• 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 217,000 Jobs in May, Unemployment Rate Stays at 6.3%[W:218]

Jack Hays said:
The path to backwardness and poverty.:peace
Click to expand...

Says the guy supporting the policy built on myths and fairy tales. ONE time libertarian policy EVER worked ANYWHERE?

Uncle Miltie had his Chile experiment, failed miserably

CHILE: THE LABORATORY TEST



Many people have often wondered what it would be like to create a nation based solely on their political and economic beliefs. Imagine: no opposition, no political rivals, no compromise of morals. Only a "benevolent dictator," if you will, setting up society according to your ideals.

The Chicago School of Economics got that chance for 16 years in Chile, under near-laboratory conditions. Between 1973 and 1989, a government team of economists trained at the University of Chicago dismantled or decentralized the Chilean state as far as was humanly possible. Their program included privatizing welfare and social programs, deregulating the market, liberalizing trade, rolling back trade unions, and rewriting its constitution and laws. And they did all this in the absence of the far-right's most hated institution: democracy.

The results were exactly what liberals predicted.

Chile: the laboratory test
 
dad2three2001 said:
Nonsense, Obama had a war economy, he went to the 'good war', Dubya CHOSE to go to a bad war AFTER ignoring REPEATED warnings of

"Bin Ladin Determined To Strike in US -"

"In a single 17-sentence document, the intelligence briefing delivered to President Bush in August 2001 spells out the who, hints at the what and points towards the where of the terrorist attacks on New York and Washington that followed 36 days later."

According to the CIA and the 9/11 commission, there were 40 other mentions of Al Qaeda or Bin Laden in the President's Daily Briefs before 9/11

The President's Daily Brief
Click to expand...

Oh I quite agree that GWB did not take the pre-9/11 warnings seriously enough. Nonetheless the war in Afghanistan was something he was obliged to do.:peace
 
Jack Hays said:
That's laughable. And it doesn't matter anyway. I'm sure that BHO legions of unemployed would be delighted to enjoy a similar "bubble" today.:peace
Click to expand...

Why is it 'laughable'?

FACT BASED. US (edit: household debt) debt doubled under Dubya

WHY? HOW?
 
Last edited:
Jack Hays said:
Oh I quite agree that GWB did not take the pre-9/11 warnings seriously enough. Nonetheless the war in Afghanistan was something he was obliged to do.:peace
Click to expand...


MOST of the costs of war AND deaths were in Bush's war of choice though. And he NEVER took the warnings seriously
 
Jack Hays said:
To which the only reply is: So what? Every POTUS plays the hand he is dealt. GWB played his better than BHO has played his. All US wars have been "unfunded" in the sense that the government borrowed to fight them. GWB's tax cuts gave Clinton's surplus back to the people. I've already shown how wrong you are about Medicare. Next.:peace
Click to expand...

There were NO surpluses when Bush gave EITHER of his tax cuts 'back to the people', ONLY costs associated with defunding Gov't!

You don't cut taxes wen you go to war, NO NATION ever did, until Dubya...
 
dad2three2001 said:
Says the guy supporting the policy built on myths and fairy tales. ONE time libertarian policy EVER worked ANYWHERE?

Uncle Miltie had his Chile experiment, failed miserably

CHILE: THE LABORATORY TEST



Many people have often wondered what it would be like to create a nation based solely on their political and economic beliefs. Imagine: no opposition, no political rivals, no compromise of morals. Only a "benevolent dictator," if you will, setting up society according to your ideals.

The Chicago School of Economics got that chance for 16 years in Chile, under near-laboratory conditions. Between 1973 and 1989, a government team of economists trained at the University of Chicago dismantled or decentralized the Chilean state as far as was humanly possible. Their program included privatizing welfare and social programs, deregulating the market, liberalizing trade, rolling back trade unions, and rewriting its constitution and laws. And they did all this in the absence of the far-right's most hated institution: democracy.

The results were exactly what liberals predicted.

Chile: the laboratory test
Click to expand...

Ah yes. From a "Help fight the right" website.:lamo

I have traveled extensively, and have encountered a few Chileans along the way. After they found out I'm an American, each one -- each and every one -- thanked Pinochet for creating the foundation for modern, free, democratic Chile. Go figure.:peace
 
dad2three2001 said:
There were NO surpluses when Bush gave EITHER of his tax cuts 'back to the people', ONLY costs associated with defunding Gov't!

You don't cut taxes wen you go to war, NO NATION ever did, until Dubya...
Click to expand...

Actually, I agree with that on principle. But the fact remains that GWB managed a better economy than has BHO.:peace
 
Jack Hays said:
Ah yes. From a "Help fight the right" website.:lamo

I have traveled extensively, and have encountered a few Chileans along the way. After they found out I'm an American, each one -- each and every one -- thanked Pinochet for creating the foundation for modern, free, democratic Chile. Go figure.:peace
Click to expand...

Got it, ad homs then anecdotes NOT based on FACTS. AFTER GOV'T STEPPED UP AND SAVED CHILE YOU MEAN? lol



Weird how NOTHING right wingers promised in Chile, happened, even privatizing SS

January 27, 2005


Chile's Retirees Find Shortfall in Private Plan


Nearly 25 years ago, Chile embarked on a sweeping experiment that has since been emulated, in one way or another, in a score of other countries. Rather than finance pensions through a system to which workers, employers and the government all contributed, millions of people began to pay 10 percent of their salaries to private investment accounts that they controlled.


But now that the first generation of workers to depend on the new system is beginning to retire, Chileans are finding that it is falling far short of what was originally advertised under the authoritarian government of Gen. Augusto Pinochet.

For all the program's success in economic terms, the government continues to direct billions of dollars to a safety net for those whose contributions were not large enough to ensure even a minimum pension approaching $140 a month.

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/01/27/business/worldbusiness/27pension.html?_r=0


CONservative/Libertarian policy NEVER works, except for the top 1%
 
Jack Hays said:
Actually, I agree with that on principle. But the fact remains that GWB managed a better economy than has BHO.:peace
Click to expand...


You mean bu cheering on a housing bubble, fighting ALL 50 states who wanted to reign in predatory lenders and ignoring regulator warnings of EPIDEMIC of mortgage fraud that could rival Reagan's S&L crisis? How'd that work out? Oh right, Obama is handling it now

GOP+ We broke the economy, but don't like the way you are fixing it!
 
Jack Hays said:
Once again, so what?:peace
Click to expand...

You said Bush had a lower unemployment, it was based on a false economy: housing bubble Bush allowed and cheered on, THEN it collapsed, remember the economy tanking 9%+ last quarter of his prez? 3+ years of growth..
 
dad2three2001 said:
Got it, ad homs then anecdotes NOT based on FACTS. AFTER GOV'T STEPPED UP AND SAVED CHILE YOU MEAN? lol



Weird how NOTHING right wingers promised in Chile, happened, even privatizing SS

January 27, 2005


Chile's Retirees Find Shortfall in Private Plan


Nearly 25 years ago, Chile embarked on a sweeping experiment that has since been emulated, in one way or another, in a score of other countries. Rather than finance pensions through a system to which workers, employers and the government all contributed, millions of people began to pay 10 percent of their salaries to private investment accounts that they controlled.


But now that the first generation of workers to depend on the new system is beginning to retire, Chileans are finding that it is falling far short of what was originally advertised under the authoritarian government of Gen. Augusto Pinochet.

For all the program's success in economic terms, the government continues to direct billions of dollars to a safety net for those whose contributions were not large enough to ensure even a minimum pension approaching $140 a month.

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/01/27/business/worldbusiness/27pension.html?_r=0


CONservative/Libertarian policy NEVER works, except for the top 1%
Click to expand...

Pointing out the bias of a website is not an ad hominem. Personal experience is better evidence than agit-prop website stuff.:peace
 
dad2three2001 said:
You mean bu cheering on a housing bubble, fighting ALL 50 states who wanted to reign in predatory lenders and ignoring regulator warnings of EPIDEMIC of mortgage fraud that could rival Reagan's S&L crisis? How'd that work out? Oh right, Obama is handling it now

GOP+ We broke the economy, but don't like the way you are fixing it!
Click to expand...

I don't care even a little bit about so-called predatory lenders. That's all on the borrowers as far as I'm concerned.:peace
 
Jack Hays said:
Pointing out the bias of a website is not an ad hominem. Personal experience is better evidence than agit-prop website stuff.:peace
Click to expand...



Yes, NOT refuting FACTS is using ad homs, sorry you don't understand that, what he wrote, whether it was on Disney.com or WSJ, doesn't matter, it's the MATERIAL which is FACT BASED!

All the right wingers NOW are trying to rewrite Chile a success, AFTER Gov't took over industry again, propped up the failed SS privatization, etc


BTW, HE SOURCES HIS MATERIALS QUITE WELL :)
 
dad2three2001 said:
You said Bush had a lower unemployment, it was based on a false economy: housing bubble Bush allowed and cheered on, THEN it collapsed, remember the economy tanking 9%+ last quarter of his prez? 3+ years of growth..
Click to expand...

To claim that GWB's growth was a product of a bubble is just a lefty talking point.:peace
 
Jack Hays said:
I don't care even a little bit about so-called predatory lenders. That's all on the borrowers as far as I'm concerned.:peace
Click to expand...

Right, because it's the borrowers who signed the checks *shaking head*
 
dad2three2001 said:
Yes, NOT refuting FACTS is using ad homs, sorry you don't understand that, what he wrote, whether it was on Disney.com or WSJ, doesn't matter, it's the MATERIAL which is FACT BASED!

All the right wingers NOW are trying to rewrite Chile a success, AFTER Gov't took over industry again, propped up the failed SS privatization, etc


BTW, HE SOURCES HIS MATERIALS QUITE WELL :)
Click to expand...

You will believe what you will believe.:peace
 
Jack Hays said:
To claim that GWB's growth was a product of a bubble is just a lefty talking point.:peace
Click to expand...

BY THE GOP ECONOMISTS? lol

"The expansion was a continuation of the way the U.S. has grown for too long, which was a consumer-led expansion that was heavily concentrated in housing," said Douglas Holtz-Eakin, a onetime Bush White House staffer and one of Sen. John McCain's top economic advisers for his presidential campaign. "There was very little of the kind of saving and export-led growth that would be more sustainable."

"For a group that claims it wants to be judged by history, there is no evidence on the economic policy front that that was the view," Holtz-Eakin said. "It was all Band-Aids."


MORE HERE

Bush Lead During Weakest Economy in Decades


WEIRD HOW REALITY BASED IS 'LEFT WING' TO YOU GUYS!
 
dad2three2001 said:
BY THE GOP ECONOMISTS? lol

"The expansion was a continuation of the way the U.S. has grown for too long, which was a consumer-led expansion that was heavily concentrated in housing," said Douglas Holtz-Eakin, a onetime Bush White House staffer and one of Sen. John McCain's top economic advisers for his presidential campaign. "There was very little of the kind of saving and export-led growth that would be more sustainable."

"For a group that claims it wants to be judged by history, there is no evidence on the economic policy front that that was the view," Holtz-Eakin said. "It was all Band-Aids."


MORE HERE

Bush Lead During Weakest Economy in Decades


WEIRD HOW REALITY BASED IS 'LEFT WING' TO YOU GUYS!
Click to expand...

Of course, the description of the GWB economy as the weakest in decades was written before anyone had seen the even weaker BHO economy. And weren't you the one extolling consumption-led growth just a few posts ago? Hmm?:roll:
 
Jack Hays said:
Like every other POTUS, BHO is responsible for everything from the moment he swears the oath.:peace
Click to expand...

Sure he is, weird

Reagan's 1983 State of the Union:

"The problems we inherited were far worse than most inside and out of government had expected; the recession was deeper than most inside and out of government had predicted. Curing those problems has taken more time and a higher toll than any of us wanted."

How long did it take Reagan to reduce the unemployme*nt rate to below 8%?

01/1981 - Unemployme*nt rate 7.5% …. Reagan sworn in.
02/1981 - 7.4%
03/1981 - 7.4%
04/1981 - 7.2%
05/1981 - 7.5%
06/1981 - 7.5%
07/1981 - 7.2%
08/1981 - 7.4% * Reagan CUTS taxes for top 1% and says unemployme*nt will DROP to 6.9%.
09/1981 - 7.6%
10/1981 - 7.9%
11/1981 - 8.3%
12/1981 - 8.5%
01/1982 - 8.6%
02/1982 - 8.9%
03/1982 - 9.0%
04/1982 - 9.3%
05/1982 - 9.4%
06/1982 - 9.6%
07/1982 - 9.8%
08/1982 - 9.8%
09/1982 - 10.1%
10/1982 - 10.4%
11/1982 - 10.8% * Unemployme*nt HITS a post WW2 RECORD of 10.8%.
12/1982 - 10.8%

01/1983 - 10.4%
02/1983 - 10.4%
03/1983 - 10.3%
04/1983 - 10.3%
05/1983 - 10.1%
06/1983 - 10.1%
07/1983 - 9.4%
06/1983 - 9.5%
07/1983 - 9.4%
08/1983 - 9.5%
09/1983 - 9.2%
10/1983 - 8.8%
11/1983 - 8.5%
12/1983 - 8.3%

01/1984 - 8.0%
02/1984 - 7.8%


It took Reagan 28 MONTHS to get unemployment rate back down below 8 percent.

Unemployment Rate « Extreme Liberal's Blog


HOW COULD THOSE 'JOB CREATORS' MAKE IT WORK WITH A TOP TAX RATE OF 50% FOR REAGAN'S FIRST 6 YEARS?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom