(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?

I would say no. Its not our Governments responsibility to create jobs. I realize where you're going with this...that its only a little over 125k per job and thats a bargain but its more important to make America a friendly place to do business (this would create MILLIONS of jobs). That doesn't mean to roll back all regulations and don't tax them it just means to put systems in place to make it a level playing field. There shouldn't be an advantage in moving factories over seas. There, I answered your question.

I swear, UM2001 is HAL2000. There IS no "he", merely a computer program spitting out random bits of rhetoric designed to entertain the weak minded.

I'll take out all the extra words that are obviously confusing you.

(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:  

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

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

Yes... I think jobs without significant new spending (as compared to the number of jobs) are more important right now .

You're not going to backpedal now are you?

Exactly where did I do that? (backpedal).

Here you are talking about cost per job

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

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.

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?

I'm sorry, what part of the above don't you understand?

At this point, I think this is a bad idea. It would be a bad use of money. It doesn't fit the profile the President said was his priority. It doesn't fit what I believe to be a priority.
Even the EPA thinks it is a bad idea at this time. Is that not clear to you from the above? Wow. Changing the numbers to yours doesn't make any difference to my opinion of the expense.

FTR, I believe this is $21byn per year, and not merely $21byn. I could be wrong, but I seem to recall that. Go ahead and TRY and spring what you THINK is a gotcha... When did a Republican president do as you described (hence why you suggested the different numbers) A) I'm confident the economic situation wasn't the same. B) Unlike you, I don't blindly support every idea ANYONE has. Even (and often especially) those I generally agree with, and C) If I thought the legislation were a priority, its financial breakdown would be less of an issue because it would be relative to the importance of the legislation. As the EPA doesn't intend to enforce the legislation, it makes the legislation moot. Obviously, it's not particularly important, even to them. I wouldn't spend a single dime to enact environmental legislation that the EPA didn't think significant enough to enforce at a time when additional (blatantly unnecessary) regulation on business is detrimental to the economy.

and you STILL have no huevas. You never answered the question I asked you in the thread you linked, and still haven't answered virtually the same question here. I answered YOURS in the first response here. The fact that I didn't play stooge to your sophomoric attempt to play "gotcha" doesn't mean I didn't answer you.