• 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!

Jobs recovery suffers setback in March

Eighty Deuce



President Ronald reagan tripled the national debt he started with. Has President Obama tripled the debt he started with?

This is pretty funny. If I owe someone $1, and you owe someone $3, does that make me three times as thrifty as you ?

Most folks recognize that the most consistent way to measure relative debt and deficits is by looking at the deficit to GDP ratio per year.

Obama is King !! .... and we ain't talking Elvis here .... ;)
 
Any facts to back these items up? According to factcheck.org, more people were added to food stamps under Bush than any other president...

I didn't look up the others so I'd appreciate your links to back up your statements...

FactCheck.org : Newt’s Faulty Food-Stamp Claim

Again, numbers seem a problem for one side of the aisle. My statement was that foodstamp usage under Obama was at an all time high. It is, in numbers, but more importantly, as a percent of all Americans. An expanding population would usually cause an increasing NUMBER of people with brown hair, for instance. What would be of note would be if the percent were going up.

FYI, from your artticle, Gingrich apparently said that Obama put more folks on Food Stamps than any other President. While is is true that during W's eight years, more folks enrolled than so far in Obama's three years +, But not by much. What is a fact is that more folks have gone on FS in Obama's first term than any other single term of any President. And as a percent, we are at a record high.

My biggest point though, which none have refuted, is that this economy is smoke and mirrors. A house of cards. Deliberately gamed by Obama. It must fall, for it cannot stand. Does a single lib here understand, much less acknowledge, the inevitable outcome of having the Fed being the largest buyer of our own debt ?

Here is a fair analysis:

Newt Gingrich has been pushing the line that Obama is the “food stamp president.” On first glance, the numbers back him up: There are now a record number of Americans receiving food stamps, with about 46 million participants in 22 million households. But that’s mainly because there’s been record poverty levels, not because President Obama has taken major steps to make it easier to receive food stamps from the government.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...esident-is-he/2012/01/18/gIQA1Ino8P_blog.html
 
Last edited:
My biggest point though, which none have refuted, is that this economy is smoke and mirrors. A house of cards. Deliberately gamed by Obama. It must fall, for it cannot stand. Does a single lib here understand, much less acknowledge, the inevitable outcome of having the Fed being the largest buyer of our own debt ?
What do you mean by that?
 
Are you really implying that growth and increased demand aren't directly linked?

not at all. increased demand is the result of growth in production.

but you can't consume something that hasn't been made yet.

Right now we're seeing evidence to the contrary, minimal growth despite relatively friendly tax rates due to the dip in disposable income for the lower and middle classes (hence less demand for products in general.)

well, that's largely because we decided to very stupidly maximize government v market allocation of resources in the middle of recession. In addition, we decided to rapidly jack up the total burden of governance on the most dynamic portion of our economy - our small businesses through a surge in the regulatory burden.

...Awhile back, my brother Pete decided to chase his version of the American dream. He did his homework; purchased quality used equipment via the internet, and signed a lease - in hopes of opening a small mom and pop style yogurt shop near Charleston, S.C. He's a smart businessman, who tries to calculate his decisions carefully. Nonetheless, it wasn't long before he found himself tangled in a web of regulatory red tape. He was told he needed to purchase environmentally friendly grease trap equipment, although no frying is involved in serving non-fat yogurt. It didn't stop there. Additional environmental requirements like the installation of specialized wastewater drains, and tens of thousands of dollars for more unessential equipment left him watching his hopes of the American dream go down the drain, along with any hopes of hiring new people should his business succeed.

My brother is not alone; his experience has become all too common in the Obama administration's new regulatory normal. South Carolina's Nikki Haley said it best when she recently told Fox News' Sean Hannity, "I need a partner in the White House." Haley claimed the hardest thing about her job had been the federal government intrusion into South Carolina's business. Though she was a Tea Party favorite, Haley endorsed presidential hopeful Mitt Romney. She said Romney promised to keep the federal government out of South Carolina's way, so it can create jobs....

dqj0jtmioui2ve6r8pnhqq.gif


which is why Republicans are more interested in lowering the regulatory burden than in lowering the tax burden. Heck, the Ryan Plan keeps effective tax rates on the high-income earners the same.

ro4jewb_qkqnbseqq1ck-w.gif


We've seen economies in the past with much higher tax rates on the wealthy flourish because of the success in the lower and middle class (more disposable income to be spent on products that aren't deemed necessities) not because of tax cuts for the business owners themselves. It's almost impossible to separate the two concepts.

what an excellent idea. let's look at what happened in economies in the past:

...Some excellent work on this topic has come from Valerie Ramey of the University of California, San Diego. Ramey finds a government-spending multiplier of about 1.4 — a figure close to what the Obama administration assumed, but much smaller than the tax multiplier identified by the Romers. Similarly, in recent research, Andrew Mountford (of the University of London) and Harald Uhlig (of the University of Chicago) have used sophisticated statistical techniques that try to capture the complicated relationships among economic variables over time; they conclude that a "deficit-financed tax cut is the best fiscal policy to stimulate the economy." In particular, they report that tax cuts are about four times as potent as increases in government spending.

Perhaps the most compelling research on this subject is a very recent study by my colleagues Alberto Alesina and Silvia Ardagna at Harvard. They used data from the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development to identify every major fiscal stimulus adopted by the 30 OECD countries between 1970 and 2007. Alesina and Ardagna then separated those plans that were in fact followed by robust economic growth from those that were not, and compared their characteristics. They found that the stimulus packages that appeared to be successful had cut business and income taxes, while those that evidently did not succeed had increased government spending and transfer payments...


:) isn't history fun?
 
Where are all the jobs the GOP promised after the 2010 election? Odd once they took over they stopped talking about jobs and turned their attention to the debt ceiling...wonder why that was...hmmmm...

You are going to have to ask Reid and Obama that question. They are the one's who are blocking all the job-creation bills the Republican House has sent to them.
 
What do you mean by that?

Perhaps you should educate yourself with information already provided ?

I would put the three biggest examples as being:

1) Having the Fed increase the amount of debt they buy. That is the biggest kick-the-can in the scheme. It would be as you getting out of debt by filling out every credit-card application you can get your hands on, running them up, then giving the bills to your kids, IMMHO. Meanwhile, we all get to deal with the added inflation.

2) Changes made in how folks are counted so as to maximize the mirage created by the LFPR.

3) Changes made in how inflation is measured.
 
Last edited:
You are going to have to ask Reid and Obama that question. They are the one's who are blocking all the job-creation bills the Republican House has sent to them.


Do you know of any that the house has passed that do more than simply cut taxes on the rich and get rid of regulations? If so, would love to see them...
 
not at all. increased demand is the result of growth in production.

but you can't consume something that hasn't been made yet.



well, that's largely because we decided to very stupidly maximize government v market allocation of resources in the middle of recession. In addition, we decided to rapidly jack up the total burden of governance on the most dynamic portion of our economy - our small businesses through a surge in the regulatory burden.



dqj0jtmioui2ve6r8pnhqq.gif


which is why Republicans are more interested in lowering the regulatory burden than in lowering the tax burden. Heck, the Ryan Plan keeps effective tax rates on the high-income earners the same.

ro4jewb_qkqnbseqq1ck-w.gif




what an excellent idea. let's look at what happened in economies in the past:




:) isn't history fun?
By the same token, there is zero incentive to increase employment or production if their is a lack of demand. The lack of demand is stemming from deleveraging and a lack of disposable income for the lower income brackets, not tax rates on the wealthy or lack of production.

Regulations could certainly be scaled back you have no argument from me on that point.

I didn't call for increased government spending (stimulus) or higher tax rates, but additional tax cuts wouldn't stimulate demand in this economic climate, nor are they feasible in my humble opinion.
 
By the same token, there is zero incentive to increase employment or production if their is a lack of demand. The lack of demand is stemming from deleveraging and a lack of disposable income for the lower income brackets, not tax rates on the wealthy or lack of production.

Regulations could certainly be scaled back you have no argument from me on that point.

I didn't call for increased government spending (stimulus) or higher tax rates, but additional tax cuts wouldn't stimulate demand in this economic climate, nor are they feasible in my humble opinion.

"Tax Cuts" ? I presume you mean a lowering of all government revenue streams so as to actually reduce money paid to government ? If so, then I would think you would praise Republican, and even such as Bowles-Simpson, for they increase revenue to government. And they were demonized and rejected by Obama and the Democrats. Heck, Obama's own Bowles-Simpson Commission lowered the top rate. But it closed other loopholes. As does Ryan's Plan.

Or do you mean "tax cuts" as in we need to raise rates on the rich ? Which will not accomplish anything of postive fiscal significance, btw. But it sure gets all the libs sexually aroused ;)
 
By the same token, there is zero incentive to increase employment or production if their is a lack of demand. The lack of demand is stemming from deleveraging and a lack of disposable income for the lower income brackets, not tax rates on the wealthy or lack of production.


Business compiles its forecasts on future demand on known tangibles. If you have prior statements, and actions by the administration, and liberal leaders in the Senate stating how if they can't get business strangling policies through into law, then they will bypass the congressional path in favor of regulatory sledge hammering, you as a business owner are left uncertain of what the future holds, and you hold back on expansion, hiring, and production. When that happens it is easy to forecast low demand.

Regulations could certainly be scaled back you have no argument from me on that point.

But it has to be done in a real way, not just lip service.

I didn't call for increased government spending (stimulus) or higher tax rates, but additional tax cuts wouldn't stimulate demand in this economic climate, nor are they feasible in my humble opinion.

Our tax code is unbelievably complex. It is not understandable to the average person, and it is purposely confusing to the tune of some 88,000 pages. This is stupid. Simplify, broaden, and lower. More revenue will come in if we just did that.

j-mac
 
How many of them deal with tax cuts and deregulation?

Probably in some form or another all of them. But, that is not to say that this is the entirety of the plans. That would be a lie.

j-mac
 
By the same token, there is zero incentive to increase employment or production if their is a lack of demand.

ah, but unrealized demand is infinite, remember? :)

There is high demand for luxury cars in America right now - just not at current prices. The innovator who can figure out how to lower the price of a mercedes-benz quality vehicle to $3,500 will find out that he has plenty of demand indeed.

if you want to increase economic activity (growth), therefore, you need to find ways to increase the creation of supply and enable innovation. Except that our innovators are our small businesses - and it is they who feel most heavily the burden of governance. Large businesses like regulatory states. They can typically steer the regulatory committees, and it increases the cost threshold to get into the business, thus protecting them from competition. It's the small businesses that create jobs and are the strongest engines for long-term growth that suffer when we increase regulation and taxes.

The lack of demand is stemming from deleveraging and a lack of disposable income for the lower income brackets, not tax rates on the wealthy or lack of production.

You are right on everything except for the last point. Businesses are currently sitting on unprecedented amounts of cash for the simple reason that nobody knows what shoe is going to drop next. Is the EPA going to be able to pass it's law effectively killing any new power plants, thus sending up the price of energy? Are the tax rates about tho jump? What will Obamacare cost and require? What will the impact of Dodd-Frank on my business be? Nobody knows the answers to these questions, and so everyone holds their breath and hopes for the best while preparing for the worst.

I would be willing to take the Bowles-Simpson Tax plans that left us with higher effective tax rates just so long as they were left stable.

Regulations could certainly be scaled back you have no argument from me on that point.

:) fair 'nuff

I didn't call for increased government spending (stimulus) or higher tax rates, but additional tax cuts wouldn't stimulate demand in this economic climate, nor are they feasible in my humble opinion.

I would say that it's less the nominal rate changes, and more the efficiency savings. In 2010, America spent about $431 Billion in compliance costs - most of it trying to figure out and then minimize our exposure to the tax code. $431 Bn is roughly the entire economy of Taiwan. It is enough to fight Iraq, and Afghanistan while funding the Department of Agriculture, Department of Education, Department of Energy, and NASA. Reducing that drag on economic activity through tax code simplification would be where I would look to if I were looking to stimulate economic activity through tax reform.
 
Heck, Obama's own Bowles-Simpson Commission lowered the top rate. But it closed other loopholes.

There was no consensus recommendation by the commission, unfortunately.
 
I don't think Congress should be sitting around crafting or passing "jobs bills" at all. Government's job is not to conjure up jobs for us.

did you look at them?
 
Business compiles its forecasts on future demand on known tangibles. If you have prior statements, and actions by the administration, and liberal leaders in the Senate stating how if they can't get business strangling policies through into law, then they will bypass the congressional path in favor of regulatory sledge hammering, you as a business owner are left uncertain of what the future holds, and you hold back on expansion, hiring, and production. When that happens it is easy to forecast low demand.



But it has to be done in a real way, not just lip service.



Our tax code is unbelievably complex. It is not understandable to the average person, and it is purposely confusing to the tune of some 88,000 pages. This is stupid. Simplify, broaden, and lower. More revenue will come in if we just did that.

j-mac
You're confusing lack of demand with ease of production, there are plenty of businesses that undergo a heavy regulatory burden that still have a vast demand for their products.

Ok

Sure
 
Bush inherited a MUCH smaller recession. The unemployment rate was 4.2% when he took office and it stayed within .2% of that number for six months. Of course Bush also inherited a budget surplus and no wars.

Whether you blame it on GWB now or 100 years from now bottom line is Hussein Obama made a promise when he was running for president......He said he would turn things around and cut the deficit in half or not run for reelection. Well he has made things much worse so the time is now to keep his promise and not run in 2012.......The sad thing is people like you will give him a pass on another lie among many...........I really don't understand the attraction to this guy by you.
 
Last edited:
from cpwill

ah, but unrealized demand is infinite, remember?

So is unrealized potential.
So is unrealized promise.


Maybe we should have a contest for how many hollow cliches we can come up with?
 
There was no consensus recommendation by the commission, unfortunately.


So, the entire commission had to agree, on every point or it was a waste of time...Apparently Obama agrees with you, because he threw it in the trash can.


j-mac
 
There was no consensus recommendation by the commission, unfortunately.

Agreed. And which was merely a reflection of the larger political gridlock we have. However, it is the Democrats who promote the greater gridlock, playing nothing but "gotcha" counter-punch politics. It is the Democrat Senate which hasn't passed a budget proposal in over 1000 days. It is Obama who puts together such a flimsy joke-of-a-budget that it is voted down unanimously by the House. Every Dem voted against Obama's plan. So that the Dems can now just demogogue a plan that Republicans passed. Obama and the Dems could not put together a plan that at least the Dems could support. The Democrt solution is "I have no plan, but lets just trash the guys who do have one, OK ?".

And Obama rejected his own Bowles Simpson. Cause "BS" was about solutions, and we can't have that. :roll:
 
Last edited:
We are only the bestest of friends...



Dot Com bubble is no where near what happened during financial collapse of 2008. Total failure of banks and the housing bubble is no where near the dot com bubble. The total failure of the banks and housing bubble was WAY more catastrophic than the dot com bubble.


"Crashing"? "Crashing" are you ****ing kidding me?


What? A surplus?
As state earlier which i was going to say: "..was 4.2% when he took office and it stayed within .2% of that number for six months. Of course Bush also inherited a budget surplus and no wars."
Yea Bush did a "real great job" he really kept that economy around... See late 2007
Bush also has one of the worst job records on record only creating 3 million jobs throughout his whole eight years...



Wait and what are these awesome policies Bush brought to save this "horrible economy he was handed by Clinton"?

Only a true idiot would tout the Clinton surplus after it's been dubunked so thoroughly on here. Hint: You can't increase the debt every year you're in office and still claim a surplus, no matter how many times you want to try to beat that liberal meat, you'll never ejaculate.

Once again dubunking the same old liberal lies:

How much surplus did the US have when Clinton left office

The Myth of the Clinton Surplus |

http://silentmajority09.com/2010/10/17/destroying-myth-clinton-surpluses/

DOW went from 14k to 7k with the dot-com bust, that's pretty damn serious if you ask me.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom