• 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!

U.S. Adds 195,000 Jobs; Unemployment Remains 7.6%

Boo Radley said:
I didn't say that, any of it really.

I said that spending money helps business. I nothing about the deficit at all nor did I said I supported all spending. Not sure why people always leap to things not said.

For the record, the deficit concerns me. And I don't support all spending. However, no matter who the president is, I recognize the question is always a tough one in tough times.
Click to expand...

Spending money does always help business but the issue is spending the money wisely not on the green rat hole, Obamacare, and micromanaging the private sector to induce a prescribed reaction. The results of all that Obama spending are there for all to see. When are you going to admit that Obama has been a disappointment.
 
Conservative said:
Your opinion noted but what you don't understand is that it isn't mine or anyone else from another state to pay for your local expenses nor can the s tate government print money like the Federal Govt. can. You really do lack a basic understanding of local, state, and Federal Responsibility along with the role of the Federal Govt.
Click to expand...
Um, the federal spending was spent within states, it was borrowed funds, those dollars did go into state funds via revenues from the increases in GDP. The states directly and indirectly benefited from fed spending that doubled under Reagan.

It is you that doesn't understand macroeconomics.
 
Conservative said:
Spending money does always help business but the issue is spending the money wisely not on the green rat hole, Obamacare, and micromanaging the private sector to induce a prescribed reaction. The results of all that Obama spending are there for all to see. When are you going to admit that Obama has been a disappointment.
Click to expand...

Down a rat hole? not sure about that. I think those who didn't lose their jobs due to the spending might see it differently. But I certainly agree with wise spending. I would much rather save a job than invade a country with my tax dollar.
 
Conservative said:
You really are a waste of time, no concept of context or return on investment. You must work as a contract employee for the Federal Govt.
Click to expand...
You are still ignoring the fact that you have been shown from multiple aspects how the massive increase in spending by Reagan was the main component of that recovery, you ignore while you complain that Obama has not done the same.
 
Boo Radley said:
I didn't say that, any of it really.

I said that spending money helps business. I nothing about the deficit at all nor did I said I supported all spending. Not sure why people always leap to things not said.

For the record, the deficit concerns me. And I don't support all spending. However, no matter who the president is, I recognize the question is always a tough one in tough times.
Click to expand...

Perhaps it's the inferences in what you post that causes some to leap. When you suggest in your post that saving money on taxes doesn't equal a buyer, but putting money into the economy through spending does, it's difficult not to reach the conclusion I did.

I understand you believe the way to improve the economy is to increase demand, and the way to do that is to have the government put money into the economy by spending into it.

It has been my experience the lest efficient vehicle to distribute revenue is the federal government.
 
ocean515 said:
Thanks for the post, but I have ZERO interest in liberal/progressive propoganda from sources like the Poynter Insititues marketing machine, or Rachel Maddow.
Click to expand...
LOL...they link to various economists views on the comparison. Instead of countering the data, you decide to shoot the messenger.

Weak. Phail.
 
Gimmesometruth said:
This has been covered before, we are trying to use both highly effective stimulus spending (UI, SNAP) and demand side tax cuts, ie tax cuts for lower quintile earners.
PolitiFact | Maddow claims spending is more stimulative than tax cuts
Click to expand...

So who to we believe? Rachel Maddow or Truth or Meter? She makes some claims that truth or meter says is only half true. Not for nothing, but I'll side with neither as no matter how liberals try to hoodwink people, something for nothing doesn't work.
 
ocean515 said:
Yes, one can make that assumption that A applies. The point about B has no impact, since it's universal.

As to the issue of taxes, it is not a surprise to me to see you subcribe to the notion that deficits caused from increases in government spending are better than deficits caused by increases in personal income.

Did you know there was no real demand for personal computers until investors went out on a limb and created them? Did you know there was no real demand for automobiles until investors went out on a limb to create a process that made them affordable to a larger segment of the population?

And so the chicken/egg debate continues.
Click to expand...
The demand existed, the problem was the cost.

Of course, that is not the issue today. Demand is still depressed, it is not an issue of supply.

You are ignoring the issue of today, as demand declines, business reacts by cutting jobs, decreasing demand further.
 
Boo Radley said:
Down a rat hole? not sure about that. I think those who didn't lose their jobs due to the spending might see it differently. But I certainly agree with wise spending. I would much rather save a job than invade a country with my tax dollar.
Click to expand...

Hate to break it to you but it isn't the Federal Govt's role to provide your state with funds to meet the demand that you may have but it is the Federal Government's role to protect you from both foreign and domestic enemies. They are doing a very poor job of handling the domestic enemies.
 
ocean515 said:
No, actually, I considered the messager. Pay attention.
Click to expand...
Um, did I say "considered"? Was this a term used....or is it a strawman from you? Yes, it is a strawman from you.

I said you could not counter the facts and instead decided to shoot the messenger.

Try reading and comprehending the words written, not what you imagined.
 
ocean515 said:
Perhaps it's the inferences in what you post that causes some to leap. When you suggest in your post that saving money on taxes doesn't equal a buyer, but putting money into the economy through spending does, it's difficult not to reach the conclusion I did.

I understand you believe the way to improve the economy is to increase demand, and the way to do that is to have the government put money into the economy by spending into it.

It has been my experience the lest efficient vehicle to distribute revenue is the federal government.
Click to expand...

I said, it won't make a business expand. Buyers will. A little bit different.

And the part I put in to bold is not my belief. The catch 22 we always face in down turns is that business won't grow until people buy. And people wont buy until they have money. You can't tax cut enough to change this. And spending by the government is the less efficient way. But there is no efficient way that moves it forward quickly. If you believe the president is responsible (a wrong assumption BTW), you leave no real choice but to spend, and both parties have done this, even Reagan. They do it because they are expected to do it. After all, the illusion that they can fix it is firmly engrained. And they only the government can increase employment is by hiring people.
 
Gimmesometruth said:
The demand existed, the problem was the cost.

Of course, that is not the issue today. Demand is still depressed, it is not an issue of supply.

You are ignoring the issue of today, as demand declines, business reacts by cutting jobs, decreasing demand further.
Click to expand...

Why exactly has demand declined? Could it be that the majority I this country with income have no confidence in Obama economic policies and are waiting to see how much of it he is going to try and take next?
 
Conservative said:
Hate to break it to you but it isn't the Federal Govt's role to provide your state with funds to meet the demand that you may have but it is the Federal Government's role to protect you from both foreign and domestic enemies. They are doing a very poor job of handling the domestic enemies.
Click to expand...

Meaningless if you blame the president. It is you who encourage the idea that the president must spend money. You just don't see it yet.
 
Conservative said:
Why exactly has demand declined? Could it be that the majority I this country with income have no confidence in Obama economic policies and are waiting to see how much of it he is going to try and take next?
Click to expand...
You go right ahead and come up with data to support this premise. I have shown you otherwise time and again.
 
Gimmesometruth said:
The demand existed, the problem was the cost.

Of course, that is not the issue today. Demand is still depressed, it is not an issue of supply.

You are ignoring the issue of today, as demand declines, business reacts by cutting jobs, decreasing demand further.
Click to expand...

Thank you, but I don't need a primer on Keynsian Economic theory.

As I wrote on a different post, I believe the government is the least efficient vehicle for getting revenue into the economy.
 
Boo Radley said:
I said, it won't make a business expand. Buyers will. A little bit different.

And the part I put in to bold is not my belief. The catch 22 we always face in down turns is that business won't grow until people buy. And people wont buy until they have money. You can't tax cut enough to change this. And spending by the government is the less efficient way. But there is no efficient way that moves it forward quickly. If you believe the president is responsible (a wrong assumption BTW), you leave no real choice but to spend, and both parties have done this, even Reagan. They do it because they are expected to do it. After all, the illusion that they can fix it is firmly engrained. And they only the government can increase employment is by hiring people.
Click to expand...

A complete payroll tax holiday, withdrawn slowly over the next few years, would have been much more effective than the stimulus as it was structured. It would have left funds where they were needed most to deal with a balance sheet type of recession...
 
Boo Radley said:
I said, it won't make a business expand. Buyers will. A little bit different.

And the part I put in to bold is not my belief. The catch 22 we always face in down turns is that business won't grow until people buy. And people wont buy until they have money. You can't tax cut enough to change this. And spending by the government is the less efficient way. But there is no efficient way that moves it forward quickly. If you believe the president is responsible (a wrong assumption BTW), you leave no real choice but to spend, and both parties have done this, even Reagan. They do it because they are expected to do it. After all, the illusion that they can fix it is firmly engrained. And they only the government can increase employment is by hiring people.
Click to expand...

Govt. spending is like a rebate check, once it is spent it is gone unless someone else steps up and fuel the pump. The 842 billion stimulus did indeed stimulate the economy for a very short period of time but when the money ran out there was no incentive for the private sector to step in and keep it going. You simply have no concept on govt. spending and what it does or doesn't do. Fourth quarter 2009 GDP growth was 4%. Look what happened afterwards and look what is happening today, 1.8% GDP growth thanks to Obamanomics. Why would any business invest their saved up cash today? WHY?
 
Gimmesometruth said:
You go right ahead and come up with data to support this premise. I have shown you otherwise time and again.
Click to expand...

GDP numbers show that demand has declined, too bad you live in a bubble and don't see it. You have shown absolutely nothing other than your ignorance of economics and civics.
 
Gimmesometruth said:
Um, did I say "considered"? Was this a term used....or is it a strawman from you? Yes, it is a strawman from you.

I said you could not counter the facts and instead decided to shoot the messenger.

Try reading and comprehending the words written, not what you imagined.
Click to expand...


Geeze.

Again, I considered the messeger, the message, the attributes to Zandi, etc. and rejected them because they are full of crap, in my opinion.

As to the rest of your post, please find a different way to communicate. The little digs are collossally booring.
 
ocean515 said:
Thank you, but I don't need a primer on Keynsian Economic theory.

As I wrote on a different post, I believe the government is the least efficient vehicle for getting revenue into the economy.
Click to expand...
Um, you are at a dead end, if your argument is that business is a more "efficient" method for getting "revenue" into the economy ( a mixed up set of terms, but I'll play along), you are still running up against the conditions that exist now, businesses will not hire until demand increases.....and we are barely at a point where demand is increasing enough.

See how long it takes in a credit collapse recession?
 
ocean515 said:
Geeze.

Again, I considered the messeger, the message, the attributes to Zandi, etc. and rejected them because they are full of crap, in my opinion.

As to the rest of your post, please find a different way to communicate. The little digs are collossally booring.
Click to expand...
I don't give a rats about your opinion, use fact to show how what is stated in the article is wrong.

Your opinion is pointless.
 
Conservative said:
GDP numbers show that demand has declined, too bad you live in a bubble and don't see it. You have shown absolutely nothing other than your ignorance of economics and civics.
Click to expand...
So this is it, this is your proof that those with massive reserves are not spending because of concerns for future taxes/regs?

Wow....that is some proof!

Further, since those with the cash reserves are not spending (regardless of why), should it not be that the govt step up....like Reagan did?
 
Boo Radley said:
I said, it won't make a business expand. Buyers will. A little bit different.

And the part I put in to bold is not my belief. The catch 22 we always face in down turns is that business won't grow until people buy. And people wont buy until they have money. You can't tax cut enough to change this. And spending by the government is the less efficient way. But there is no efficient way that moves it forward quickly. If you believe the president is responsible (a wrong assumption BTW), you leave no real choice but to spend, and both parties have done this, even Reagan. They do it because they are expected to do it. After all, the illusion that they can fix it is firmly engrained. And they only the government can increase employment is by hiring people.
Click to expand...


Consider the situation faced by business owners today. As reported, they are sitting on money.

First, the government has imposed a new regulation known as Obamacare. It is so convoluted, and contains such potential risk to business owners, the President has decided by fiat, to withdraw portions of it for another year.

What kind of impact do you think Obamacare has on business hiring and expansion?

Second, the President has annouced he plans to sidestep congress, and make changes to energy production and policy. It is well known this will have an impact on the cost of energy. Little takes place in the business world without energy.

What kind of impact do you think President Obama's new energy policy will have on business hiring and expansion?

There are many other issues that could be viewed in a similar light.

These are issues that impact employment. As we both agree, more employment equals more potential demand.

Unfortunately, it's almost 4pm, and my time in my office here is just about done. I'm afraid I won't be able to respond until a later time.

I do appreciate the rational discussion.

There are some here who haven't figured out how to do that.
 
Conservative said:
Govt. spending is like a rebate check, once it is spent it is gone unless someone else steps up and fuel the pump. The 842 billion stimulus did indeed stimulate the economy for a very short period of time but when the money ran out there was no incentive for the private sector to step in and keep it going. You simply have no concept on govt. spending and what it does or doesn't do. Fourth quarter 2009 GDP growth was 4%. Look what happened afterwards and look what is happening today, 1.8% GDP growth thanks to Obamanomics. Why would any business invest their saved up cash today? WHY?
Click to expand...
LOL....you recognize that GDP increased with that tiny level of tax cuts/spending.....and when it declined, so did GDP...and you can see that Reagan spent magnitudes of levels greater.....but you then complain when the stimulus ends and GDP declines!

Too frigging funny!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom