• 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. Adds 195,000 Jobs; Unemployment Remains 7.6%

Ok, I made a mistake.

It was S.190 and I was refering to the bill not getting a vote in the Senate, plus it was a Senate Comittee.

HR1461 was watered down for the House Comittee's Democrats and actually added in up to 700,000 dollar jumbo loans AND it created a Slush fund AND it put off the transition for a new regulatory controller to take the reins away from HUD for a year.

Good reason for it being voted down.

Never the less S.190 was not allowed a vote because of Democrats threats of Fillibuster.

That's total bull**** as well:

Republicans love say Barney Franks and other Democrats kill the attempt to fix Fannie and Freddie by stopping The Federal Housing Enterprise Regulatory Reform Act of 2005 from coming out of committee. The bill went to the Senate Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs in 2005. At the time, the Senate Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs was controlled by the GOP. Richard Shelby (Alabama R) was the chairman and Paul S. Sarbanes was the ranking member. At that time the GOP had a two person majority over the Democrats. The Democrats publicly criticized the bill but it would have been impossible for them to kill it.

Additional Details
S. 190: Federal Housing Enterprise Regulatory Reform Act of 2005

Introduced Jan 26, 2005
Referred to Committee View Committee Assignments
Reported by Committee Jul 28, 2005
Senate Vote (did not occur)
House Vote (did not occur)
Signed by President (did not occur)


How did Democrats stop the bill to reform Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac when Republicans had the majority? - Yahoo! Answers
 
Excellent post! I especially enjoyed the analogies you used! :thumbs:

IMO, the doctor shortage is going to be a real problem very soon, considering the fact that baby boomers are retiring at a rate of 10,000 a day, straining an already fragile system! :eek:

Pre-sacktly. Imagine how many young people today would be willing to invest hundreds of thousands in education expenses towards a medical career that the government will control. Here in California, there have been recent articles indicating the Doctor compensation for a patient visit will be $12. Imagine. Unless a doctor sees about 50 patients an hour, there is no chance to pay for all the debt, office expense, insurance, staff, etc. and survive.

Not to worry they say, a Physicians Assistant will be calling those shots. Sorry, that may be fine, but that's not the same.

:shock:
 
Pre-sacktly. Imagine how many young people today would be willing to invest hundreds of thousands in education expenses towards a medical career that the government will control. Here in California, there have been recent articles indicating the Doctor compensation for a patient visit will be $12. Imagine. Unless a doctor sees about 50 patients an hour, there is no chance to pay for all the debt, office expense, insurance, staff, etc. and survive.

Not to worry they say, a Physicians Assistant will be calling those shots. Sorry, that may be fine, but that's not the same.

Odd that the same people who are in agreement with $12 an hour for a doctor visit are the same ones screaming for $12 an hour for a Wal-Mart employee. Maybe Wal-Mart personnel can be forced to help 50 people an hour, just to keep things fair? Only in America.... :argue:
 
Last edited:
And you continue to lack a basic understanding of leadership apparently believing that the 81-82 recession ended on its own without leadership.
Is this your attempt to show that 81 was worse than 08...again? It was worse because of my misunderstanding of leadership?

Does this come form that same fountain of knowledge you mentioned before....the "actual data not reported data"?


The funny thing is, you subsequently use wiki, which if I am not mistaken uses reported data.
 
Once again, maybe you think people won't read what you post. This comes from the article:
"A temporary increase in food stamps has the biggest stimulative effect"
That is correct, IN RELATION TO TAX CUTS.

And you also wrote out that SNAP was stimulus.
Yes, I did, that doesn't negate the fact that the article was a comparison of tax cuts to stimulus.


So I don't understand the backtracking at this point.
There is no backtracking, you misunderstand what the article is about.


But it doesn't matter to me.
You sure spend a lot of time on things that don't matter to you.
What matters to me my countries economic health. We had two years worth of complete loony tune leadership that set the stage for a bigger disaster than the great depression. At least the major bleeding was stopped after that.
Um, Bush was in for 8 years.

Have you considered sending the stress blurb to the White House?
Is this some twins secret language?
 
Is this your attempt to show that 81 was worse than 08...again? It was worse because of my misunderstanding of leadership?

Does this come form that same fountain of knowledge you mentioned before....the "actual data not reported data"?


The funny thing is, you subsequently use wiki, which if I am not mistaken uses reported data.

What do the textbooks tell you about high inflation, high unemployment and slow economic growth? Are you telling me that more than half the country owns a home? What is it about people like you who only buy information that you want to believe? I already know you weren't working in 81-82 in a full time job and my bet is you didn't owe a home yet for some reason you want to believe this recession was worse. Tell me how this recession hurt you and your family and I will give you horror stories, not that you care, about the 81-82 recession.

Keep running from reality for that is all you do. Are there ever any consequences for you being wrong? Actual data never puts a face or behavior to the data and simply ignores human behavior and the effects of negative conditions on that behavior. People in this recession didn't get that new pair of Air Jordan's or into that concert they wanted.
 
That is correct, IN RELATION TO TAX CUTS.

Yes, I did, that doesn't negate the fact that the article was a comparison of tax cuts to stimulus.


There is no backtracking, you misunderstand what the article is about.


You sure spend a lot of time on things that don't matter to you. Um, Bush was in for 8 years.

Is this some twins secret language?

Since tax cuts don't matter in your world are you sending the govt. a check back for yours? You have a distorted view of the 8 years of Bush and absolutely no view of the present which is right before your eyes.
 
What do the textbooks tell you about high inflation, high unemployment and slow economic growth?
I have already told you today, that in 81 they lasted for a short period of time since they were driven by oil prices. I experienced it, I studied it. I am still waiting for you to say what "actual data" instead of "reported data" you are relying on. I know you are talking about your own experience, but I see every day you forget everything from the last time we debated, so I don't know why you would depend on your memory.


Are you telling me that more than half the country owns a home?
News flash: More than half own a home, for most it is their primary asset, which lost value, which added to depressed demand. I experienced it, I studied it.


What is it about people like you who only buy information that you want to believe?
Again, you loop back to this mysterious "info" you are privy to. Spell it out, Con.


I already know you weren't working in 81-82 in a full time job and my bet is you didn't owe a home yet for some reason you want to believe this recession was worse.
Sorry, what difference does it make if I was working part time and going to college? Again, I don't base how bad each recession was just on personal experience, it is also based on study.

If it was worse for you, so be it....but not everyone shared your experience.

Tell me how this recession hurt you and your family and I will give you horror stories, not that you care, about the 81-82 recession.
Trust me, our experience in this recession was far worse, but again, my understanding of these recessions goes beyond personal experience.

Keep running from reality for that is all you do.
I'm right here, Con.


Are there ever any consequences for you being wrong?
Well I guess if most find that I am wrong then I lose credibility, but nearly all that know a lot more than I do about recessions agree that this is far worse. All of the data bears this out.


Actual data never puts a face or behavior to the data and simply ignores human behavior and the effects of negative conditions on that behavior.
There it is again.....this "actual data"....very mysterious!

People in this recession didn't get that new pair of Air Jordan's or into that concert they wanted.
And they did in '81? I have no idea what this cryptic message means.
 
Gimmesometruth;1062045556]I have already told you today, that in 81 they lasted for a short period of time since they were driven by oil prices. I experienced it, I studied it. I am still waiting for you to say what "actual data" instead of "reported data" you are relying on. I know you are talking about your own experience, but I see every day you forget everything from the last time we debated, so I don't know why you would depend on your memory.

The data is there for all to see, bea.gov, bls.gov, and the U.S. Treasury sites but doubt that any of that matters since you have no concept of leadership nor understanding as to the role of the Federal Govt. in a private sector economy


News flash: More than half own a home, for most it is their primary asset, which lost value, which added to depressed demand. I experienced it, I studied it
.

Most people who own homes didn't try to sell those homes thus lost nothing. You must live on a shoestring. Losing value isn't losing personal income or increasing your profit demand especially at low interest rates and no inflation.


Again, you loop back to this mysterious "info" you are privy to. Spell it out, Con.

Unlike you I actually employed people, invested capital into a business and looked people in the eye to see what happened with high interest rates, high inflation, and higher cost of living. Must be a foreign concept to an individual proprietor that employs no one.


Sorry, what difference does it make if I was working part time and going to college? Again, I don't base how bad each recession was just on personal experience, it is also based on study.

Makes all the difference in the world, you think you had the same profit demand of home owners? You have no idea what to base how bad a recession is until you get your talking points. Textbooks never address personal behavior and individual profit demand.

If it was worse for you, so be it....but not everyone shared your experience.

Yes, everyone experienced the same thing in the 81-82 recession unlike in this recession. You cannot grasp that reality

Trust me, our experience in this recession was far worse, but again, my understanding of these recessions goes beyond personal experience.

That is your opinion, mine differs and unlike you I understand that Obamanomics is a failure and this recession has been prolonged due to very poor leadership


Well I guess if most find that I am wrong then I lose credibility, but nearly all that know a lot more than I do about recessions agree that this is far worse. All of the data bears this out.

By exactly what standards, loss in home values? cost of living? what data bears it out, unemployment? Nope, economic growth? Interest rates? nope. You buy what you are told but have really offered nothing to support your position other than book smart liberals out of touch with reality like you are. You need to get out more and actually interact with people

There it is again.....this "actual data"....very mysterious!

The one thing data will never tell you is human behavior nor address leadership skills, two issues that are major. Reagan was a leader, Obama is an agitator

And they did in '81? I have no idea what this cryptic message means.

Of course you don't because you have no concept of human behavior including your own.
 
Where did I say that, Mr Straw?

Putting more spendable income into the hands of the 53% of families that actually pay the federal income taxes and spend that money obviously isn't as important to a liberal than giving people something to keep them dependent. we all know that the 48 million on food stamps are going to benefit the economy much more than the 146 million working Americans with more in their paychecks because of lower taxes. That is liberal logic
 
obviously isn't as important
This was where you were supposed to show that I said "tax cuts don't matter".

Just another failure from you.

And could you please admit that "actual data" = your experience.
 
That's total bull**** as well:


Republicans love say Barney Franks and other Democrats kill the attempt to fix Fannie and Freddie by stopping The Federal Housing Enterprise Regulatory Reform Act of 2005 from coming out of committee. The bill went to the Senate Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs in 2005. At the time, the Senate Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs was controlled by the GOP. Richard Shelby (Alabama R) was the chairman and Paul S. Sarbanes was the ranking member. At that time the GOP had a two person majority over the Democrats. The Democrats publicly criticized the bill but it would have been impossible for them to kill it.

Additional Details
S. 190: Federal Housing Enterprise Regulatory Reform Act of 2005

Introduced Jan 26, 2005
Referred to Committee View Committee Assignments
Reported by Committee Jul 28, 2005
Senate Vote (did not occur)
House Vote (did not occur)
Signed by President (did not occur)


How did Democrats stop the bill to reform Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac when Republicans had the majority? - Yahoo! Answers

No Bull Sh** is a liberal using Yahoo as a reference.

S. 190 passed through the Senate Commitee on party lines with a 11-9 vote but the Democrats threatened Fillibuster so it never got a vote.

Hr1460 was loaded with things like a slush fund and put off new regulatory action for a year so it was useless anyway.

Please, if your confused just say so. Barney Franks personal influence in the Sub-Prime Collapse is easily documented.

But I figure youv'e been embarassed enough already.
 
No Bull Sh** is a liberal using Yahoo as a reference.

S. 190 passed through the Senate Commitee on party lines with a 11-9 vote but the Democrats threatened Fillibuster so it never got a vote.

Hr1460 was loaded with things like a slush fund and put off new regulatory action for a year so it was useless anyway.

Please, if your confused just say so. Barney Franks personal influence in the Sub-Prime Collapse is easily documented.

But I figure youv'e been embarassed enough already.

What is quite telling is how Obama supporters want to blame the economic results today on programs from 2003-2007 while ignoring that Obama has been in office for over 4 years and could have made any changes he wanted the first two years of his term. He refused to do so and the results today are totally and completely his. Obamabots believe you can delegate responsibility and that is one of the biggest failures of any so called leader.
 
What is quite telling is how Obama
supporters want to blame the economic results today on programs from 2003-2007 while ignoring that Obama has been in office for over 4 years and could have made any changes he wanted the first two years of his term. He refused to do so and the results today are totally and completely his. Obamabots believe you can delegate responsibility and that is one of the biggest failures of any so called leader.


Yea I know, its why they fight so vehemently when the Sub-Prime debate comes up.

I've got loads of data on the Sub-Prime Collapee and if you want I can send you what I have through a PM.

Anyway, first, something that systemic, that historically destructive HAS to come from a President like Bush, even though it's well documented that Bush was trying to head the whole thing off.

For his entire Presidency he tried to impliment reform on Fannie and Freddie who were 1) out of control and 2) run by Corrupt Democrats.

So when you take that away from them, when you reveal to them that at the heart of the biggest scam in the ever loving world were DEMOCRATS, they no longer have that pathetic excuse, that blame nearly 5 years into a Presidency.
 
No Bull Sh** is a liberal using Yahoo as a reference.

S. 190 passed through the Senate Commitee on party lines with a 11-9 vote but the Democrats threatened Fillibuster so it never got a vote.

Hr1460 was loaded with things like a slush fund and put off new regulatory action for a year so it was useless anyway.

Please, if your confused just say so. Barney Franks personal influence in the Sub-Prime Collapse is easily documented.

But I figure youv'e been embarassed enough already.

If there was no vote, then chalk that one up to Republican stupidity.
 
Yea I know, its why they fight so vehemently when the Sub-Prime debate comes up.

I've got loads of data on the Sub-Prime Collapee and if you want I can send you what I have through a PM.

Anyway, first, something that systemic, that historically destructive HAS to come from a President like Bush, even though it's well documented that Bush was trying to head the whole thing off.

For his entire Presidency he tried to impliment reform on Fannie and Freddie who were 1) out of control and 2) run by Corrupt Democrats.

So when you take that away from them, when you reveal to them that at the heart of the biggest scam in the ever loving world were DEMOCRATS, they no longer have that pathetic excuse, that blame nearly 5 years into a Presidency.

Yes, would love to have it but using it in this forum just causes Obamabots to run never able to admit they are wrong. You can PM me through DP
 
There was no vote on House bills passed that are sitting in Harry Reid's desk, is that Democrat stupidity?
That's a different situation, the Republican's had control of the Senate, yet the leadership never brought S.190 to the floor, that's stupidity. I have no idea what or why Reid is not bringing them to the floor.
 
That is correct, IN RELATION TO TAX CUTS.

Yes, I did, that doesn't negate the fact that the article was a comparison of tax cuts to stimulus.


There is no backtracking, you misunderstand what the article is about.


You sure spend a lot of time on things that don't matter to you. Um, Bush was in for 8 years.

Is this some twins secret language?

This is getting a little bizarre but it's all in fun.

It would be down right criminal as lousy as our economy is in, for our elected leaders not to have every American citizen, every illegal alien, every tourist and anybody else that happen to be within our borders, not on food stamps if they were a stimulus. At the end of the day, no matter how it's figured out long term, food stamps are a drag on the economy. And if they were worth a hoot as short term stimulus, the inflationary pressure alone they would put on the price on food would more than wipe out any gains.

Back to the article, tax cuts and so forth. I'll side with this part of the article way before I'll side with some nonsense on how food stamps are better stimulus than tax cuts:
"Finally, economic researchers Andrew Mountford from the University of London and Harald Uhlig from the University of Chicago wrote in a July 2005 paper that "the best fiscal policy to stimulate the economy is a deficit-financed tax cut."

It's all in the article you posted. I completely understand what the article was about and did from the start. What I don't know is if you bothered to read all of it before posting it for all to read. Just as a reminder, Bush hasn't been the President for going on 5 years now. It's all on Obama. And it ain't good.
 
This is getting a little bizarre but it's all in fun.

It would be down right criminal as lousy as our economy is in, for our elected leaders not to have every American citizen, every illegal alien, every tourist and anybody else that happen to be within our borders, not on food stamps if they were a stimulus. At the end of the day, no matter how it's figured out long term, food stamps are a drag on the economy. And if they were worth a hoot as short term stimulus, the inflationary pressure alone they would put on the price on food would more than wipe out any gains.

Back to the article, tax cuts and so forth. I'll side with this part of the article way before I'll side with some nonsense on how food stamps are better stimulus than tax cuts:
"Finally, economic researchers Andrew Mountford from the University of London and Harald Uhlig from the University of Chicago wrote in a July 2005 paper that "the best fiscal policy to stimulate the economy is a deficit-financed tax cut."

It's all in the article you posted. I completely understand what the article was about and did from the start. What I don't know is if you bothered to read all of it before posting it for all to read. Just as a reminder, Bush hasn't been the President for going on 5 years now. It's all on Obama. And it ain't good.
No doubt some economists side with SUPPLY SIDE tax cuts.....and that was part of this Administrations policy.....but the funny thing is.....you finally got it......the article WAS A COMPARISON OF THE EFFECTIVENESS OF TAX CUTS AND BENEFITS AS STIMULUS.

FFS...how many posts did it take for you to comprehend this basic, first fact? It took what, 2 days?

Geez.
 
That's a different situation, the Republican's had control of the Senate, yet the leadership never brought S.190 to the floor, that's stupidity. I have no idea what or why Reid is not bringing them to the floor.

It takes 60 votes to pass a bill in the Senate, there were 55 Republicans.
 
No doubt some economists side with SUPPLY SIDE tax cuts.....and that was part of this Administrations policy.....but the funny thing is.....you finally got it......the article WAS A COMPARISON OF THE EFFECTIVENESS OF TAX CUTS AND BENEFITS AS STIMULUS.

FFS...how many posts did it take for you to comprehend this basic, first fact? It took what, 2 days?

Geez.

What did you do, go back and read the article for the first? That's what it looks like to me.

Next time you want to provide evidence that government spending (food stamps, whatever) is better stimulus than tax cuts don't post an article for all to see and read that doesn't agree with you.
 
Back
Top Bottom