• 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!

Breaking: Agreement has been reached on raising the debt limit....

Re: Obama: We have a deal

The president cannot truly motivate the private sector when the global economy is operating (primarily) in a deleveraging manner. There are only two choices; try to smooth consumption or allow liquidation to ravage the nation/most of the developed world.

yes the President can motivate the Private sector with his rhetoric and his policies. Demonizing individual wealth creation doesn't do that. Obama is a Community organizer, no leader and shows it in every speech. Private business isn't going to hire anyone with this individual in the WH if they don' tneed to because of demand.

Private business isn't going to pay for the liberal spending appetite but are going to try and pass costs on to their customers. That may or may not work in today's economy with 24 plus million unemployed or under employed
 
Re: Obama: We have a deal

Do you have a solution to the economic malaise that is here today, the extremely high unemployment, and the anemic GDP growth? You can shoot down everything I say but until you offer a plan of your own, you have no credibility here.

My credibility is certainly not an issue given the context of this discussion.

The solution to our current slump is a fiscal stimulus in the form of public works. Something like $500 billion dispersed in one year is guaranteed to jump-start the macro-economy.
 
Re: Obama: We have a deal

That's like saying, "thanks to beer, people having sex is at an all time high" which ignores the externalities associated with such a rate of sexual activity (or in the former case, home ownership).

I take it that your answer is that is was true. Thanks.
 
Re: Obama: We have a deal

yes the President can motivate the Private sector with his rhetoric and his policies. Demonizing individual wealth creation doesn't do that. Obama is a Community organizer, no leader and shows it in every speech. Private business isn't going to hire anyone with this individual in the WH if they don' tneed to because of demand.

Private business isn't going to pay for the liberal spending appetite but are going to try and pass costs on to their customers. That may or may not work in today's economy with 24 plus million unemployed or under employed

The revenue collected from the profits of private business represent only a fraction of the total revenue collected by government. Time lags diminish a great deal of impact any beggar-thy-neighbor tax policy can provide. Given that the majority of potential tax increases are to be aimed at high income earners, they do not increase the cost of labor. Even if they were across the board tax increases, it would impact marginal productivity (and not marginal costs) in the short run.
 
Re: Obama: We have a deal

My credibility is certainly not an issue given the context of this discussion.

The solution to our current slump is a fiscal stimulus in the form of public works. Something like $500 billion dispersed in one year is guaranteed to jump-start the macro-economy.

That is what the 800 billion stimulus was supposed to do. it was a failure
 
Re: Obama: We have a deal

I take it that your answer is that is was true. Thanks.

Your question was pointless.

You are welcome.
 
Re: Obama: We have a deal

And almost 25 million today. Is that what you hired Obama to create?
Lemme see if I am understanding your position clearly, ok?

Obama is handed the worst economy any president received since FDR took over after Hoover, under employment grows 3.3 million under Obama during his first 29 months in office, 4 million of which were lost during his first 5 months in office during Bush's Great Recession ... you call for him to leave office.

Bush inherits an economy not in recession, albeit an economy declining, and he loses 4.6 million jobs to underemployment during his first 29 months -- you voted to give him 4 more years.

That about sum it up?
 
Re: Obama: We have a deal

The revenue collected from the profits of private business represent only a fraction of the total revenue collected by government. Time lags diminish a great deal of impact any beggar-thy-neighbor tax policy can provide. Given that the majority of potential tax increases are to be aimed at high income earners, they do not increase the cost of labor. Even if they were across the board tax increases, it would impact marginal productivity (and not marginal costs) in the short run.

Right now, 47% of income earners don't pay any FIT and 24+ million unemployed and under employed Americans are paying very little as well yet your answer and the liberal answer is tax the rich? brilliant, try running your own business instead of telling others how to run theirs.
 
Re: Obama: We have a deal

and right there in the front row was Barney Frank and Chris Dodd. What was the Democrat plan for home ownership?
To let the Republicans, who were in charge, do nothing to add oversight to the GSE's
 
Re: Obama: We have a deal

Lemme see if I am understanding your position clearly, ok?

Obama is handed the worst economy any president received since FDR took over after Hoover, under employment grows 3.3 million under Obama during his first 29 months in office, 4 million of which were lost during his first 5 months in office during Bush's Great Recession ... you call for him to leave office.

Bush inherits an economy not in recession, albeit an economy declining, and he loses 4.6 million jobs to underemployment during his first 29 months -- you voted to give him 4 more years.

That about sum it up?

The worst economy any President has ever received came out of recession in June 2009 which makes it hardly the worst economy any President has inherited, Reagan's was worse. Today the GDP growth is meager at best and you keep defending Obama. You are in the 40% that still support him.
 
Re: Obama: We have a deal

That is what the 800 billion stimulus was supposed to do. it was a failure

The $800 billion stimulus was about $700 billion short on a nominal basis, and completely mis-constructed on a targeted basis. None-the-less, the derivative of stimulus spending proves that fiscal policy can smooth consumption throughout a business cycle.
 
Re: Obama: We have a deal

Your question was pointless.

You are welcome.

If my question was pointless, then wouldn't that make your posting of the comment pointless?
 
Re: Obama: We have a deal

To let the Republicans, who were in charge, do nothing to add oversight to the GSE's

What did the Democrats do with oversight and what was the Democrat Plan on home ownership? Selective memory as usual
 
Re: Obama: We have a deal

The $800 billion stimulus was about $700 billion short on a nominal basis, and completely mis-constructed on a targeted basis. None-the-less, the derivative of stimulus spending proves that fiscal policy can smooth consumption throughout a business cycle.

Obama had a blank check, he got what he wanted. It couldn't have anything to do with the misuse of those funds, could it? Bailing out unions and state contracts along with targeted tax cuts don't sound like shovel ready jobs to me.
 
Re: Obama: We have a deal

Reagan's was worse.

No it was not. A fed manufactured recession is peanuts compared to one in which trillions of dollars in global monetary stimulus is powerless to counteract.
 
Re: Obama: We have a deal

I confess that there are many things about which I am ignorant and one is home ownership in 2004. Sheik, when President Bush said this in 2004, was this statement true or false?
You calling Bush a liar? Can't fully disagree with you there, but anyway, this one appears to be true ...
Bush Minority Homeownership Plan Rests Heavily on Fannie and Freddie

When President Bush announced his Minority Homeownership plans last week in Atlanta, his top priorities were new federal programs: a $2.4 billion tax credit to facilitate home purchases by lower-income first-time buyers, and a $200 million national downpayment grant fund.

But none of the new federal programs--if passed by Congress--will come even close to achieving the 5.5 million-household increase in minority homeownership the President set as his target.

Instead, most of the heavy lifting was assigned to two mortgage market players that have sometimes come under fire from Bush administration officials and Congressional Republicans: Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

Fannie's and Freddie's commitments are the bedrock core of the President's ambitious plans--but didn't get the headlines. Fannie Mae agreed to increase its already substantial lending efforts to minority families by targeting another $260 billion of mortgage purchases to them during the next nine years. Freddie Mac agreed to buy an additional $180 billion in minority-household home loans during the same period.

Besides its $180 billion mortgage purchase commitment, Freddie Mac gave President Bush a promise to implement a 25-point program aimed at increasing minority homeownership. Some of the points were cutting-edge. For example, as part of an effort to remove the fear of financial loss from first-time minority home buyers, Freddie committed itself to "explor(e) the viability of equity assurance products to protect home values in economically distressed areas."

Pressed for details on "equity assurance" by RealtyTimes, Freddie Mac vice president Craig S. Nickerson said the idea is still at an embryonic stage, but might involve limited guarantees or insurance coverage to protect buyers from the possibility of loss of their initial equity stakes should property values in their neighborhoods decline.
 
Re: Obama: We have a deal

Talk to Goldenboy, what do you expect when you spend over a trillion dollars of taxpayer money? Good lord, Man, it is .4% and 1.3% now shows how he really motivated the private sector and how the stimulus failed.
How do you figure the stimulus failed given it was intended to carry us through the end of 2010?

Not to mention how according to your numbers, the stimulus surpassed its key goal of saving/creating 3.5 million jobs by then.
 
Re: Obama: We have a deal

No it was not. A fed manufactured recession is peanuts compared to one in which trillions of dollars in global monetary stimulus is powerless to counteract.

Which is what made it worse, record high interest rates and high inflation plus rising unemployment. That was worse for the American people than what we we faced in 2008. I lived and worked during the 81 recession, did you?
 
Re: Obama: We have a deal

How do you figure the stimulus failed given it was intended to carry us through the end of 2010?

Not to mention how according to your numbers, the stimulus surpassed its key goal of saving/creating 3.5 million jobs by then.

Look at the economic growth today, you call that a success? Only the 40% that continue to support Obama believe it was a success

My numbers? LOL, dilusional, CBO numbers not mine and CBO only scores what they are given thus that was what they were given by Obama
 
Re: Obama: We have a deal

You calling Bush a liar? Can't fully disagree with you there, but anyway, this one appears to be true ...


I realize that you think you are just being cute, but we would not want truth to be lost in your cuteness. I never said that Bush was or was not lying. I asked the person to tell me if it was. Again, there are many things about which I do not know and I need other people to help me out. He did and now you have. I thank both of you.
 
Re: Obama: We have a deal

Obama had a blank check, he got what he wanted.

Your are incorrect. If you have the means to prove this statement, then by all means be my guest.

It couldn't have anything to do with the misuse of those funds, could it? Bailing out unions and state contracts along with targeted tax cuts don't sound like shovel ready jobs to me.

A take from early 2009:

The starting point for this discussion is Okun’s Law, the relationship between changes in real GDP and changes in the unemployment rate. Estimates of the Okun’s Law coefficient range from 2 to 3. I’ll use 2, which is an optimistic estimate for current purposes: it says that you have to raise real GDP by 2 percent from what it would otherwise have been to reduce the unemployment rate 1 percentage point from what it would otherwise have been. Since GDP is roughly $15 trillion, this means that you have to raise GDP by $300 billion per year to reduce unemployment by 1 percentage point.

Now, what we’re hearing about the Obama plan is that it calls for $775 billion over two years, with $300 billion in tax cuts and the rest in spending. Call that $150 billion per year in tax cuts, $240 billion each year in spending.

How much do tax cuts and spending raise GDP? The widely cited estimates of Mark Zandi of Economy.com indicate a multiplier of around 1.5 for spending, with widely varying estimates for tax cuts. Payroll tax cuts, which make up about half the Obama proposal, are pretty good, with a multiplier of 1.29; business tax cuts, which make up the rest, are much less effective.

In particular, letting businesses get refunds on past taxes based on current losses, which is reportedly a key feature of the plan, looks an awful lot like a lump-sum transfer with no incentive effects.

Let’s be generous and assume that the overall multiplier on tax cuts is 1. Then the per-year effect of the plan on GDP is 150 x 1 + 240 x 1.5 = $510 billion. Since it takes $300 billion to reduce the unemployment rate by 1 percentage point, this is shaving 1.7 points off what unemployment would otherwise have been.

Finally, compare this with the economic outlook. “Full employment” clearly means an unemployment rate near 5 — the CBO says 5.2 for the NAIRU, which seems high to me. Unemployment is currently about 7 percent, and heading much higher; Obama himself says that absent stimulus it could go into double digits. Suppose that we’re looking at an economy that, absent stimulus, would have an average unemployment rate of 9 percent over the next two years; this plan would cut that to 7.3 percent, which would be a help but could easily be spun by critics as a failure.

And that gets us to politics. This really does look like a plan that falls well short of what advocates of strong stimulus were hoping for — and it seems as if that was done in order to win Republican votes. Yet even if the plan gets the hoped-for 80 votes in the Senate, which seems doubtful, responsibility for the plan’s perceived failure, if it’s spun that way, will be placed on Democrats.

I will post the source in a little bit.
 
Re: Obama: We have a deal

You calling Bush a liar? Can't fully disagree with you there, but anyway, this one appears to be true ...
Bush Minority Homeownership Plan Rests Heavily on Fannie and Freddie

When President Bush announced his Minority Homeownership plans last week in Atlanta, his top priorities were new federal programs: a $2.4 billion tax credit to facilitate home purchases by lower-income first-time buyers, and a $200 million national downpayment grant fund.

But none of the new federal programs--if passed by Congress--will come even close to achieving the 5.5 million-household increase in minority homeownership the President set as his target.

Instead, most of the heavy lifting was assigned to two mortgage market players that have sometimes come under fire from Bush administration officials and Congressional Republicans: Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

Fannie's and Freddie's commitments are the bedrock core of the President's ambitious plans--but didn't get the headlines. Fannie Mae agreed to increase its already substantial lending efforts to minority families by targeting another $260 billion of mortgage purchases to them during the next nine years. Freddie Mac agreed to buy an additional $180 billion in minority-household home loans during the same period.

Besides its $180 billion mortgage purchase commitment, Freddie Mac gave President Bush a promise to implement a 25-point program aimed at increasing minority homeownership. Some of the points were cutting-edge. For example, as part of an effort to remove the fear of financial loss from first-time minority home buyers, Freddie committed itself to "explor(e) the viability of equity assurance products to protect home values in economically distressed areas."

Pressed for details on "equity assurance" by RealtyTimes, Freddie Mac vice president Craig S. Nickerson said the idea is still at an embryonic stage, but might involve limited guarantees or insurance coverage to protect buyers from the possibility of loss of their initial equity stakes should property values in their neighborhoods decline.

I don't see the Democrat position on Home ownership. What are you afraid of?
 
Re: Obama: We have a deal

Your are incorrect. If you have the means to prove this statement, then by all means be my guest.



A take from early 2009:



I will post the source in a little bit.

Another intellectual book smart street stupid statement. obama got a 800 billion dollar stimulus for shovel ready jobs and tax reform. What did he do with the money?

Here are the Obama tax cuts


Total: $237 billion
• $116 billion: New payroll tax credit of $400 per worker and $800 per couple in 2009 and 2010. Phaseout begins at $75,000 for individuals and $150,000 for joint filers.[29]
• $70 billion: Alternative minimum tax: a one year increase in AMT floor to $70,950 for joint filers for 2009.[29]
• $15 billion: Expansion of child tax credit: A $1,000 credit to more families (even those that do not make enough money to pay income taxes).
• $14 billion: Expanded college credit to provide a $2,500 expanded tax credit for college tuition and related expenses for 2009 and 2010. The credit is phased out for couples making more than $160,000.
• $6.6 billion: Homebuyer credit: $8,000 refundable credit for all homes bought between 1/1/2009 and 12/1/2009 and repayment provision repealed for homes purchased in 2009 and held more than three years. This only applies to first-time homebuyers.[41]
• $4.7 billion: Excluding from taxation the first $2,400 a person receives in unemployment compensation benefits in 2009.
• $4.7 billion: Expanded earned income tax credit to increase the earned income tax credit — which provides money to low income workers — for families with at least three children.
• $4.3 billion: Home energy credit to provide an expanded credit to homeowners who make their homes more energy-efficient in 2009 and 2010. Homeowners could recoup 30 percent of the cost up to $1,500 of numerous projects, such as installing energy-efficient windows, doors, furnaces and air conditioners.
• $1.7 billion: for deduction of sales tax from car purchases, not interest payments phased out for incomes above $250,000.
 
Last edited:
Re: Obama: We have a deal

Which is what made it worse, record high interest rates and high inflation plus rising unemployment. That was worse for the American people than what we we faced in 2008. I lived and worked during the 81 recession, did you?

The Bush Recession is much worse than the Reagan Recession. No serious economist will argue that.
 
Re: Obama: We have a deal

The worst economy any President has ever received came out of recession in June 2009 which makes it hardly the worst economy any President has inherited, Reagan's was worse. Today the GDP growth is meager at best and you keep defending Obama. You are in the 40% that still support him.
Reagan's recession began well into his first year in office -- that is not a recession inherited. In fact, his was manufactured to combat inflation.

Whereas Obama who truly did inherit a recession, which resulted in 12 million additional underemployed, bringing the total to 26 million underemployed; GDP falling 5.1%, 9% in Q4-2008 and a stock market which lost more than half it's valuation.
 
Back
Top Bottom