• 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!

Estimates Say Fewer Jobs, Larger Deficits if Republicans Were in Charge

Conservative said:
I believe the operative word there is "private" debt instead of taxpayer funded Federal Debt. In our economy there are consequences for poor choices and the problem is liberals want to bailout those people who make bad choices and therein lies the problem. Free enterprise operates on the basic principles of personal responsibility and individual wealth creation. If you take risk and succeed you are entitled to the "fruits of your labor" but if you take risk and fail there should be consequences for that failure.

I do not and never will support the bailouts of private business that fail thus I did not support TARP. I do not support the massive expansion of govt. under FDR and now Obama. Liberal social engineering by these two Administrations along with others has created the 13.4 trillion debt we have today. that debt is unsustainable.
Click to expand...

Your argument is all over the place. First and foremost, Hoover and FDR allowed thousands of banks to fail following 1929. To eliminate bank failures spawned specifically from liquidity runs, the FDIC was created (and to a great success as there has yet to be another run on a US bank). Proper and necessary financial regulations were then put in place which (basically) disallowed a bank to operate (using deposits) as insurance companies (risk spreaders).

I will wholeheartedly agree that when a business implements a faulty strategy, it should pay the price (even if this equates to failure). For the sake of future confidence in any particular industry; spillover from a few faulty institutions cannot, should not cause responsible firms to fail. No single entity can pose systemic risk -it and of itself-, or else it will have a disastrous impact on long term risk taking (essential in a market system).

Had TARP not been passed, thousands of institutions would have failed (even the ones who "bet correctly" e.g. Goldman Sachs).

Had a proper stimulus been enacted (around $1.5 trillion focused primarily on infrastructure, health and education), current growth outlooks would not be as abysmal.
 
Had TARP not been passed, thousands of institutions would have failed (even the ones who "bet correctly" e.g. Goldman Sachs).
Click to expand...

Let em fail, what we did is reward bad behavior by bailing these companies out

Had a proper stimulus been enacted (around $1.5 trillion focused primarily on infrastructure, health and education), current growth outlooks would not be as abysmal.
Click to expand...

You are entitled to your opinion but we have use taxes for infrastructure, i.e. gasoline taxes, and health and education are state and local issues not a Federal issue. the stimulus that was passed was a gift from the arrogant Democrats to their constituent groups and wasn't directed to the public and the private sector. Giving all that out in tax cuts, individual and business would have been the answer, IMO.
 
Conservative said:
Let em fail, what we did is reward bad behavior by bailing these companies out
Click to expand...

This was allowed to happen in the past; the results were less than desirable. Bank Failures during the 1930s Great Depression

During the 20s, there was an average of 70 banks failing each year nationally. After the crash during the first 10 months of 1930, 744 banks failed – 10 times as many. In all, 9,000 banks failed during the decade of the 30s. It's estimated that 4,000 banks failed during the one year of 1933 alone. By 1933, depositors saw $140 billion disappear through bank failures.
Click to expand...

:shrug: Have you even considered potential FDIC liabilities (backed by the full faith of the US government)?

You are entitled to your opinion but we have use taxes for infrastructure, i.e. gasoline taxes, and health and education are state and local issues not a Federal issue. the stimulus that was passed was a gift from the arrogant Democrats to their constituent groups and wasn't directed to the public and the private sector. Giving all that out in tax cuts, individual and business would have been the answer, IMO.
Click to expand...

Not during periods of deflation when demand for money becomes elastic. With a $10 trillion federal debt, tax payers would have internalized future tax expectations (and the tax stimulus would have a marginal impact on demand).
 
Last edited:
Goldenboy219 said:
This was allowed to happen in the past; the results were less than desirable. Bank Failures during the 1930s Great Depression



:shrug: Have you even considered potential FDIC liabilities (backed by the full faith of the US government)?



Not during periods of deflation when demand for money becomes elastic. With a $10 trillion federal debt, tax payers would have internalized futur

e tax expectations (and the tax stimulus would have a marginal impact on demand).
Click to expand...

I don't buy the claim that we would be in a depression today. Some of the banks that took TARP money did so under Govt. pressure and all that money has been paid back except of cource for Freddie and Fannie. The banks came up with the money to pay back the loans and the banks would have come up with the money to prevent failure.

Our economy wasn't established under the principles that if you fail you get bailed out.

The problem I have with the tax policies include the fact that we have 47% of the people not paying any Federal Income taxes and supporting politicians that have no problem raising those taxes on the 53% that do. The right economic policy is a flat tax and cutting Federal spending. Everyone pays something and the govt. cuts their massive appetite for power through fiscal responsibility.
 
Vader said:
Yeah, I agree with you there. Both sides are guilty in this area. What have republicans done to help the average citizen lately? Not that democrats have done much but ... at least they have done SOMETHING. Republicans want to horde everything for themselves and leave the rest of us to die.
Click to expand...

That is why we voted dems into office. They have done a little, but nothing for example about trade agreements. If you want to fundementally fix our economy then you have to give breathing room to our manufacturing sector. There are also things that could have been done to the tax code to entice corporations to bring jobs back to factories here versus building factories overseas.
 
Republicans have a track record of not only giving more money to the very wealthy but also raising the Countries debt. That is slightly worse than giving money to ass-clown unions that rape companies and tax payers.
 
The Giant Noodle said:
Republicans have a track record of not only giving more money to the very wealthy but also raising the Countries debt. That is slightly worse than giving money to ass-clown unions that rape companies and tax payers.
Click to expand...

difference without a distinction.
 
The Giant Noodle said:
Republicans have a track record of not only giving more money to the very wealthy but also raising the Countries debt. That is slightly worse than giving money to ass-clown unions that rape companies and tax payers.
Click to expand...

Well, let's see, Republicans haven't controlled Congress until 2006 so what was the debt then vs. now? How do you explain the trillion dollar deficits Obama has generated since taking office? Bush's fault? LOL, Civics tells me it is Congress that authorizes the spending and does most of it.
 
We can't KNOW what would have been, but we cna make reasonable assertions. It is unlikely that republicans would not have continued with bailouts or stopped unemployment benefits. I suspect the ecnomony would have been anywhere from a little worse to a little better, but no major changes. Again, we can't KNOW. But it is unlikely republicans would have done anything ground shadderingly different.
 
The Giant Noodle said:
Republicans have a track record of not only giving more money to the very wealthy but also raising the Countries debt. That is slightly worse than giving money to ass-clown unions that rape companies and tax payers.
Click to expand...

giving money away?
 
again with the newsweek? :doh


This is nothing but propagandist speculation
 
Boo Radley said:
We can't KNOW what would have been, but we cna make reasonable assertions. It is unlikely that republicans would not have continued with bailouts or stopped unemployment benefits. I suspect the ecnomony would have been anywhere from a little worse to a little better, but no major changes. Again, we can't KNOW. But it is unlikely republicans would have done anything ground shadderingly different.
Click to expand...

Exactly but we apparently do know how states and local communities would act thus we have "saved" jobs due to the stimulus?
 
Conservative said:
Exactly but we apparently do know how states and local communities would act thus we have "saved" jobs due to the stimulus?
Click to expand...

Yes, we do KNOW jobs were saved. Because we KNOW we lost those jobs when the stimulus ended. States did not act to save them. The evidence has been linked for you already. ;)
 
Boo Radley said:
Yes, we do KNOW jobs were saved. Because we KNOW we lost those jobs when the stimulus ended. States did not act to save them. The evidence has been linked for you already. ;)
Click to expand...

The stimulus ended? When? LOL, amazing how we "know" all these things that cannot be proven but only when a liberal is in WH. Has all the stimulus money been spent? Where did the TARP repayments go?

Is this the way you operate in real life, buying what you are told and nevery trying to verify the rhetoric? Show me a saved job chart in BLS.gov? By the way are the number of people unemployed higher or lower than they were at the same time last year? Are the number of people employed higher or lower than the same month last year?
 
Conservative said:
The stimulus ended? When? LOL, amazing how we "know" all these things that cannot be proven but only when a liberal is in WH. Has all the stimulus money been spent? Where did the TARP repayments go?

Is this the way you operate in real life, buying what you are told and nevery trying to verify the rhetoric? Show me a saved job chart in BLS.gov? By the way are the number of people unemployed higher or lower than they were at the same time last year? Are the number of people employed higher or lower than the same month last year?
Click to expand...

Yes, the money to schools ended or is ending, and states won't save jobs. Agian, I linked that for you before.

And jobs can be saved and still have lost more jobs. Your question doesn't address the point.
 
Boo Radley said:
Yes, the money to schools ended or is ending, and states won't save jobs. Agian, I linked that for you before.

And jobs can be saved and still have lost more jobs. Your question doesn't address the point.
Click to expand...

Since the states didn't have a chance to respond to the education shortfall you don't know whether or not they would have saved the jobs themselves. Since when is state education issues a Federal taxpayer responsibility? You buy what you are told but only when told that buy those you WANT to believe. This was a bailout to Democrat contituent groups, unions.
 
Conservative said:
Since the states didn't have a chance to respond to the education shortfall you don't know whether or not they would have saved the jobs themselves. Since when is state education issues a Federal taxpayer responsibility? You buy what you are told but only when told that buy those you WANT to believe. This was a bailout to Democrat contituent groups, unions.
Click to expand...

They ahve every chance then and now, but have been unable to effectively response. The evidence is in.
 
Boo Radley said:
They ahve every chance then and now, but have been unable to effectively response. The evidence is in.
Click to expand...

Still waiting for you to explain why the Federal govt. has any responsibility for state education issues? Do you believe in state's rights at all?

By the way, the evidence is only in your mind because that is what you want to believe.
 
Conservative said:
Still waiting for you to explain why the Federal govt. has any responsibility for state education issues? Do you believe in state's rights at all?

By the way, the evidence is only in your mind because that is what you want to believe.
Click to expand...

I don't have to explain that. I have only claimed jobs were saved and I supported that. Don't try to divert here like you're doing elsewhere. You're free to say, "yes, they saved jobs, but they shouldn't have." Do that, and we'll have a different conversation.
 
Boo Radley said:
I don't have to explain that. I have only claimed jobs were saved and I supported that. Don't try to divert here like you're doing elsewhere. You're free to say, "yes, they saved jobs, but they shouldn't have." Do that, and we'll have a different conversation.
Click to expand...

Can't find that on the bls website, please show me that line item. What I do see is unemployment higher every month this year vs. last year and that is after spending the stimulus money. There is absolutely no proof that the states wouldn't have spent the money to save teachers' jobs. Obama gave a handout to the unions.
 
Conservative said:
Can't find that on the bls website, please show me that line item. What I do see is unemployment higher every month this year vs. last year and that is after spending the stimulus money. There is absolutely no proof that the states wouldn't have spent the money to save teachers' jobs. Obama gave a handout to the unions.
Click to expand...

Again that is not evidence showing jobs were not saved. If we would have lost 20,000 jobs with out the stimulus and lost 15,000, then jobbs would have been saved. That doesn't mean we went up, or that jobs weren't lost, only that some jobs were saved.

Are you being deliberately ignorant? Pretending not to understand the point?
 
Boo Radley said:
Again that is not evidence showing jobs were not saved. If we would have lost 20,000 jobs with out the stimulus and lost 15,000, then jobbs would have been saved. That doesn't mean we went up, or that jobs weren't lost, only that some jobs were saved.

Are you being deliberately ignorant? Pretending not to understand the point?
Click to expand...

Yep, deliberately ignorant, I don't buy yours or any other liberals' rhetoric. Show me the facts, and no matter how you spin it claiming that the economy would be worse without the stimulus isn't a strong argument since the economy is terrible now. Higher unemployment every month this year vs. last yet you claim things would have been worse? Not much of an argument with a record number of people out of work.
 
Conservative said:
Yep, deliberately ignorant, I don't buy yours or any other liberals' rhetoric. Show me the facts, and no matter how you spin it claiming that the economy would be worse without the stimulus isn't a strong argument since the economy is terrible now. Higher unemployment every month this year vs. last yet you claim things would have been worse? Not much of an argument with a record number of people out of work.
Click to expand...

I have showed you the facts. And not being worse is better than being worse. Not hard to follow if you want to follow it. ;)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom