• 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!

Obama Heralds 1.1M Private Sector Jobs Created Since Jan.

obvious Child said:
So the US in 1940 was a Socialist economy despite having less regulation and less government?

Care to explain why China's stimulus has produced massive growth despite the PRC being more capitalistic then the US?

Care to explain why decades of stimulus in South Korea turned it from a GDP less then the North to the 11th largest economy in the world?

You really outta flowchart your arguments. You're so tangled up in your contradictions that nothing sensible ever comes out of your posts.
Click to expand...

You are indeed a legend in your own mind, which country has the largest economy in the world?

You want our economy to be like China's? Willing to work for their pay and govt. control as well?

The same with South Korea, want their pay rate per employee as well.

1940? what was happening in the world in 1940. Maybe we should prepare for another World War too.
 
Conservative still pushing the raw aggregate data argument?

How sad. There's a thing people go to school for. It's called linear regression. It uses raw aggregate data to show that specific policies are actually the cause of a hypothesized effect.

Nah, let's just throw unprocessed, unmodeled aggregate data and say it proves a broad, vague claim.
 
Goldenboy219;1059123818]Deficit spending during a recession or national emergency is understandable, but deficit spending during economic expansion while increasing spending is a full of **** conservative policy, it is a bastardization of Keynesianism.
Click to expand...


Your premise is false. If obama had cut taxes in the private sector theamount of his stimulus the economy woudl have exploded and we would need less book smart people to tell us all how we need more govt. spending.

So deficits are justifiable during Republican administrations, but are sheer waste during Democrat administrations? Remember, between QII 2008 and QII 2009, trillion in an excess of $11 trillion in American wealth had vanished into thin air. Putting this into a historical perspective, that was more (factoring for inflation) of a wealth loss than even the Great Depression. The only difference is that we have social safety nets that keep aggregate demand in a manageable bound.
Click to expand...

Deficits are only justified during Wars but I remind you who controlled the Congress in 2007-present and during that period of time the govt. ran 5 trillion in deficits. Democrats could have stopped that spending any time they wanted but didn't,they just stepped on the gas. No President can spend a dime without Congressional authorization. By the way, where did the TARP repayment dollars go? Anyone that supports this kind of spending isn't a libertarian, you are a liberal.
 
Conservative said:
You are indeed a legend in your own mind, which country has the largest economy in the world?
Click to expand...

And that is relevant how? Oh I got it. You cannot answer my questions. And you fully realize your grasp of history is about as deep as a kiddie pool. Hence why you are now resorting to changing the subject to hide your ignorance of the topic as you know if you went toe to toe with me on those questions, you'd get proverbial slammed into the pavement.

You want our economy to be like China's? Willing to work for their pay and govt. control as well?
Click to expand...

Work for our pay? Imagine that. Actually working. And you think that's bad. My point on PRC was that they have fewer regulations and far more of a capitalist functioning economy then the US. And their stimulus prevented a negative decline in their GDP, showing you, as usual, are wrong. And you CANNOT EVER respond to that question.

The same with South Korea, want their pay rate per employee as well.
Click to expand...

Way to completely ignore the point there. But I can't be surprised. Considering your sheer lack of any understanding of either, you have to resort to changing the subject. You cannot deal with my actual point.

1940? what was happening in the world in 1940. Maybe we should prepare for another World War too.
Click to expand...

Typical. 100% completely incapable of addressing questions.
 
obvious Child said:
And that is relevant how? Oh I got it. You cannot answer my questions. And you fully realize your grasp of history is about as deep as a kiddie pool. Hence why you are now resorting to changing the subject to hide your ignorance of the topic as you know if you went toe to toe with me on those questions, you'd get proverbial slammed into the pavement.



Work for our pay? Imagine that. Actually working. And you think that's bad. My point on PRC was that they have fewer regulations and far more of a capitalist functioning economy then the US. And their stimulus prevented a negative decline in their GDP, showing you, as usual, are wrong. And you CANNOT EVER respond to that question.



Way to completely ignore the point there. But I can't be surprised. Considering your sheer lack of any understanding of either, you have to resort to changing the subject. You cannot deal with my actual point.



Typical. 100% completely incapable of addressing questions.
Click to expand...

The American people answered your questions on November 2, 63+ House seats, 6 Senate Seats, 682 State legislature positions all converted to Republicans, a historic election and rebuke of Obama policies.
 
Conservative said:
Apparently you missed the economic growth numbers and it is obvious that you haven't a clue as to the four components of GDP. Here is the link, do some research on job creation as well as economic growth. You can also get Treasury data showing the spending by line item.
Click to expand...

Funny.

Y=C+I+G+(X-M)

If GDP = 14 trillion, consumption = 9.8 trillion, investment = 2 trillion and government = 2.5 trillion, where did the extra 500 billion come from?

Similarly, if consumption falls to 9 trillion and investment falls to 1.8 trillion, what does government spending have to be at to keep GDP from declining? Secondly, where does government get the money?

Now I am still waiting for you to tell me which you would rather have, 1 taxpayer paying $1 or two taxpayers each paying .50 The goal of tax cuts was to stimulate the economy and create more jobs thus more taxpayers. That is exactly what happened.
Click to expand...

Who would argue against job growth? The tax cuts you routinely reference did not necessarily cause the amount of tax payers to double, nor did it necessarily create job growth. We do know that it caused government deficits, otherwise they would not have existed following the tax cuts. Why? Because government spending was increased!

In a private sector economy, people keeping more of what they earn need less of that so called govt. help thus a smaller central govt.
Click to expand...

What happens if people do not purchase domestic goods with the proceeds from tax cuts?
 
Conservative said:
The American people answered your questions on November 2, 63+ House seats, 6 Senate Seats, 682 State legislature positions all converted to Republicans, a historic election and rebuke of Obama policies.
Click to expand...

Thanks for proving my point.

You cannot address my points, instead constantly changing the subject to avoid discussing things you know you have absolutely no hope of matching me on.

Your argument that stimulus can't work was just refuted by your cowardly refusal to address my questions.

You 100% completely incapable of addressing questions.
 
Goldenboy219 said:
Funny.

Y=C+I+G+(X-M)

If GDP = 14 trillion, consumption = 9.8 trillion, investment = 2 trillion and government = 2.5 trillion, where did the extra 500 billion come from?

Similarly, if consumption falls to 9 trillion and investment falls to 1.8 trillion, what does government spending have to be at to keep GDP from declining? Secondly, where does government get the money?



Who would argue against job growth? The tax cuts you routinely reference did not necessarily cause the amount of tax payers to double, nor did it necessarily create job growth. We do know that it caused government deficits, otherwise they would not have existed following the tax cuts. Why? Because government spending was increased!



What happens if people do not purchase domestic goods with the proceeds from tax cuts?
Click to expand...

GDP is broken down by catergory at BEA.gov.

The number of taxpayers didn't have to double to increase govt. revenue because of the trickle down effect, not only were there higher personal tax revenue but there was also higher exise and corporate income taxes. More consumers spending money created higher personal income taxes on people who had money invested in the markets as well as higher corporate profit taxes and more people driving and purchasing driving up excise taxes. Tax cuts boost economic activity and that boosts govt. revenue, your is one of pure arithmetic which creates limited economic growth and thus doesn't create more taxpayers. How do you explain the 8.5 million jobs created between 2001 and May 2008? think that economic growth didn't help create those jobs?

What people do with their own money is none of your concern, if they invest it, save it, spend it or pay down debt it helps the economy. Savings creates dividend income which is taxable as is investment income, spending creates demand and corporate profits, and paying down debt helps the individual need less govt. help.
 
Conservative said:
Your premise is false. If obama had cut taxes in the private sector theamount of his stimulus the economy woudl have exploded and we would need less book smart people to tell us all how we need more govt. spending.
Click to expand...

This is quite the heroic assumption. It requires the belief that proceeds in tax cuts are spent. Do you have any data that can show how much of Bush/Reagan tax cuts were spent? Secondly, it ignores human behavior; people who are in debt will pay down debt/increase savings with tax cut proceeds during periods of economic hardship.

Deficits are only justified during Wars but I remind you who controlled the Congress in 2007-present and during that period of time the govt. ran 5 trillion in deficits. Democrats could have stopped that spending any time they wanted but didn't,they just stepped on the gas. No President can spend a dime without Congressional authorization. By the way, where did the TARP repayment dollars go? Anyone that supports this kind of spending isn't a libertarian, you are a liberal.
Click to expand...

Again, you cannot control yourself. Deflection is a sign of weakness.

FWIW, the government received over $100 billion in TARP repayments this year, which will count against the deficit.
 
Goldenboy219 said:
FWIW, the government received over $100 billion in TARP repayments this year, which will count against the deficit.
Click to expand...

If it wasn't for AIG, we'd be on the track to showing significent profits from TARP. Not quite the return on the original Chrysler bailout in terms per dollar, but pretty sizable.
 
=Goldenboy219;1059123860]This is quite the heroic assumption. It requires the belief that proceeds in tax cuts are spent. Do you have any data that can show how much of Bush/Reagan tax cuts were spent? Secondly, it ignores human behavior; people who are in debt will pay down debt/increase savings with tax cut proceeds during periods of economic hardship.
Click to expand...

All of which help grow the economy and govt. revenue. increasing savings, investment capital all generate higher tax revenue as well as reducing demand for govt. help?



Again, you cannot control yourself. Deflection is a sign of weakness.

FWIW, the government received over $100 billion in TARP repayments this year, which will count against the deficit.
Click to expand...


Much of the TARP repayment was made in 2009 where did the money go? Fact is over 250 billion of the 500 billion in TARP has been repaid. Where is the other 200 billion authorized by Congress? Retire it!!
 
obvious Child said:
If it wasn't for AIG, we'd be on the track to showing significent profits from TARP. Not quite the return on the original Chrysler bailout in terms per dollar, but pretty sizable.
Click to expand...

TARP was a Bush program, not an Obama program. Obama took over GM and Chrysler leaving the bond holders holding the bag and helping to put suppliers out of business leaving them with accounts receivables that haven't been repaid. We haven't gotten our money back from GM/Chrysler and probably never will.
 
Conservative said:
GDP is broken down by catergory at BEA.gov.
Click to expand...

Oh Wow!

The number of taxpayers didn't have to double to increase govt. revenue because of the trickle down effect, not only were there higher personal tax revenue but there was also higher exise and corporate income taxes.
Click to expand...

That is what you stated in your question, 1 tax payer paying 1 dollar, or two tax payers paying .5 dollars.

More consumers spending money created higher personal income taxes on people who had money invested in the markets as well as higher corporate profit taxes and more people driving and purchasing driving up excise taxes. Tax cuts boost economic activity and that boosts govt. revenue, your is one of pure arithmetic which creates limited economic growth and thus doesn't create more taxpayers. How do you explain the 8.5 million jobs created between 2001 and May 2008? think that economic growth didn't help create those jobs?
Click to expand...

You are ignoring the fact that government spending increased quite dramatically during these times. Does that not stimulate growth?

What people do with their own money is none of your concern, if they invest it, save it, spend it or pay down debt it helps the economy. Savings creates dividend income which is taxable as is investment income, spending creates demand and corporate profits, and paying down debt helps the individual need less govt. help.
Click to expand...

Saving money does not create jobs or growth in the short run. Maybe in the future, but tax cuts that are not spent do not lead to economic growth.
 
Conservative said:
TARP was a Bush program, not an Obama program.
Click to expand...

Correction (as you are wrong all of the time). TARP was passed under Bush, who spent roughly half with the remaining amount and the program passing to the Obama administration. Therefore, TARP is both a Bush and Obama program.

Obama took over GM and Chrysler leaving the bond holders holding the bag and helping to put suppliers out of business leaving them with accounts receivables that haven't been repaid.
Click to expand...

Depends how you define "took over." Furthermore, the GM plan resembled the Ford plan where bond holders were left holding the bag. Furthermore, because of TARP, suppliers are still around. As you clearly again have not bothered to research or learn anything about the topics you are discussing, suppliers generally receive most of their income from one or two companies while selling small amounts to many. If GM and Chrysler went under at the same time as total net demand for vehicles in the US was declining, there would not be any firm to pick up their demand causing many suppliers to go under.

Assuming what you want to be true because you are too lazy to actually do any of the leg work often results in you lying on the floor on your back while others laughing at you. Like now.

We haven't gotten our money back from GM/Chrysler and probably never will.
Click to expand...

We are likely to make a profit on GM if dividends are declared over the period in which the government holds the stock. Chrysler is another thing entirely. Their success depends on the next models they bring out. Hard to say right now if they will repay or not.
 
Goldenboy219 said:
Oh Wow!



That is what you stated in your question, 1 tax payer paying 1 dollar, or two tax payers paying .5 dollars.



You are ignoring the fact that government spending increased quite dramatically during these times. Does that not stimulate growth?



Saving money does not create jobs or growth in the short run. Maybe in the future, but tax cuts that are not spent do not lead to economic growth.
Click to expand...

One taxpayer paying $1 or two taxpayers paying .50(FIFTY CENTS) each, sorry, forgot who I was dealing with.

in 2008 Consumption was over 10.1 trillion dollars out of a 14.3 trillion economy showing the power of the consumer and the benefits of higher take home pay thanks to the Bush tax cuts.

Saving money reduces demand on govt. services but saving money does create interest or dividends which are taxable.

You continue to spout the same rhetoric while ignoring the points made. You simply cannot admit that you are wrong and the points I have made are valid. Liberals always ignore posts that refute their rhetoric and make them look bad. Facts definitely make you look bad.
 
obvious Child said:
Correction (as you are wrong all of the time). TARP was passed under Bush, who spent roughly half with the remaining amount and the program passing to the Obama administration. Therefore, TARP is both a Bush and Obama program.



Depends how you define "took over." Furthermore, the GM plan resembled the Ford plan where bond holders were left holding the bag. Furthermore, because of TARP, suppliers are still around. As you clearly again have not bothered to research or learn anything about the topics you are discussing, suppliers generally receive most of their income from one or two companies while selling small amounts to many. If GM and Chrysler went under at the same time as total net demand for vehicles in the US was declining, there would not be any firm to pick up their demand causing many suppliers to go under.

Assuming what you want to be true because you are too lazy to actually do any of the leg work often results in you lying on the floor on your back while others laughing at you. Like now.



We are likely to make a profit on GM if dividends are declared over the period in which the government holds the stock. Chrysler is another thing entirely. Their success depends on the next models they bring out. Hard to say right now if they will repay or not.
Click to expand...

Bush signed TARP, 700 billion, Bush spent 350 billion of the money, Obama spent 150 billion and still has 200 billion to spend. Once again you are wrong.
 
Conservative said:
Bush signed TARP, 700 billion, Bush spent 350 billion of the money, Obama spent 150 billion and still has 200 billion to spend. Once again you are wrong.
Click to expand...

Do you enjoy the taste of Wrong? You must since you seem to constantly eat it.

Not counting the profits and returns on TARP, Obama spent all but $32 billion. And before you try some asinine argument, uncommitted is effectively spent as it is no longer available for any other use.

GAO Says Geithner Wrong: Only $32.6B in Uncommitted TARP - George Stephanopoulos' Bottom Line

I'd ask you to try again, but I know you're going to be wrong. As you always are.

Btw, citing Obama spending money and taking control of TARP as proof that TARP isn't an Obama plan is pretty stupid. You just called me wrong...and then proved I was correct.
 
Last edited:
obvious Child said:
Do you enjoy the taste of Wrong? You must since you seem to constantly eat it.

Not counting the profits and returns on TARP, Obama spent all but $32 billion. And before you try some asinine argument, uncommitted is effectively spent as it is no longer available for any other use.

GAO Says Geithner Wrong: Only $32.6B in Uncommitted TARP - George Stephanopoulos' Bottom Line

I'd ask you to try again, but I know you're going to be wrong. As you always are.

Btw, citing Obama spending money and taking control of TARP as proof that TARP isn't an Obama plan is pretty stupid. You just called me wrong...and then proved I was correct.
Click to expand...

Tracking the $700 Billion Bailout - The New York Times


Still believing the Obama Administration I see
 
Conservative said:
Tracking the $700 Billion Bailout - The New York Times


Still believing the Obama Administration I see
Click to expand...

Still failing to do math I see? Your own link shows that only $80 billion wasn't spent. That $150 billion includes profits and returned money (as I noted earlier and as you failed as always). Since when did $80 billion = $200 billion?

You really must enjoy the taste of fail. You so often post links disproving your own arguments.

I guess once an Obama cult follower, always a cult follower. Your article is dated April 9
Click to expand...

Still refusing to look at actual data I see. Once a partisan, always a partisan.

Again btw, citing Obama spending money and taking control of TARP as proof that TARP isn't an Obama plan is pretty stupid. You just called me wrong...and then proved I was correct.
 
obvious Child said:
Still failing to do math I see? Your own link shows that only $80 billion wasn't spent. That $150 billion includes profits and returned money (as I noted earlier and as you failed as always). Since when did $80 billion = $200 billion?

You really must enjoy the taste of fail. You so often post links disproving your own arguments.



Still refusing to look at actual data I see. Once a partisan, always a partisan.

Again btw, citing Obama spending money and taking control of TARP as proof that TARP isn't an Obama plan is pretty stupid. You just called me wrong...and then proved I was correct.
Click to expand...

Brilliant argument as usual, Bush's Administration created TARP, Bush signed TARP, left half of TARP to be spent by Obama and now it is Obama's plan because Bush left him 350 billion of which he spent 150 billion? let me remind you of what happened on Nov. 2, 2010, Obama got "shellacked" just like you with every post and here is why.

Last Four Recessions and their Durations
12/07 - 6/09 18 months
3/01 - 11/01 8 months
7/90 - 3/91 8 months
7/81 - 11/82 16 months

The recession ended in June of 2009 and since the stimulus plan was signed 4 million people more have lost their jobs and 3 trillion has been added to the debt. Apparently the public doesn't see the wonderful things Obama is doing for us. I am sure the majority in this country are wrong and you with your superior intelligence and ego are right.


BLS link, create own chart
Employment, Hours, and Earnings from the Current Employment Statistics survey (National)

BEA links GDP and Receipts/Expense
U.S. Department of Commerce. Bureau of Economic Analysis
 
Conservative said:
Brilliant argument as usual, Bush's Administration created TARP, Bush signed TARP, left half of TARP to be spent by Obama and now it is Obama's plan because Bush left him 350 billion of which he spent 150 billion? let me remind you of what happened on Nov. 2, 2010, Obama got "shellacked" just like you with every post and here is why.
Click to expand...

Not only can you not do math, but you now being exceptionally dishonest.

Notice I said it was both an Obama and Bush plan. Now notice you are LYING about what I said.

And you are now changing your argument away from how much he didn't spend rather then admit you screwed up. You may be the most immature user on this forum. Completely and wholly incapable of admitting you are wrong on anything and having to resort to complete dishonesty to avoid admitting you are wrong.

The recession ended in June of 2009 and since the stimulus plan was signed 4 million people more have lost their jobs and 3 trillion has been added to the debt. Apparently the public doesn't see the wonderful things Obama is doing for us. I am sure the majority in this country are wrong and you with your superior intelligence and ego are right.
Click to expand...

You are wrong. That has been made abundantly clear on this forum on every subject you talk about. And the biggest problem with the stimulus was that it was slow. But you are arguing that higher taxes and less aggregate demand would have resulted in lower unemployment. Adpst ran from that. I suspect you will pretend that doesn't exist either. Do you think the majority in this country would have liked to have paid more taxes without the stimulus? You do know you are arguing that tax cuts hurt the economy now?

Linear Regression. Try it some time.
 
Hmmmmm....interesting.

If only $70.1 billion of the total $700 billion in TARP funds have been returned, why are Republican/Convervatives so eager to end TARP per their own Pledge (page 5, 4th paragraph)? Why would a political party that claims to be so fiscally responsible and so protective of the tax payer's money be so willing to throw $549 billion away?
 
obvious Child said:
Not only can you not do math, but you now being exceptionally dishonest.

Notice I said it was both an Obama and Bush plan. Now notice you are LYING about what I said.

And you are now changing your argument away from how much he didn't spend rather then admit you screwed up. You may be the most immature user on this forum. Completely and wholly incapable of admitting you are wrong on anything and having to resort to complete dishonesty to avoid admitting you are wrong.



You are wrong. That has been made abundantly clear on this forum on every subject you talk about. And the biggest problem with the stimulus was that it was slow. But you are arguing that higher taxes and less aggregate demand would have resulted in lower unemployment. Adpst ran from that. I suspect you will pretend that doesn't exist either. Do you think the majority in this country would have liked to have paid more taxes without the stimulus? You do know you are arguing that tax cuts hurt the economy now?

Linear Regression. Try it some time.
Click to expand...

So because Bush left Obama 350 billion of the TARP fund that made the TARP fund both Bush and Obama's? What did Obama have to do with the creation of the program? Because he had the funds to spend doesn't make the program his, but it does make the spending his which is part of the deficit he claims he inherited. Guess that was just another lie too, inherited 1.3 trillion deficit, right?

You really are a waste of time and totally out of touch with reality. Take a look at the election results on Nov. 2 to see how the American people feel about the Obama results. Results matter in real life, OC, not your theory or rhetoric and the Obama results have been a disaster. He took over an economy that saw the recession end in June 2009 and since that recession ended had higher unemployment each month of 2010 than he had in 2009 during the recession on a month to month basis. 4 million jobs have been lost since he took office and 3 trillion has been added to the debt. Today there are over 16 million unemployed Americans thus Obama got shellacked in the elections. Keep that head buried, OC, and I look forward to seeing him kicked out on his ass in Nov. 2012 along with his entire radical leftwing economic team.

As for your tax argument that too is a waste of time. There is only one political ideology that doesn't care how much you make or pay in taxes and it isn't the liberal ideology. The only thing that matters with regards to taxes is how much is paid, not the rates. In a consumer driven economy more spendable income means higher personal income, more consumer spending, higher corporate profits, and higher excise taxes paid. It means more savings thus higher interest earned which again adds to higher taxes paid. Spending creates demand for jobs and that is what happened when Reagan and Bush both cut tax rates. Whether you believe it or not is irrelevant for all that matters are the results and the Obama results speak for themselves.
 
Objective Voice said:
Hmmmmm....interesting.

If only $70.1 billion of the total $700 billion in TARP funds have been returned, why are Republican/Convervatives so eager to end TARP per their own Pledge (page 5, 4th paragraph)? Why would a political party that claims to be so fiscally responsible and so protective of the tax payer's money be so willing to throw $549 billion away?
Click to expand...

Ending TARP doesn't mean ending the collection and payback, only preventing the remaining funds from being used. More than 70 billion has been repaid according to the Treasury Dept.

Here is the latest I can find on TARP

TARP Repayments Surpass Loans - WSJ.com
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom