Last edited by Misterveritis; 08-04-13 at 01:03 PM.
Talking point #1- “Do you understand that allowing people to keep more of what they earn gives a politician their worst nightmare, loss of power.” Yawn
To answer you second question, state and local government get paid by residents of state or local community. During the recession, many people in many states were largely effected by the economic downturn and therefore, and many states and/or localities lost revenue. Obama did step up to the plate and lend some federal funds to ailing states and municipalities, however, strings were attached. For instance, I could debate that his educational mandates have helped to hurt many school systems and now he has pulled away funds from schools that are now left with pricey mandates and many a community is still trying to recover from the recession. Hence, many school systems are hurting. But, school systems are not the only municipal service that is suffering in many cities and towns across the US. And, to your point, the bailout didn’t have much to do with recovering those jobs which is a travesty in itself. Too address your other point, any job (public or private) allows revenue per taxes.
You stated, “It isn’t the private sector’s role to create jobs.” Then are you saying it is the government’s job? Really?
Also, it doesn’t look like you understood my point about bondholders looking at your off topic talking point. Come back when you want to discuss my point.
Tax cuts can accomplish consumer spending activity. What exactly was an example of Obama’s accomplishment? That he did provide them? I agree he did.
You said, "Private industry jobs started dying off before Obama took office so you can't blame it entirely on Obamacare."
I asked for you to show the numbers. I did not ask for a google search. On the other hand I did give you some numbers and you called them garbage.
Obama: "No Such Thing as Shovel-Ready Projects" - Political Hotsheet - CBS News
You are the one having problems understanding, it isn't the role of the private sector to create jobs but it is something that economic activity forces them to do. It is the government's job to create policies that don't get in the way and all Obama policies have gotten in the way. Why would any business person invest their own money today to create jobs under this Administration?
Your point about bondholders ignores what happened to GM/Chrysler bondholders when GM/Chrysler were taken over by Obama. Today the American taxpayer is on the hook for billions due to that takeover and yet no outrage.
Tell me what you do with more spendable income and the effects that has on the economy? As for jobs public or private sector, yes, both provide revenue but one is offset by the debt service because the govt. doesn't have the money. Which one, private or public?
I asked you specifically what Obama did to promote the private sector and you offered nothing. He has accomplished nothing in that area and that is where the jobs are going to be created. Higher taxes, Obamacare, other regulations don't promote private sector growth or spending.
He bailed out public sector unions long enough to get reelected. This was not a loan. It was the theft of property from those who created it to give to those who consumed it. And it did exactly what the Marxist wanted. It provided him support from "Paul" at the expense of "Peter" who has the good sense not to vote for a Marxist in the first place. It also dried up capital. Radical Karl wanted only the state to have the capital. Radical Barrack saw to it.To answer you second question, state and local government get paid by residents of state or local community. During the recession, many people in many states were largely effected by the economic downturn and therefore, and many states and/or localities lost revenue. Obama did step up to the plate and lend some federal funds to ailing states and municipalities, however, strings were attached.