• 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. Unemployment Falls to Lowest Level Since May 2008[W:489, 497]

Status
Not open for further replies.
Born Free said:
Liberals controlling the 10 poorest cities in the US and the 10 most dangerous cities in the US is not ignorant rhetoric. The ignorance is you standing up for failure.
Click to expand...

Democrats (I assume this is what you meant) also control a lot of the safest and most prosperous cities.
 
NIMBY said:
Back to the short amount of time the DEMs held the House and Senate before the Bush/Cheney meltdown during the last half of 2008.

Is Obama responsible for the 2.2 million jobs lost during his first three months--the 10.4% UE at its peak.
Which of course gives him a higher % overall.

Or does McConnell get credit for 2014 being the best year in 15 years for jobs because he's a ****in liar ?
Click to expand...
Well, in my opinion, the losses were driven because of all the things the democrats said they would do if elected. I sincerely think they scared the crap out of employers, entrepreneurs, etc.

When promises are made that the tax payers have to pay for, the tax payers tighten their belts, spend less, and boom... Bye bye jobs because sales are down.

Politicians writing the laws can not create jobs. They most certainly can destroy them.
 
Lord of Planar said:
Well, in my opinion, the losses were driven because of all the things the democrats said they would do if elected. I sincerely think they scared the crap out of employers, entrepreneurs, etc.

When promises are made that the tax payers have to pay for, the tax payers tighten their belts, spend less, and boom... Bye bye jobs because sales are down.

Politicians writing the laws can not create jobs. They most certainly can destroy them.
Click to expand...
Sure, consumers tightened, not from real massive wealth declines...but from political rhetoric.

Facking revisionism of the highest order.
 
Kushinator said:
Since 1929, real disposable personal income per capita has increased by more than 440% (570% since 1933).

fredgraph.png


As you can see, you're hopelessly outmatched.
Click to expand...

And the debt has outpaced income. Now run the numbers on the % increase of the debt sense 1965 and do a comparison. And looking at your chart the debt has not only outpaced income it has now exceeded it. And you call that success. I argue NO debt is success. Only a liberal would call running deficits every year for the the last 100 yrs a success. And now the people are holding 18.2 trillion in debt and growing faster than ever. According to you that is success. And with all that deficit spending we have more poor, more on food stamps, more in section 8 housing, more blacks unemployed than ever before, the labor participation rate is at it's lowest point. Etc etc etc.

You call this success, liberalism at its worst. This is what we got for dumping over 18 trillion of borrowed money into the economy. I call that a total failure. Under Obama the middle class is making less than when he took office. But under Obama the rich have gotten much richer. So much for liberal failed policies.

In 2012, 46.5 million people were living in poverty in the United States—the largest number in the 54 years the Census has measured poverty. The poverty rate (the percentage of all people in the United States who were poor) also remained at high levels: 15% for all Americans and 21.8% for children under age 18.


Poverty in the United States: A Snapshot | National Center for Law and Economic Justice
 
Born Free said:
And the debt has outpaced income. Now run the numbers on the % increase of the debt sense 1965 and do a comparison. And looking at your chart the debt has not only outpaced income it has now exceeded it. And you call that success. I argue NO debt is success. Only a liberal would call running deficits every year for the the last 100 yrs a success. And now the people are holding 18.2 trillion in debt and growing faster than ever. According to you that is success. And with all that deficit spending we have more poor, more on food stamps, more in section 8 housing, more blacks unemployed than ever before, the labor participation rate is at it's lowest point. Etc etc etc.

You call this success, liberalism at its worst. This is what we got for dumping over 18 trillion of borrowed money into the economy. I call that a total failure. Under Obama the middle class is making less than when he took office. But under Obama the rich have gotten much richer. So much for liberal failed policies.

In 2012, 46.5 million people were living in poverty in the United States—the largest number in the 54 years the Census has measured poverty. The poverty rate (the percentage of all people in the United States who were poor) also remained at high levels: 15% for all Americans and 21.8% for children under age 18.


Poverty in the United States: A Snapshot | National Center for Law and Economic Justice
Click to expand...
The increase in poverty and the decline in middle wage wealth has been consistent since the advent of neoliberal supply-side economic policies in the US, it did not just suddenly happen in 2009.
 
Last edited:
Tettsuo said:
No, you ARE sheep. You're sheep because you hate Obama for no valid reason. You're sheep because you believe that Republicans are actually fiscally conservative. You're sheep because you believe that Republicans have been good on national security. You're sheep because you believe the nonsense the GOP is feeding you daily and not basing your opinion on facts.

My point for the thread? Showing the sheep for what they are. We are 7 years into Obama's presidency and on day one, Republicans have said over and over again that Obama owns this economy, that Obama can't point to the failures of Bush and say it was his fault we're in the hole we were in. Now that the tide has turned, you can't man up and give Obama his due.

I'm still waiting for Obamacare to destroy America.
Click to expand...

Wow. Can your posts be any more insane?

I asked you what specific policy Barack Obama implemented that resulted in private sector job creation, and you're here screaming about Obamacare destroying the economy and Republicans.

What a colossal waste of my time reading this.
 
Kushinator said:
You've taken the obnoxious tone. Is it my fault you didn't bother to read the links you post, even after i point out how they didn't support your strawman? Nope.



Who is claiming perfection (these strawmen continue to amuse)? You made a mistake, and when it gets pointed out, you double down with a bitchy attitude. There was an obvious interest in the link given you were the one who provided it. That i pointed out the faults of the professors reasoning should come as no surprise.



You started the partisan nonsense with post #4



Why is it that economically illiterate conservatives bring up Obama in every thread; is it out of desperateness?



Your initial contribution and following responses have been a series of strawmen and partisan nonsense. It was you who made attempts to derail the thread into "but, but, but... Obama didn't create these jobs" mudslinging fest.



Why should i go away? You've contributed absolutely nothing of substance to this discussion. A thread pertaining to labor market dynamics is boring unless it carries a hyper-partisan theme? :lamo
Click to expand...

Wow. You make nothing but inane posts. And arrogant ones, too. Ick.

It isn't a partisan strawman to ask what policies the President implemented that resulted in private sector job creation. In fact, it's the kind of question grown ups ask when someone says "Give the President credit for being good for the economy". The fact that you lean so far left is the reason you're posting these hysterical, dramatic posts because I asked a question.

Man, your posts are so boring. Keep up the good fight though. Obama can use a good cheerleader like you.
 
Born Free said:
for the last 100 yrs we have run deficits. Yet what do we have to show for it. Not a damn thing except 18.2 trillion in debt and growing.
Click to expand...

Beyond the steady increase in real disposable personal income per capita (there's a mouthful), there's a lot of other great stuff in this country that we've acquired and developed by leveraging our assets. I have debt — I still owe the bank $56K on my house. What do I have to show for it? A "dog room" where still-damp and still lightly muddy hounds can dry off before they're released into the rest of the house when they come in from outside after it's rained, and a decent-sized, fenced-in back yard where they run around protecting their domain from birds and squirrels and toads and snakes and anything else that violates it, just to mention the two things that are perhaps the most important to me.

>>With all that deficit spending we have more poor

There has been a dramatic reduction in the number of Americans living in poverty over the past one hundred years.

>>more on food stamps

As you know, the SNAP program hasn't been around for one hundred years (here's a short history), but you might not know that it was developed to help farmers as well as the poor. I'd agree that the agriculture industry has changed a lot over the years. And a lot of SNAP benefits aren't used on fruit and vegetables. Perhaps we should look into changing that — maybe try to connect SNAP recipients with local farmers markets. Hmm, looks like someone else already thought of that: "How 'Double Bucks' For Food Stamps Conquered Capitol Hill," npr.org, Nov 10, 2014.

>>more in section 8 housing

You've mentioned that before and I've asked for numbers.

>>more blacks unemployed than ever before

I'm pretty sure I've pointed out to you, when you claimed that there were "more blacks in poverty than ever before," that black poverty has been cut in half over the past sixty years. If you were to run that out to a hundred years, I'm sure the drop would be even more dramatic.

Here's the data on unemployment going back to 1972:

black_unemp_1972_2015.jpg

>>labor participation rate is at it's lowest point.

I've seen that graph just recently on this site. I'm thinking you did as well. The LFPR was was much lower in the 1950s than it is now. The fact that that is misleading because it was a lot easier for a one-income household to get by back then is mirrored by the fact that the biggest reason it's down now is because a lot of baby boomers are retiring. All these stats must be understood in context.

>>Etc etc etc.

You have more?

>>We have achieved all this by borrowing and spending, and yet you continue to champion more borrowing an spending to increase more poor, and a worse off middle class, and more blacks unemployed, and more on food stamps etc. etc.

First, as you've been shown repeatedly, the garbage yer fed by Handjob, Limpblow, and others is a collection of divisive lies. And secondly, without the spending we've seen, the problems would be worse. Now very importantly, I'd say the money has often not been spent wisely. We need to correct that. Perhaps if we can get on the same page about what's really going on, we can begin to make that happen.

>>the top 10 poorest cities run by democrats and the top 10 most dangerous cities run by democrats

Very misleading. Could the elected officials in these cities reasonably be expected to turn things around on their own? Don't get me wrong — some city governments have done a better job than others, and they should all be held responsible to do the best they can to diminish poverty and violent crime. But I'm hoping you'll see this rhetoric for what is. Big cities, where you have yer big slum areas, are Democratic strongholds. That doesn't mean Democrats have caused those problems.

Lord of Planar said:
I sincerely think they scared the crap out of employers, entrepreneurs, etc. When promises are made that the tax payers have to pay for, the tax payers tighten their belts, spend less, and boom... Bye bye jobs because sales are down.
Click to expand...

It may be impossible to prove that to be incorrect. But donsutherland1 has pointed to an alternative explanation that makes at least as much sense. What evidence do you have that yer theory is correct. If it's just a gut instinct, well OK, but is the "diminished hh wealth" theory sensible to you?
 
mmi said:
It may be impossible to prove that to be incorrect. But donsutherland1 has pointed to an alternative explanation that makes at least as much sense. What evidence do you have that yer theory is correct. If it's just a gut instinct, well OK, but is the "diminished hh wealth" theory sensible to you?
Click to expand...

I have no evidence. I have watched politics for several decades now. I see it as standard cause an effect. The democrats were promising their constituency to make the rich pay, they won the house and senate, then jobs dried up. It's a repeatable pattern if you look back through history.

It's not good to scare the employers.
 
Born Free said:
And the debt has outpaced income. Now run the numbers on the % increase of the debt sense 1965 and do a comparison. And looking at your chart the debt has not only outpaced income it has now exceeded it. And you call that success.
Click to expand...

There is a flaw in the graph (i forgot something) that you didn't notice. Given you have taken my data at face value, I cannot in good faith try and press you on your quote.

I argue NO debt is success. Only a liberal would call running deficits every year for the the last 100 yrs a success. And now the people are holding 18.2 trillion in debt and growing faster than ever. According to you that is success. And with all that deficit spending we have more poor, more on food stamps, more in section 8 housing, more blacks unemployed than ever before, the labor participation rate is at it's lowest point. Etc etc etc.
Click to expand...

Your emotional take on debt aside, i will concede that when we did have a surplus in the late 90's and early 21st century, poverty and welfare were in steep decline. However, that would also be a disingenuous statement based entirely on correlating variables. In reality and not ironically, the causative factor was robust economic growth at a more equitable distribution.

Capture.JPG

Under Obama the middle class is making less than when he took office. But under Obama the rich have gotten much richer.
Click to expand...

This is probably the first thing you've said that isn't questionable. However, i have my doubts you will be able to attribute it to a single policy.

In 2012, 46.5 million people were living in poverty in the United States—the largest number in the 54 years the Census has measured poverty. The poverty rate (the percentage of all people in the United States who were poor) also remained at high levels: 15% for all Americans and 21.8% for children under age 18.
Click to expand...

Close. The 2013 figure fell from 15% to 14.5% while the under age 18 rate came in at 19.9%. This was the first decrease in the poverty rate since 2006.

My take is a bit more complicated than who is in office. Secular stagnation was first coined in 1938 by economist Alvin Hansen. Essentially, low population growth and a general savings glut has pushed the natural rate of interest for both the short and long end of the curve into negative territory. This suggests that absent any expansionary fiscal and monetary policy (credit easing, expansion and tax reform (Europe)), advanced economies will face permanent deflation, and with it a reduction in economic activity. A current debate persists among what conservatives consider liberal economists (See Krugman and Stiglitz) as to whether inequality is the major contributor. I somewhat agree with Stiglitz, insofar as underconsumption among the high income demographic has led to a misallocation of capital. The private sector is cannibalizing itself to maintain short term profitability. In other words, companies are allocating far too much investment towards preserving stock prices rather than gaining market share. Labor, which once was the major driver in consumption, is losing bargaining power with the progression in automation. If this trend continues, the labor force will no longer be able to afford purchasing goods and services at a level that supports growth in capital expenditure. Secular stagnation began at the height of the equity bubble (2001), had been masked by the housing bubble, and continues to this day.
 
tres borrachos said:
Man, your posts are so boring. Keep up the good fight though. Obama can use a good cheerleader like you.
Click to expand...

You keep repeating this as though it has some kind of meaning. Perhaps my posts are just over your head?

Just so you are aware: good for the economy ≠ creates private sector jobs

It follows from your logic that no president has been good for the economy, because no president creates private sector jobs. Of course we know this is nonsense, and that your reasoning is inherently flawed. A president can be good for an economy, and many have been good... including Obama.
 
Kobie said:
Democrats (I assume this is what you meant) also control a lot of the safest and most prosperous cities.
Click to expand...

Name some, however you cannot get away from holding the top 10 most poor and most dangerous. And these are cities that have been in control in some cases from the early 1940's
 
Gimmesometruth said:
It would be more accurate to say that neo-liberal economic policy (free market/low tax/low barrier) has caused the dramatic erosion of manufacturing in most if not all of these "democratic cities" wherein those govts had next to no impact upon the national neo-liberal policies....but the understanding of these ideas would require more than what is being displayed by the simplistic rhetoric spewed consistently in your "arguments".
Click to expand...

Nice try :doh Typical liberal response, never take responsibility for anything. Even the 10 most dangerous cities are controlled by democrats. And it's all the Pubs fault. Then you say simplistic rhetoric, I didn't make this stuff up. You liberals made it up for real, those two stats are real. Proving liberalism does not work.
 
Gimmesometruth said:
It would be more accurate to say that neo-liberal economic policy (free market/low tax/low barrier) has caused the dramatic erosion of manufacturing in most if not all of these "democratic cities" wherein those govts had next to no impact upon the national neo-liberal policies....but the understanding of these ideas would require more than what is being displayed by the simplistic rhetoric spewed consistently in your "arguments".
Click to expand...

It would also be more accurate to say that 'neo-liberal economic policy created those manufacturing jobs in the first place. It was neo-statist policies of the left that drove them into freer, more competitive markets. But I get now why people are liberals--they never have to accept any consequences of their failed ideology.
 
Gimmesometruth said:
The increase in poverty and the decline in middle wage wealth has been consistent since the advent of neoliberal supply-side economic policies in the US, it did not just suddenly happen in 2009.
Click to expand...

I'll give you credit for that. The middle class peaked at the end of Ronald Reagan's term, and has been going down from them until now. Now it's funny that you say supply-side economics was the failure. Not hardly, Reagan was a supply sider and the middle class boomed under Reagan taking over from the slump of the middle class after Carter got kicked out. To make matters worse Obama will have borrowed up to 9.1 trillion added to our national debt and the middle class is in a nose dive.

Now I will say Obama has been a champion for the rich. The rich have gotten a lot richer, I love him for that. But he has done nothing for the poor or the middle class, not a damn thing, You have to love him for at least making the rich richer.
 
mmi said:
Beyond the steady increase in real disposable personal income per capita (there's a mouthful), there's a lot of other great stuff in this country that we've acquired and developed by leveraging our assets. I have debt — I still owe the bank $56K on my house. What do I have to show for it? A "dog room" where still-damp and still lightly muddy hounds can dry off before they're released into the rest of the house when they come in from outside after it's rained, and a decent-sized, fenced-in back yard where they run around protecting their domain from birds and squirrels and toads and snakes and anything else that violates it, just to mention the two things that are perhaps the most important to me.

>>With all that deficit spending we have more poor

There has been a dramatic reduction in the number of Americans living in poverty over the past one hundred years.

>>more on food stamps

As you know, the SNAP program hasn't been around for one hundred years (here's a short history), but you might not know that it was developed to help farmers as well as the poor. I'd agree that the agriculture industry has changed a lot over the years. And a lot of SNAP benefits aren't used on fruit and vegetables. Perhaps we should look into changing that — maybe try to connect SNAP recipients with local farmers markets. Hmm, looks like someone else already thought of that: "How 'Double Bucks' For Food Stamps Conquered Capitol Hill," npr.org, Nov 10, 2014.

>>more in section 8 housing

You've mentioned that before and I've asked for numbers.

>>more blacks unemployed than ever before

I'm pretty sure I've pointed out to you, when you claimed that there were "more blacks in poverty than ever before," that black poverty has been cut in half over the past sixty years. If you were to run that out to a hundred years, I'm sure the drop would be even more dramatic.

Here's the data on unemployment going back to 1972:

View attachment 67184261

>>labor participation rate is at it's lowest point.

I've seen that graph just recently on this site. I'm thinking you did as well. The LFPR was was much lower in the 1950s than it is now. The fact that that is misleading because it was a lot easier for a one-income household to get by back then is mirrored by the fact that the biggest reason it's down now is because a lot of baby boomers are retiring. All these stats must be understood in context.

>>Etc etc etc.

You have more?

>>We have achieved all this by borrowing and spending, and yet you continue to champion more borrowing an spending to increase more poor, and a worse off middle class, and more blacks unemployed, and more on food stamps etc. etc.

First, as you've been shown repeatedly, the garbage yer fed by Handjob, Limpblow, and others is a collection of divisive lies. And secondly, without the spending we've seen, the problems would be worse. Now very importantly, I'd say the money has often not been spent wisely. We need to correct that. Perhaps if we can get on the same page about what's really going on, we can begin to make that happen.

>>the top 10 poorest cities run by democrats and the top 10 most dangerous cities run by democrats

Very misleading. Could the elected officials in these cities reasonably be expected to turn things around on their own? Don't get me wrong — some city governments have done a better job than others, and they should all be held responsible to do the best they can to diminish poverty and violent crime. But I'm hoping you'll see this rhetoric for what is. Big cities, where you have yer big slum areas, are Democratic strongholds. That doesn't mean Democrats have caused those problems.



It may be impossible to prove that to be incorrect. But donsutherland1 has pointed to an alternative explanation that makes at least as much sense. What evidence do you have that yer theory is correct. If it's just a gut instinct, well OK, but is the "diminished hh wealth" theory sensible to you?
Click to expand...

I will address one of your reply's, notice in your own chart the Black unemployment is higher than when Obama took office. That is exactly what I said, You disproved nothing of what I said. I will respond to the others as well
 
Kushinator said:
There is a flaw in the graph (i forgot something) that you didn't notice. Given you have taken my data at face value, I cannot in good faith try and press you on your quote.



Your emotional take on debt aside, i will concede that when we did have a surplus in the late 90's and early 21st century, poverty and welfare were in steep decline. However, that would also be a disingenuous statement based entirely on correlating variables. In reality and not ironically, the causative factor was robust economic growth at a more equitable distribution.

View attachment 67184262
p

d
This is probably the first thing you've said that isn't questionable. However, i have my doubts you will be able to attribute it to a single policy.
Click to expand...

Thank you for standing up.


Close. The 2013 figure fell from 15% to 14.5% while the under age 18 rate came in at 19.9%. This was the first decrease in the poverty rate since 2006.
Click to expand...

Poverty is a huge issue and their are opposite sides of the argument, the conservative side is jobs, with conservatives its always about GDP growth, thus under high growth jobs are created and wages go up. Under the liberal side it's handouts. There are always people in dire straights, that need assistance. But the bigger majority needs jobs. And on that note jobs trumps assistance. However both are needed but the job part is paramount to lowering the poor population.

My take is a bit more complicated than who is in office. Secular stagnation was first coined in 1938 by economist Alvin Hansen. Essentially, low population growth and a general savings glut has pushed the natural rate of interest for both the short and long end of the curve into negative territory. This suggests that absent any expansionary fiscal and monetary policy (credit easing, expansion and tax reform (Europe)), advanced economies will face permanent deflation, and with it a reduction in economic activity. A current debate persists among what conservatives consider liberal economists (See Krugman and Stiglitz) as to whether inequality is the major contributor. I somewhat agree with Stiglitz, insofar as underconsumption among the high income demographic has led to a misallocation of capital. The private sector is cannibalizing itself to maintain short term profitability. In other words, companies are allocating far too much investment towards preserving stock prices rather than gaining market share. Labor, which once was the major driver in consumption, is losing bargaining power with the progression in automation. If this trend continues, the labor force will no longer be able to afford purchasing goods and services at a level that supports growth in capital expenditure. Secular stagnation began at the height of the equity bubble (2001), had been masked by the housing bubble, and continues to this day.
Click to expand...

I will join you in this at a latter time.
 
Born Free said:
I'll give you credit for that. The middle class peaked at the end of Ronald Reagan's term, and has been going down from them until now.
Click to expand...

I'd say the middle class peaked under Nixon.

Born Free said:
Black unemployment is higher than when Obama took office. That is exactly what I said, You disproved nothing of what I said.
Click to expand...

You said:

Born Free said:
more blacks unemployed than ever before
Click to expand...

That is false. I disproved something you said. I'll also note that black unemployment was 12.7% in Jan 2009, and it is now 9.6%. It exceeded 9.6% in fourteen of the forty-eight months of Bush43's second term. I have disproved yer revised statement as well.

>> I will respond to the others as well

I can't wait.

Born Free said:
the conservative side is jobs, with conservatives its always about GDP growth, thus under high growth jobs are created and wages go up. Under the liberal side it's handouts.
Click to expand...

Empty rhetoric. The performance of the economy under Democratic presidents, when measured in terms of GDP growth and employment, exceeds that of Republicans.

"Handouts" have gone up under Obama, first, because of the disastrous economic situation he inherited from a Republican administration, and secondly, because of the hyper-partisan and hyper-ideological intransigence of the Republicans in Congress, not at all surprising given their avowed intention to see him fail.
 
Lord of Planar said:
it should have never dropped as deep as it did, or for as long as it did
Click to expand...

What do you base that on? Fwiw, I agree that things could have been turned around more quickly. Ironically, that would have required even more of the policies that you oppose, e.g., fiscal stimulus.

>>democrats took the house and senate in the 2006 elections

And the new Congress was seated in Jan 2007.

tres borrachos said:
It doesn't appear that people on here know much about the economy or the political climate of this country if they think the recent Presidents created private sector jobs.
Click to expand...

Presidents have considerable influence over the enactment of legislation. The federal budget has a sizeable impact on the country's economic performance.

>>a stimulus package is simply using taxpayer/government money to create jobs.

Fiscal stimulus gets the ball moving in the right direction. It stops the bleeding, and allows the private sector to recover.

>>The good private sector job creation is the one that comes about because of non-governmental intervention and forces.

Not in every case. In a recession, government intervention creates a condition wherein "good private sector job creation" can again take place at an adequate level.

>>Barack Obama has not put forth a policy that created private sector jobs.

I'd say he's helped the private sector get back on the road after it was driven off into a ditch.

Born Free said:
Name some [prosperous and safe cities controlled by Democrats]
Click to expand...

Los Angeles, San Jose, El Paso, Portland, and Seattle.

Oklahoma City is a big city with a lot of crime that's dominated by Republicans.
 
Lord of Planar said:
You're joking, right?

These things are cyclical. However, it should have never dropped as deep as it did, or for as long as it did, and it happened after democrats took the house and senate in the 2006 elections.
Click to expand...

Why don't you tell us exactly what the Democratic House and Senate did to create the crisis.

Don't make wildass statements that you have zero hope of supporting. it makes you look .......
 
Gimmesometruth said:
It would be more accurate to say that neo-liberal economic policy (free market/low tax/low barrier) has caused the dramatic erosion of manufacturing in most if not all of these "democratic cities" wherein those govts had next to no impact upon the national neo-liberal policies....but the understanding of these ideas would require more than what is being displayed by the simplistic rhetoric spewed consistently in your "arguments".
Click to expand...

Not exactly true.. in any sense.There are always underlying issues. Maryland (Baltimore) also had massive environmental issues with the Chesapeake Bay due to the legacy of industrialization. Chesapeake Bay was the world's first recognized dead zones (Hypoxic). It's still absolutely horrible which has killed or is in the process of killing the fishing.. Oysters and Blue Crab are majorly effected. Oyster population declined by 70% since 1980... it absolutely collapsed. Right now Chesapeake Bay has 1% of it's historical levels of Oysters. That's with Federal, State and Local funding to repopulate the Oyster population and to allow Oyster farms. It's a far cry from a time when 15 million bushels (50 pounds per bushel).. so we are taking 750m pounds or $1b plus industry gone in Maryland at current prices (unwashed)..

For Blue Crab.. 40 years ago, Maryland provided 50% of Blue Crab (hard shell) in the US. Since 1990 the population of Blue Crab in Maryland has fallen from 900m to 300m. It's an industry struggling to survive even with federal, state and local dollars.

Then throw on it.. to repair the Chesapeake the State of Maryland agreed to change it's taxing policy. If you live in a watershed area.. you are taxed a "rain fall tax", known as Stormwater Remediation Fee. You literally had to pay $$$$ because it rained on your property. Only 9 counties and city of Baltimore has this tax. If you are business you aren't gonna invest if you have to pay a tax on rain based on SQ FT (of your roof), but EPA said it needed to be done.. and only Maryland did it. VA, PA, DE, and WV said "bite me". It finally got repealed under the current Governor today.


Then throw in city of Baltimore's policy polices and every arrest (not conviction) is reported to DoJ and Baltimore looks like a crime riddled city thus looking unattractive, you can Dem Martin O'Malley for that screw up.

So hey.. you wanna stick with your story? I grew up outside of Baltimore, watching Baltimore news (WJZ, WMAR, and WBAL), WBAL 1090 AM and that's before it's right slant.. when Ron Smith was the radio station on in the house and the car. I consider the Charm city my home and know it damn well.
 
Fenton said:
Nonsense.

If " Keynesian " solutions worked Japan would be sitting pretty right now.

They blew through 10 separate stimulus packages in the 90s running up record amounts of debt and they even invested in " infrastructure ".

Now, they have the Highest debt to GDP ratio in the world and the only one buying ( monetizing ) their debt is the BoJ.

They've had to raise taxes twice which lead to two consecutive quarters of economic contraction and they'll have to raise it again soon just so they can keep up with their massive amount of debt.

If Keynesian solutions worked there would have actually been " shovel ready " jobs and we wouldn't be struggling under this perpetual economic stagnation.
Click to expand...

But I wasn't talking about Japan. In any case, their economic situation was quite different from ours. Besides, Japan retreated from the world somewhat throughout their economic recovery. So, it's not quite the same any more than Greece would be a fair comparison today.

Regardless, there's no denying that each time America had a major economic downturn, it turned to Keynesian economics to pull itself back up. Every major infrastructure project ever conducted, every time the people received a "stimulus check" directly from the government to go out and spend money, even those soup lines that dispersed free peanut butter, cheese and bread were all forms of Keynesian economics. Now, we can argue the effectiveness of such stimulus spending, but there's no denying that it was done. And our nation's economy eventually came out of each situation fairly well.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom