• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Worst day since 2008 financial crisis

AdamT said:
Again, this is not complicated. Cutting spending at this point is idiotic. Unemployment is much more expensive than borrowing. For example, let's say that it costs $25 billion/yr. to service one trillion dollars in borrowing. Now let's say that you could use that trillion dollars to financy infrastructure programs that would employ 10 million people. By taking 10 million people off the unemployment roles you save roughly $250 billion/yr. You end up saving $225 billion by borrowing the money, versus not borrowing. See how it works?
Click to expand...

Unemployment has gone up during this Administration as today there are still over 24 million unemployed or under employed Americans. All that spending has created fewer employed and greater debt so what purpose did it serve? We are spending record dollars for unemployment insurance, imagine putting that money to work into the private sector which is where the jobs will be created. You have so much faith in the Federal Govt. and the question is why? These are the people that have created the 14.5 trillion dollar debt, 4 trillion of which has been added since 2009. I learned a long time ago to trust but verify. You trust but never verify what you are being told.
 
Conservative said:
Unemployment has gone up during this Administration as today there are still over 24 million unemployed or under employed Americans. All that spending has created fewer employed and greater debt so what purpose did it serve? We are spending record dollars for unemployment insurance, imagine putting that money to work into the private sector which is where the jobs will be created. You have so much faith in the Federal Govt. and the question is why? These are the people that have created the 14.5 trillion dollar debt, 4 trillion of which has been added since 2009. I learned a long time ago to trust but verify. You trust but never verify what you are being told.
Click to expand...

You aren't saying anything. If we hadn't done stimulus, instead of there being 24 million unemployed there would be 27 or 28 million unemployed. Unemployment insurance is one of the most effective ways to stimulate the economy because unemployed people tend to spend every dollar they can get. The money they spend supports private businesses. In other words, it is fed directly into the economy. Frankly, you don't seem to verify anything. You take your conservative marching orders as an article of faith without really thinking about anything.
 
AdamT said:
You aren't saying anything. If we hadn't done stimulus, instead of there being 24 million unemployed there would be 27 or 28 million unemployed. Unemployment insurance is one of the most effective ways to stimulate the economy because unemployed people tend to spend every dollar they can get. The money they spend supports private businesses. In other words, it is fed directly into the economy. Frankly, you don't seem to verify anything. You take your conservative marching orders as an article of faith without really thinking about anything.
Click to expand...

And how do you know that? you continue to buy the rhetoric from an Administration that has yet to tell the truth but they do bs a lot. What is it about this liberal ideology that creates such loyalty? The numbers refute everything you say yet you keep falling back on the Obama rhetoric. As has been proven over time you cannot spend rhetoric, you spead real numbers. there is no proof whatsoever that things would have been worse especially the way they spent the money.

Unemployment Plus Discouraged workers by month

2011 14856 14693 14463 14736 14736 15069 15050

Total U-6 unemployment 16.1% or over 24.6 million Americans
 
Last edited:
Conservative said:
And how do you know that?
Click to expand...

It is, again, basic economics. When you pump money into the economy it increases economic activity and supports jobs. When you pull money out of the economy it suppresses economic activity and lowers employment.

It's sort of morbidly amusing to see all of these conservative Congressman running around their states having their pictures taken at ribbon cutting ceremonies celebrating the completion of projects that were financed with stimulus spending, all while they maintain that the stimulus has done nothing.
 
AdamT said:
Again, this is not complicated. Cutting spending at this point is idiotic. Unemployment is much more expensive than borrowing. For example, let's say that it costs $25 billion/yr. to service one trillion dollars in borrowing. Now let's say that you could use that trillion dollars to financy infrastructure programs that would employ 10 million people. By taking 10 million people off the unemployment roles you save roughly $250 billion/yr. You end up saving $225 billion by borrowing the money, versus not borrowing. See how it works?
Click to expand...
Conservatives don't seem to understand about supply and demand, they buy in to the idea that if you increase production that lowers the prices, that will increase demand. That's a bogus argument, because consumers need money in their pockets in order to purchase goods and services.

We needed a bigger stimulus package focused on infrastructure programs which put people to work on projects badly needed in our country- road, bridges, schools, etc. All this would be done with privates businesses.

Austerity programs kill jobs.
 
AdamT said:
It is, again, basic economics. When you pump money into the economy it increases economic activity and supports jobs. When you pull money out of the economy it suppresses economic activity and lowers employment.

It's sort of morbidly amusing to see all of these conservative Congressman running around their states having their pictures taken at ribbon cutting ceremonies celebrating the completion of projects that were financed with stimulus spending, all while they maintain that the stimulus has done nothing.
Click to expand...

The money pumped into this economy led to higher unemployment, higher debt, and the current very poor GDP numbers. Are you ever going to question your sources and ask them how they explain the actual numbers? Making a claim that things would have been worse is political rhetoric that only the brainwashed buy. How can you say things would have been worse when things are worse?
 
pbrauer said:
Conservatives don't seem to understand about supply and demand, they buy in to the idea that if you increase production that lowers the prices, that will increase demand. That's a bogus argument, because consumers need money in their pockets in order to purchase goods and services.

We needed a bigger stimulus package focused on infrastructure programs which put people to work on projects badly needed in our country- road, bridges, schools, etc. All this would be done with privates businesses.

Austerity programs kill jobs.
Click to expand...

Pb, the Obama results speak for themselves but you ignore them. Don't talk to me about something you don't understand. The first stimulus package was for shovel ready jobs and infrastructure, how did that work out for us? More stimulus? Where are you going to get the money?
 
Conservative said:
The money pumped into this economy led to higher unemployment, higher debt, and the current very poor GDP numbers.
Click to expand...

Sorry, but that is absolutely contrary to everything we know about economics. You can say that black is white and up is down, but it doesn't make those statements true.
 
AdamT said:
It is, again, basic economics. When you pump money into the economy it increases economic activity and supports jobs. When you pull money out of the economy it suppresses economic activity and lowers employment.
Click to expand...

The government can only take from others to pump the economy. Money that would have been used to create long term jobs as opposed to temporary ones.
 
AdamT said:
Sorry, but that is absolutely contrary to everything we know about economics. You can say that black is white and up is down, but it doesn't make those statements true.
Click to expand...

You can spend as much money as you want but throw that money down a black hole and generate the same results that Obama has generated because that is exactly what he did. he is a leftwing ideologue who like far too many still believes that the liberal ideology is a winning one. That is total and complete bs as the numbers show. What is it about the liberal ideology that creates such loyalty?
 
1Perry said:
The government can only take from others to pump the economy. Money that would have been used to create long term jobs as opposed to temporary ones.
Click to expand...

Only in the liberal world does this make sense, taking money from the taxpayer so that the govt. can help the taxpayer? Wow, that is liberal logic! Just let the taxpayers keep their own money and as they always do charitable giving skyrockets.
 
j-mac said:
Who says that Keynes was right? Seems that throughout history when ever his theory is put into place it fails miserably.

j-mac
Click to expand...

Realitically it is not that Keynes was wrong, but that his theory has never been put into practice fully.

A signficant, and nearly always ignored part of Keynes theory is that governments should run a surplus most of the time. Not continual deficits. Canada was following the surplus part during the early 2000s and partly due to that we are doing generally ok currently
 
Lord Tammerlain said:
Realitically it is not that Keynes was wrong, but that his theory has never been put into practice fully.

A signficant, and nearly always ignored part of Keynes theory is that governments should run a surplus most of the time. Not continual deficits. Canada was following the surplus part during the early 2000s and partly due to that we are doing generally ok currently
Click to expand...

You don't have a problem with the govt. over taxing its people so as to have a surplus? How about never spending more than you take in? If you have a surplus the govt. is keeping more taxpayer money than it uses.
 
1Perry said:
The government can only take from others to pump the economy. Money that would have been used to create long term jobs as opposed to temporary ones.
Click to expand...

The point is that the money would not be in the economy but for the government's spending. It is borrowed.

Let's use your individual analogy:

Say you are hit by an uninsured motorist while crossing the road and you don't have disability insurance. You can't work because of your inuries and probably won't be able to for a year or two. But fortunately you have very good credit and you can borrow enough to get you through that time which will allow you to keep paying your bills and your rent. What do you do? Do you say that borrowing would be irresponsible and thus not pay your bills and start living on the street? Even if not paying your bills and living on the street will have a severe impact on your future job prospects and your ability to borrow in the future? I don't think so.

I think what you do is take your lumps and over the course of the next year, you develop a plan to pay back the loans over time.
 
126195.strip.sunday.gif
 
Conservative said:
You don't have a problem with the govt. over taxing its people so as to have a surplus? How about never spending more than you take in? If you have a surplus the govt. is keeping more taxpayer money than it uses.
Click to expand...
Yes it would be taking in more then it uses for that year.

So when the economy hits a slowdown, instead of borrowing money and going into debt the government can use the money built from the surplus's to fund it operations
 
Lord Tammerlain said:
Yes it would be taking in more then it uses for that year.

So when the economy hits a slowdown, instead of borrowing money and going into debt the government can use the money built from the surplus's to fund it operations
Click to expand...

How does anyone know what those obligations will be met by the surplus? It really isn't the role of the govt. to keep more than it needs for operation so it should refund the surplus then ask the taxpayer to fund any shortfall. that is the mistake our politicians make here all the time.
 
The government doesn't necessarily need to run a surplus. It just needs to maintain a reasonably low debt level during good times so that we don't find ourselves in situations like this one when the wheels temporarily come off.
 
AdamT said:
The point is that the money would not be in the economy but for the government's spending. It is borrowed.
Click to expand...

That is your theory. People will spend their money on their own. They always have.

Let's use your individual analogy:

Say you are hit by an uninsured motorist while crossing the road and you don't have disability insurance. You can't work because of your inuries and probably won't be able to for a year or two. But fortunately you have very good credit and you can borrow enough to get you through that time which will allow you to keep paying your bills and your rent. What do you do?
Click to expand...

I use my uninsured motorist insurance.

Do you say that borrowing would be irresponsible and thus not pay your bills and start living on the street? Even if not paying your bills and living on the street will have a severe impact on your future job prospects and your ability to borrow in the future? I don't think so.

I think what you do is take your lumps and over the course of the next year, you develop a plan to pay back the loans over time.
Click to expand...

We took out the loans but never got the money.
 
Conservative said:
How does anyone know what those obligations will be met by the surplus? It really isn't the role of the govt. to keep more than it needs for operation so it should refund the surplus then ask the taxpayer to fund any shortfall. that is the mistake our politicians make here all the time.
Click to expand...

So that it could raise taxes during an economic slowdown to pay for its operations? Not something I would suggest. Building a surplus that can be used during economic slowdowns is a much better idea then raising taxes during an economic slowdown in my opinion. Heck it is a policy I would suggest for everyone and business, build a rainy day fund for bad economic times
 
That is your theory. People will spend their money on their own. They always have.
Click to expand...

It is a fact, not a theory. The government borrowed money and pumped it into the economy. If it hadn't that money would not be in the economy.

I use my uninsured motorist insurance.
Click to expand...

You dont' have uninsured motorist coverage in this analogy. You spent that money on tax cuts and wars.

We took out the loans but never got the money.
Click to expand...

No, you got the money. It just wasn't sufficient to maintain your former lifestyle at 100%.
 
Lord Tammerlain said:
So that it could raise taxes during an economic slowdown to pay for its operations? Not something I would suggest. Building a surplus that can be used during economic slowdowns is a much better idea then raising taxes during an economic slowdown in my opinion. Heck it is a policy I would suggest for everyone and business, build a rainy day fund for bad economic times
Click to expand...

Don't think we have to worry about that in this country. Unlike Businesses and states the Federal Govt. here can just print money and that is what they are doing. Politician are like crack addicts who cannot get away from their addiction to spending and thus keeping their jobs.
 
apdst said:
The economy flopped three years ago. It's been flopped, ever since.
Click to expand...

Actually it was four year ago, but who's counting.
 
AdamT said:
It is a fact, not a theory. The government borrowed money and pumped it into the economy. If it hadn't that money would not be in the economy.
Click to expand...

Unproveable theory.

You dont' have uninsured motorist coverage in this analogy. You spent that money on tax cuts and wars.
Click to expand...

But I do. I planned ahead.

No, you got the money. It just wasn't sufficient to maintain your former lifestyle at 100%.
Click to expand...

No we did not get the money which is why those who support what the government did is bitching about Wall Street not hiring. They took the money and pocketed it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom