• 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!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Romney will end the job loss? Set the economy back on track? Seriously?

NAKED N00B said:
Private sector jobs have increased because of economic growth. However, growth is weak. To see stronger growth and better private sector employment numbers, the government must step in. Claiming that the government should step in and hire people is not bogus, it's basic economics.
Click to expand...

That is incorrect - the government expansion is why growth is weak. Having the government expand further would damage the private sector worse.
 
cpwill said:
That is incorrect - the government expansion is why growth is weak. Having the government expand further would damage the private sector worse.
Click to expand...

That's only the case when the private sector and public sector are competing for resources. Right now any fiscal expansion of the public sector is putting to use idle resources, whether that is idle capital, unemployed workers, etc. There is no crowding out occurring.
 
NAKED N00B said:
That's only the case when the private sector and public sector are competing for resources. Right now any fiscal expansion of the public sector is putting to use idle resources, whether that is idle capital, unemployed workers, etc. There is no crowding out occurring.
Click to expand...

If that were the case, then we wouldn't need the Fed to be purchasing T-Bills.
 
cpwill said:
No one ever said they couldn't. It's simply worth noting that public expenditure does not mean increased private sector jobs, that private sector jobs have increased while public sector jobs have decreased, and that public sector jobs have increased while private sector jobs have decreased. The claim that we would be just fine if only we would hire a bunch more public union members is bogus.
Click to expand...

The claim that unemployment would be under 7% if public sector hiring kept up with private sector hiring is absolutely true. No way to put lipstick on that pig.

But conservatives whine about government being too big, and then they whine because unemployment rises when government gets smaller.... Go figure.
 
cpwill said:
woops?
Click to expand...
Exactly how does that chart address my comment or apply to the conversation. The topic was out sourcing govt jobs, the laying off of domestic fed workers. How would that not cause a rise in unemployment....especially now when private employment cannot keep up with govt layoffs, particularly with local and state govt layoffs?
 
Gimmesometruth said:
Exactly how does that chart address my comment or apply to the conversation. The topic was out sourcing govt jobs, the laying off of domestic fed workers. How would that not cause a rise in unemployment....especially now when private employment cannot keep up with govt layoffs, particularly with local and state govt layoffs?
Click to expand...

Possibly he's making a distinction between off shoring (what you mean) and outsourcing (what you're saying).
 
cpwill said:
If that were the case, then we wouldn't need the Fed to be purchasing T-Bills.
Click to expand...
The fed is not purchasing Tnotes to counter the lack of private investment dollars.....we have no lack of private dollars, corporations still have a lot of cash on hand.
 
AdamT said:
Possibly he's making a distinction between off shoring (what you mean) and outsourcing (what you're saying).
Click to expand...
Ah...yep, my misread.

Of course, the other counter is that outsourcing does not have a good track record on reducing costs to govt.
 
Smeagol said:
IMHO there are pros and cons. The pros are it saves the government and by extension the tax-payers money. On the other hand if you outsource jobs to India, which is what Gov. Romney did, that means Americans who needs jobs are being undercut by their own elected officials.

In India getting $10,000 a year job answering phones is balling. The President of India's salary is about $35,000 a year. President and Vice President of India Salary | Maratechnology.com

I don't want to get too much on a tangent but things costs way more in the US than in the third world. I have a friend who was looking into buy a vacation home in South Africa, where his ex-wife is from. A really nice middle-class home in South Africa is about $20,000. Something on par with a $150k home in America. Right now the world is in the middle of transitioning to a more global economy. Americans are at a disadvantage because the cost of living in America is exponentially higher than the cost of living in other parts of the world where we are now competing in the global job market. As it relates to government workers, we have IMHO 2 approaches. We can save the tax-payers as much as possible and see civil servant employees as financial liabilities who are expendable. Alternately we can prioritize the US employment situation and use American workers even at a higher cost with the understanding that when they get paid they will shop at local businesses, pay their mortgages, buy cars and contribute to the overall financial health of the domestic economy. Meanwhile we patiently wait for the US cost of living to decline, housing costs to drop, etc. while the third world cost of living increases and we're all living an an economy where $20,000 a year is a decent salary to live on.

The rich who own stock portfolios are going to be REALLY paid. President Bush's idea to transition to stock holdings from Social Security was the best plan ever to help average Americans to be among with world's wealthy but the Democrats ruined that opportunity. Revelation 6:6
Click to expand...

Do you know that the San Francisco / Oakland bay bridge was outsoursed to China, Pelosi's home town. This saved the state over 400 million. So much for your elected officials undercutting American jobs. And one more thing, we send 500 billion to Oil Lords every yr, how about bringing all the money and jobs back home to American workers. So much for your elected officials undercutting American jobs.

Oakland Bay Bridge Built in China | Economy In Crisis

Oh and how much was the stimulus outsourced by Obama

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...n-outsourcing/2012/06/27/gJQAkoim6V_blog.html
 
Last edited:
Born Free said:
Do you know that the San Francisco / Oakland bay bridge was outsoursed to China, Pelosi's home town. This saved the state over 400 million. So much for your elected officials undercutting American jobs. And one more thing, we send 500 billion to Oil Lords every yr, how about bringing all the money and jobs back home to American workers. So much for your elected officials undercutting American jobs.

Oakland Bay Bridge Built in China | Economy In Crisis

Oh and how much was the stimulus outsourced by Obama

Romney finally punches back on outsourcing - Right Turn - The Washington Post
Click to expand...

According to the NYT, the bridge is being built with no federal funding because the state wanted to avoid the federal Buy America requirements ... so you can't lay it off on Pelosi. http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/26/business/global/26bridge.html?pagewanted=all
 
NAKED N00B said:
Private sector jobs have increased because of economic growth. However, growth is weak. To see stronger growth and better private sector employment numbers, the government must step in. Claiming that the government should step in and hire people is not bogus, it's basic economics.
Click to expand...
I can see where the N00B aspect comes in...

Can I ask a quick question? When the government steps in, are people more or less reliant on the government to solve their problems?

Think of it in these terms... a duck pond... When people feed the ducks, do the ducks learn to find their own food, or do they become dependent on people for food?

Why do you think it is that most duck ponds these days discourage people from feeding the ducks? It's because ducks have become too reliant on human's feeding them, that they aren't following their normal migrations, and they're staying through the winters, then dying off through the cold and diseases. They also arent getting the nutrition they would from their natural diet to help fight off those diseases even in warm seasons.

If growth is weak, and the government steps in, companies become reliant on the funding from the government... when the funding ends, most of those who were reliant on that money collapse... and few survive in the free market... Instead of finding ways to be profitable, companies are finding ways to survive off government funds, and continuing to follow inefficient and unprosperous methods.

Now, instead... what the Government could do, would be to strengthen the free market... by making it easier for companies who are in the free market to grow, such as cutting corporate tax rates... lowering insurance penalties... eliminating the payroll tax... etc. Those things would lead to more capital available and drop the costs of labor for companies (often the largest expense for most companies, which is why massive layoffs are usually the first cost cutting measure)... All that together would lessen the concern for new hires for companies... You couldn't require massive hiring from the companies, but you could no doubt expect companies to bring on employees when the costs of doing so are lessened, and you free up capital for doing so...

So rather than stepping in... what the government could do is lessen restrictions on the game... making it easier for everyone to play...
 
Last edited:
IndepCentristMA said:
If growth is weak, and the government steps in, companies become reliant on the funding from the government... when the funding ends, most of those who were reliant on that money collapse... and few survive in the free market... Instead of finding ways to be profitable, companies are finding ways to survive off government funds, and continuing to follow inefficient and unprosperous methods.
Click to expand...
N00B wasn't making an argument for permanent govt stimulus after an economic crisis, only during, to make up for decreased private market input. It is a dynamic model, not static.
 
Both the left and the right are obviously in favor of in- and out- sourcing American jobs to wage-slaves, as neither has done anything to stop it and both want America to be more immersed in the global economy.

Both Obama and Romney are equally bad in that regard, Obama from his Multi-Cultural Internationalist social perspective and Romney from his Corporate Global Expansionist fiscal-economic perspective.

Once again, Americans do not at all have anything approaching a good choice in November from the standpoint of being .. an American.
 
Gimmesometruth said:
N00B wasn't making an argument for permanent govt stimulus after an economic crisis, only during, to make up for decreased private market input. It is a dynamic model, not static.
Click to expand...

And yet, you support massive tax increases where capital is taken out of the private market and put in government hands...

The market recovered in 2009... in Q2 of 09 to be specific (which is about a month after the stimulus was signed and right before the auto buyout occured)...

There's no need for government involvement... what the government needs to do is to step out of the way and let business recover on it's own... take the cast off and let it start some physical therapy... it's gonna hurt a little, but the more it excercises it out on its own... the better it's gonna be in the long run... much better than if it constantly has to lean on the government as a crutch...
 
IndepCentristMA said:
And yet, you support massive tax increases where capital is taken out of the private market and put in government hands...

The market recovered in 2009... in Q2 of 09 to be specific (which is about a month after the stimulus was signed and right before the auto buyout occured)...

There's no need for government involvement... what the government needs to do is to step out of the way and let business recover on it's own... take the cast off and let it start some physical therapy... it's gonna hurt a little, but the more it excercises it out on its own... the better it's gonna be in the long run... much better than if it constantly has to lean on the government as a crutch...
Click to expand...
What crutch are you referring to? What government measures currently in place do you blame for artificially propping up economic activity? I hear this same theory tossed around often and is usually backed by vague pseudo moral arguments in lieu of specific policies.
 
IndepCentristMA said:
And yet, you support massive tax increases where capital is taken out of the private market and put in government hands...
Click to expand...
Massive? As in 3.75% increase for the top margin, is that the massive rate change you are talking about?

Yeah..."massive".



The market recovered in 2009... in Q2 of 09 to be specific (which is about a month after the stimulus was signed and right before the auto buyout occured)...
Click to expand...
Which "market"? Job market? Nope. The GDP? Not really since we are still below past projections. Which "market" ICMA?

There's no need for government involvement... what the government needs to do is to step out of the way and let business recover on it's own... take the cast off and let it start some physical therapy... it's gonna hurt a little, but the more it excercises it out on its own... the better it's gonna be in the long run... much better than if it constantly has to lean on the government as a crutch...
Click to expand...
There you go again, inserting static, permanent in place of temporary.

You recognized the need for TARP, the govt propping up the banking industry, yet you can't see the need for govt doing the same for the unemployed or for the general economy in an economic downturn.
 
Last edited:
Hare said:
What crutch are you referring to? What government measures currently in place do you blame for artificially propping up economic activity? I hear this same theory tossed around often and is usually backed by vague pseudo moral arguments in lieu of specific policies.
Click to expand...

Oh, IDK... Let's see... the $800B of ARRA, the $600B out of $700B set aside for TARP, the $100B/yr of ObamaCare (and the penalties it puts on companies), Medicare Part D, and massive amounts of pork spending, etc. which have all contributed to the $1T increase in spending since 2007... The other big concern is the massive increase in the entitlement programs... and how it threatens to bankrupt us as a nation if they aren't restructured. Then there's the massive across the board tax hike if the Bush Tax Cuts expire...

The steps to remedy this being...

Cut Spending
- Cut spending to optional governmentally subsidized programs
- Remove all the unecessary pork barrel projects
- Consolidate departments to cut out government waste
- Let all the spending increases from ARRA expire
etc.

Relax and Simplify the tax code
- Keep the individual current tax rates where they are for the time being, then if the economy takes off, move to a more simplified 15%-25%-35% tax code as the debt is paid off, then once the debt is under control, go to a flat tax of around 15%
- Relax the 35% corporate tax rate to 25% (or lower... 15% is doing just fine in most places that are developing)
- Reduce/Remove the 25% capital gains tax (which hampers small business growth, and increases in personal wealth for working middle-class families)
- Remove the tax on repatriation of income from overseas
- Remove the payroll tax
- Remove the healthcare mandate penalty for companies
- Eliminate most of the needless tax breaks and loopholes
etc.

Restructure the Entitlement Programs
- Eliminate ObamaCare & Medicare Part D
- Major Welfare Reform, where community service is required for receiving unemployment benefits, food stamps, etc. Work requirements are stiffened and people aren't penalized by having their benefits removed entirely for getting work but are able to work with assistance for a short time while getting on their feet, etc.
- Reduce the extension of unemployment benefits
- Restructure Social Security, allowing privatization to those who elect to do so...
- Restructure Medicaid/Medicare/Healthcare Payouts to the states into a better nationalized healthcare assistance system
etc.

I'm sure there are others, too, if I thought about it for more than 10 mins... like the government restrictions on land use for fracking, etc.

But, the one most likely to pursue these types of policies is Mitt Romney... not Obama...

Obama's policies (and continuation of existing policies) aren't working...
 
IndepCentristMA said:
Oh, IDK... Let's see... the $800B of ARRA, the $600B out of $700B set aside for TARP, the $100B/yr of ObamaCare (and the penalties it puts on companies), Medicare Part D, and massive amounts of pork spending, etc. which have all contributed to the $1T increase in spending since 2007... The other big concern is the massive increase in the entitlement programs... and how it threatens to bankrupt us as a nation if they aren't restructured. Then there's the massive across the board tax hike if the Bush Tax Cuts expire...
Click to expand...
Edited for brevity seeing as the rest of your post has precisely zero correlation to my query. Anywho.. The vast majority of the effects stemming from TARP and the ARRA have come and gone, so that claim is not well founded. As to the rest of your paragraph, perhaps you could enlighten us as to how Medicare Part D, potential tax increases (This one is especially puzzling), Obamacare, or entitlement deficits are acting as artificial stimuli?
 
Hare said:
Edited for brevity seeing as the rest of your post has precisely zero correlation to my query. Anywho.. The vast majority of the effects stemming from TARP and the ARRA have come and gone, so that claim is not well founded. As to the rest of your paragraph, perhaps you could enlighten us as to how Medicare Part D, potential tax increases (This one is especially puzzling), Obamacare, or entitlement deficits are acting as artificial stimuli?
Click to expand...
Especially since Med Part D was a GOP program for increasing the profits of big pharma, that ICMA has been enlightened about multiple times before.
 
IndepCentristMA said:
I can see where the N00B aspect comes in...

Can I ask a quick question? When the government steps in, are people more or less reliant on the government to solve their problems?

Think of it in these terms... a duck pond... When people feed the ducks, do the ducks learn to find their own food, or do they become dependent on people for food?

Why do you think it is that most duck ponds these days discourage people from feeding the ducks? It's because ducks have become too reliant on human's feeding them, that they aren't following their normal migrations, and they're staying through the winters, then dying off through the cold and diseases. They also arent getting the nutrition they would from their natural diet to help fight off those diseases even in warm seasons.

If growth is weak, and the government steps in, companies become reliant on the funding from the government... when the funding ends, most of those who were reliant on that money collapse... and few survive in the free market... Instead of finding ways to be profitable, companies are finding ways to survive off government funds, and continuing to follow inefficient and unprosperous methods.

Now, instead... what the Government could do, would be to strengthen the free market... by making it easier for companies who are in the free market to grow, such as cutting corporate tax rates... lowering insurance penalties... eliminating the payroll tax... etc. Those things would lead to more capital available and drop the costs of labor for companies (often the largest expense for most companies, which is why massive layoffs are usually the first cost cutting measure)... All that together would lessen the concern for new hires for companies... You couldn't require massive hiring from the companies, but you could no doubt expect companies to bring on employees when the costs of doing so are lessened, and you free up capital for doing so...

So rather than stepping in... what the government could do is lessen restrictions on the game... making it easier for everyone to play...
Click to expand...

If only your version of the world matched reality.

Did government stimulation during the Great Depression and WWII lead to massive complacency and reliance in the post war period? Because that's not how the world works.

The private sector is more efficient and will always be the driver of the economy. However, the private sector is not perfect. One of the main roles of government should be to maximize the effectiveness of the private sector. That means when we're in the midst of a massive bust, government boosts aggregate demand until we reach a situation of full employment. It's at that point, where employment is full and there are no longer significant idle resources, that government becomes a hindrance. When it starts competing with the private sector for resources. Then it should cut back on programs, run a surplus, perhaps raise taxes, etc. But not until that point.

The private sector needs help maximizing its effectiveness. That doesn't mean that these measures breed complacent and weak citizens. That's an unintelligent idea driven purely by ideology rather than reality.
 
OnWisconsin said:
Obama has been adding jobs since 2009. Where is this ridiculous "losing jobs" talking point coming from?

U.S. Job Creation Index Highest Since September 2008
Click to expand...

Obama is still at a net loss of jobs for his entire presidency. You're acting like he's waving a magic wand and creating job growth. GDP growth has been 1.7% and is projected to slow down even more to 1%. Unemployment is going back up. Obama blew through 5 trillion and projected 1% GDP and 8.2+% unemployment averaged over the course of his presidency. The only thing Obama has added is misery and destruction. Any jobs being created in what's left of the Free Market are in spite of Obama's destructive economic policies.
 
NAKED N00B said:
If only your version of the world matched reality.

Did government stimulation during the Great Depression and WWII lead to massive complacency and reliance in the post war period? Because that's not how the world works.

The private sector is more efficient and will always be the driver of the economy. However, the private sector is not perfect. One of the main roles of government should be to maximize the effectiveness of the private sector. That means when we're in the midst of a massive bust, government boosts aggregate demand until we reach a situation of full employment. It's at that point, where employment is full and there are no longer significant idle resources, that government becomes a hindrance. When it starts competing with the private sector for resources. Then it should cut back on programs, run a surplus, perhaps raise taxes, etc. But not until that point.

The private sector needs help maximizing its effectiveness. That doesn't mean that these measures breed complacent and weak citizens. That's an unintelligent idea driven purely by ideology rather than reality.
Click to expand...

Whole lot of Keynesian fail in your post. Government isn't efficient. There is no accountability in terms of efficiency with the way it allocates other people's resources, yet right on cue a liberal claims that Centralized Authority over a Free Economy, where millions of millions of spontaneous transactions are taking place, will somehow make it more efficient. Unbelievable. No wonder 53% of college graduates under 25 can't get a job in Obama's Economy. They are being taught nonsense disguised as economics.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom