• 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!

Report shows how recession hit families [W:391, 502]

I don't think it is the government's job to create jobs.

That's true. Government can only create jobs by hiring people, or spending money so others will. J, do you want government to do that?
 
Simple literacy test and if your dependent on Government in any way you lose your right to vote.

sure thing but also include those that are PAID by the government as well then. That would include DoD personnel. NSA, Etc. they are dependent on the government paying them. The literacy test would also exclude rednecks, NASCAR fans, and trailer trash that typically vote republican.

Allowing the least of our society to steer this Country into the ground.

you would exclude all of he GOP base

Its NOT going to end well and especially for the people who are sucseptable to political manipulation and Democrat false narratives and plattitudes.

if you only think the "right"'is successful and all those on welfare are on the left you have no clue and YOU would be excluded from voting as well. I know many trailer park, NASCARoving, welfare recipients that love voting for the GOP.


enjoy getting rid of the GOP with your method!
 
That's true. Government can only create jobs by hiring people, or spending money so others will. J, do you want government to do that?

I do not want the government taking and wasting money just because it can in the name of "creating jobs"
 
That's true. Government can only create jobs by hiring people, or spending money so others will. J, do you want government to do that?

I do, but only when absolutely necessary.

No matter how you look at it, when the government hires somebody or spends money, it does so at a cost to the economy somewhere along the line. At best, it's a push. But when the cost of getting that dollar spent to where it's going or that employee hired is figured in along fraud, waste and abuse it's not even a push.

If government spending could create real sustainable, needed jobs and government spending could produce prosperity, everybody in the world would be rich.
 
That's true. Government can only create jobs by hiring people, or spending money so others will. J, do you want government to do that?

Hmmm? what's that?.....You sure you are talking to the right person?

If you are talking about government spending more money in some convoluted stimulus, NO I don't want government to do that....I'd like to see them exit stage left, and allow business to get busy without having to pay tribute to Lord Obama and the progressive pukes.
 
So, can we now say that Obama policies are making it worse for the poor, and middle class yet...?

Typical of socialist policies. They aim at the wealthy but hit those they thought they were going to help. Works every time, but they just ignore it an press on.

It's insanity... doing the same idiocy over and over and expecting a different result.
 
I do not want the government taking and wasting money just because it can in the name of "creating jobs"

You shouldn't. But that's what happens when you say government is responsible for unemployment.
 
Lets see them slick, back your comments up. I call bs on your claims.

your post I quoted was full of hypocrisy.

"THE problem on the right, you get data and than try to place blame on ONE THING"

what a maroon! probably too dense to even see it.
 
I do, but only when absolutely necessary.

No matter how you look at it, when the government hires somebody or spends money, it does so at a cost to the economy somewhere along the line. At best, it's a push. But when the cost of getting that dollar spent to where it's going or that employee hired is figured in along fraud, waste and abuse it's not even a push.

If government spending could create real sustainable, needed jobs and government spending could produce prosperity, everybody in the world would be rich.

Sure, it does it at a cost. Would not suggest otherwise. But when you tell government they are responsible for employment, they will hire people or give money to hire people. I hope this is clear.
 
Hmmm? what's that?.....You sure you are talking to the right person?

If you are talking about government spending more money in some convoluted stimulus, NO I don't want government to do that....I'd like to see them exit stage left, and allow business to get busy without having to pay tribute to Lord Obama and the progressive pukes.

Business is not hamstrung. That's just rhetoric to keep you rabid. I've linked information on how little regulations and taxes effect business.

But, if you argue that governmnet is responsible for employment, stimulus and convoluted efforts is what you will get.
 
Business is not hamstrung. That's just rhetoric to keep you rabid. I've linked information on how little regulations and taxes effect business.

But, if you argue that governmnet is responsible for employment, stimulus and convoluted efforts is what you will get.

So you think the govt. driving up costs on private business has no affect on employment? What business did you run again? Any idea what the normal cost is to hire and yes even fire people?
 
So you think the govt. driving up costs on private business has no affect on employment? What business did you run again? Any idea what the normal cost is to hire and yes even fire people?

Drive up here and lowers it there. Closes this and opens that. As the links showed, its a push. Little overall effect at all.
 
your post I quoted was full of hypocrisy.

"THE problem on the right, you get data and than try to place blame on ONE THING"

what a maroon! probably too dense to even see it.

Are you saying the majority of the right doesn't blame Obama for everything?
 
Simple literacy test and if your dependent on Government in any way you lose your right to vote.

Look where idiot voters have gotten us.

Allowing the least of our society to steer this Country into the ground.

Its NOT going to end well and especially for the people who are sucseptable to political manipulation and Democrat false narratives and plattitudes.

I have an even better idea.
Why don't we only allow white males to vote.
Or even better... Let's only allow the top 1% of income earners to vote.

/Sarcasm off

If you think the poor are controlling this country then maybe it is you that do not deserve to vote.

Also the ones being manipulated so extensively are the bible thumpers and the lesser educated which make up the majority of the Republican voter base.

A nice little head exploding fact for you is that the majority of the people on Welfare are WHITE.
And the majority of those white people on welfare are Republican.

So yeah, go ahead... push for welfare recipients to not be able to vote. See how fast your party disappears.
 
You shouldn't. But that's what happens when you say government is responsible for unemployment.

When the government sucks money out of the economy and people are threatened with the loss of their property and worse if they don't pay up, then yes, the government is responsible. When the government puts so many hurdles in front of a business, with so many added expenses that it become like a protection racket, then yes, the government is responsible.

Who else??
 
You shouldn't. But that's what happens when you say government is responsible for unemployment.

It is not the same thing. The government encourages job losses in changing market conditions i.e. adding new laws such as NAFTA, GATT, etc that sent a lot of jobs overseas. While the government is not responsible for creating new jobs, it also should not engage in policies intended at destroying existing jobs without a compelling public interest like shutting down toxic polluters for instance.

It doesn't matter that we have an effective zero percent interest rate if people are not willing to borrow hundred of millions of dollars to build or retrofit a factory if there is no reasonable expectation that whatever you produce with that factory cannot be produced cheaper overseas and imported into the US at a lower cost than producing it domestically. We are engaged in policies that subsidize the stock market to disguise horrible decisions rather than acknowledge those decisions were horrible when the vast majority of people need wages not dividends to survive and prosper.
 
A nice little head exploding fact for you is that the majority of the people on Welfare are WHITE.
Here's a fact for you. Proportionately, the number of people on welfare is overwhelmingly Black. You do not do yourself or your cause any favors by trying to distort reality. Characteristics and Financial Circumstances of TANF Recipients, Fiscal Year 2010 | Office of Family Assistance | Administration for Children and Families

And the majority of those white people on welfare are Republican.
And where did you get this stat from? Do you have a reliable link?
 
Are you saying the majority of the right doesn't blame Obama for everything?

you said the republicans one problem is they place blame on one thing. what a maroon

ps. no, the majority on the right place blame on things that happened over time. FDR gets a ton of blame for instance.
 
Drive up here and lowers it there. Closes this and opens that. As the links showed, its a push. Little overall effect at all.

LOL, yep, drive up a little here and lower it a little there? Tell me how raising taxes and adding Obamacare lowers anything?
 
When the government sucks money out of the economy and people are threatened with the loss of their property and worse if they don't pay up, then yes, the government is responsible. When the government puts so many hurdles in front of a business, with so many added expenses that it become like a protection racket, then yes, the government is responsible.

Who else??

Government didn't suck money out of the economy. That's just the rhetoric used to keep you rabid. Again, I've linked where taxes and regulations have little effect.
 
It is not the same thing. The government encourages job losses in changing market conditions i.e. adding new laws such as NAFTA, GATT, etc that sent a lot of jobs overseas. While the government is not responsible for creating new jobs, it also should not engage in policies intended at destroying existing jobs without a compelling public interest like shutting down toxic polluters for instance.

It doesn't matter that we have an effective zero percent interest rate if people are not willing to borrow hundred of millions of dollars to build or retrofit a factory if there is no reasonable expectation that whatever you produce with that factory cannot be produced cheaper overseas and imported into the US at a lower cost than producing it domestically. We are engaged in policies that subsidize the stock market to disguise horrible decisions rather than acknowledge those decisions were horrible when the vast majority of people need wages not dividends to survive and prosper.

No, they don't. They address problems and concerns brought forth by the people of the country. Markets can be as oppressive as governments. That's why there are fewer and fewer completely free market or government controlled markets.

Taxes and regulations have little actual effect. People buying have more of an effect. And when you outsource jobs, lower wages, and decrease benefits, you have less buyers. Consider that for a moment as to which hurts more.
 
No, they don't. They address problems and concerns brought forth by the people of the country. Markets can be as oppressive as governments. That's why there are fewer and fewer completely free market or government controlled markets.

Taxes and regulations have little actual effect. People buying have more of an effect. And when you outsource jobs, lower wages, and decrease benefits, you have less buyers. Consider that for a moment as to which hurts more.

Got is, so business absorbs higher taxes and regulation costs rather than pass them on to the consumer which of course will always buy more when prices are higher? That is liberal logic and total ignorance of the facts. Cannot wait until you see the costs associated with your LLC and how you respond to them and if you feel the same why when your taxes go up and when you have to increase your expenses just to meet the qualifications of being a LLC
 
LOL, yep, drive up a little here and lower it a little there? Tell me how raising taxes and adding Obamacare lowers anything?

Different issue, but if we spend less recklessly, and having insurance for more might help that, there is a possibility of lowering it. But, as I say, if that was your concern, you'd advocate for UHC. ;)
 
Back
Top Bottom