a waste of legislative effort and an example of the sort of wasteful, business hindering "regulation" that only idiots support.

When the EPA doesn't think the cost of enforcing environmental regulations is worth it, you'd better rethink your priorities. That's like PETA deciding that CERTAIN animals DESERVE to become coats.

(10-03-2011 05:01 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  I'm sorry your brain can't multi-task. Probably has something to do with the over-inflated ego attempting to compensate for the lack of testicles further complicated by your presence in an educational environment where your students probably don't respect you and neither the girls NOR boys failing your class will give you the time of day in an effort to improve their grade. They'd rather explain the "F" to mom and dad than spend 15 minutes talking to you.

Did I.... is that.......can it be...........damn, Hammy, it's nice to see you take the gloves off every now and then. This guy had it coming.

Go Hammy!!!!

I started the thread. So f off, ingrad, POS.

(10-03-2011 05:01 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(10-03-2011 04:09 PM)UM2001GRAD Wrote:  

(10-02-2011 09:05 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(10-02-2011 07:07 PM)UM2001GRAD Wrote:  

(09-30-2011 02:09 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  For a President "laser-focused" on job creation, I think ANY NEW (key point, NEW) legislation or expansion of compliance to enforce recent legislation should create many more jobs and/or cost less. If this is what it takes to enact this legislation, then rather than NOT enforce legislation, we should put off the enactment.

Yes... I think jobs without significant new spending (as compared to the number of jobs) are more important right now than INCREASED environmental standards. Before you start, That's not the same as suggesting we dump trash into the rivers to save a buck.

Come on, you righties absolutely love to talk about cost per job. You morons have been doing it for years now and thinking that it makes perfect sense. You're not going to backpedal now are you?

Exactly where did I do that? (backpedal). We've spent hundreds if billions and created very few jobs.... For a President "laser-focused on creating jobs, he sucks.

And you lefties love to argue the immaterial because you can't rationally argue anything meanngful.

I believe you said the stimulus wasn't big enough... Is this an example of something we should be spending money on?

Here you are talking about cost per job

So do you stand behind your idiotic cost per job rhetoric or not?

I see you have absolutely no balls whatsoever. I suspected as much.

As to your claim... I didn't start the thread, and only made the final response asking you if that sounded like a good deal to you because you spent the entire thread arguing the immaterial of how Cal is ranked or that the math on the ROI calculation wasn't right as opposed to the material of considering whether or not it was an effective use of funds. I've asked you the same question here. Remember, that was a JOBS bill, in other words, the PURPOSE of that bill was primarily to create jobs. As usual, you never answered the question. Impotence isn't a flower, amigo.

I'm sorry your brain can't multi-task. Probably has something to do with the over-inflated ego attempting to compensate for the lack of testicles further complicated by your presence in an educational environment where your students probably don't respect you and neither the girls NOR boys failing your class will give you the time of day in an effort to improve their grade. They'd rather explain the "F" to mom and dad than spend 15 minutes talking to you.

I've backpedaled from nothing. The jobs bill doesn't create enough jobs for the money spent... and this is a waste of legislative effort and an example of the sort of wasteful, business hindering "regulation" that only idiots support.

When the EPA doesn't think the cost of enforcing environmental regulations is worth it, you'd better rethink your priorities. That's like PETA deciding that CERTAIN animals DESERVE to become coats.

You can do your little tap-dancing all you want, but I asked a clear and direct question that you don't want to touch with a 10 foot pole. As usual, you're a coward and start backing up as soon as you sense that I'm about to snap your head off again. So I'll ask it one more time so everyone can get a good look at you being the coward you are - how about $37 billion to create 290,000 jobs? Would that be a good use of money?

(10-04-2011 11:00 AM)UM2001GRAD Wrote:  

(10-03-2011 05:01 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(10-03-2011 04:09 PM)UM2001GRAD Wrote:  

(10-02-2011 09:05 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(10-02-2011 07:07 PM)UM2001GRAD Wrote:  Come on, you righties absolutely love to talk about cost per job. You morons have been doing it for years now and thinking that it makes perfect sense. You're not going to backpedal now are you?

Exactly where did I do that? (backpedal). We've spent hundreds if billions and created very few jobs.... For a President "laser-focused on creating jobs, he sucks.

And you lefties love to argue the immaterial because you can't rationally argue anything meanngful.

I believe you said the stimulus wasn't big enough... Is this an example of something we should be spending money on?

Here you are talking about cost per job

So do you stand behind your idiotic cost per job rhetoric or not?

I see you have absolutely no balls whatsoever. I suspected as much.

As to your claim... I didn't start the thread, and only made the final response asking you if that sounded like a good deal to you because you spent the entire thread arguing the immaterial of how Cal is ranked or that the math on the ROI calculation wasn't right as opposed to the material of considering whether or not it was an effective use of funds. I've asked you the same question here. Remember, that was a JOBS bill, in other words, the PURPOSE of that bill was primarily to create jobs. As usual, you never answered the question. Impotence isn't a flower, amigo.

I'm sorry your brain can't multi-task. Probably has something to do with the over-inflated ego attempting to compensate for the lack of testicles further complicated by your presence in an educational environment where your students probably don't respect you and neither the girls NOR boys failing your class will give you the time of day in an effort to improve their grade. They'd rather explain the "F" to mom and dad than spend 15 minutes talking to you.

I've backpedaled from nothing. The jobs bill doesn't create enough jobs for the money spent... and this is a waste of legislative effort and an example of the sort of wasteful, business hindering "regulation" that only idiots support.

When the EPA doesn't think the cost of enforcing environmental regulations is worth it, you'd better rethink your priorities. That's like PETA deciding that CERTAIN animals DESERVE to become coats.

You can do your little tap-dancing all you want, but I asked a clear and direct question that you don't want to touch with a 10 foot pole. As usual, you're a coward and start backing up as soon as you sense that I'm about to snap your head off again. So I'll ask it one more time so everyone can get a good look at you being the coward you are - how about $37 billion to create 290,000 jobs? Would that be a good use of money?

No, the original stiumuls didn't squat, so why would we think this one would be any better, especially when the same incompetent people are running the show? Instead of us telling you why your stupid program won't work, why don't you tell us how it will? You can't just throw out dumb*** ideas, expect us to shoot holes in them, and then tell us how we're wrong. As a saleman, you're supposed to tell us the merits of your plan and provide proof that it will work. You want to spend $130,000 per job but what comes after the first year or when the money runs out?