• 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!

Economy adds 192,000 jobs; unemployment rate holds steady at 6.7%

Less than GM.

The point is that higher paying employers create a better economy than lower paying employers.

How many employees on the assembly line in a GM plant have a chance to manage their own store or even become part of management? Wal-Mart promotes from within, something liberals don't seem to understand
 
You seem to believe what you are told. Do you know what the average salary is for a Wal-Mart employee and that they promote from within? Do you understand the benefits that the full time employees are offered and what their turn over rate is? Don't you think that if their pay and benefits were so bad that they would have thousands trying to get employment everytime a store opens up?

i have known several walmart employees. they were treated and paid like ****. not only that, but the complete lack of control over schedule made me mad enough that i don't shop there unless i absolutely have to. i would love to see the workers organize.

Supply side is the only economic policy that makes any sense. What you don't seem to understand is that we have a 3.8 trillion dollar govt. with a 17.3 trillion dollar debt which costs us over 250 billion a year in debt service as part of the budget. Your outrage is focused on the wrong entity and should be on that massive central govt. that is being created. You think ACA, Minimum wage increases, regulations, higher taxes, postponing the Keystone Pipeline help create jobs?

i don't consider the ACA a good solution, i don't think minimum wage increases will do much of anything (though i would tie MW to inflation,) and i don't GAF about Keystone. sure, build it. i also don't support carbon taxes, as they are regressive. there should be a NASA style moonshot to replace oil, though, because it is a finite resource, a dirty technology, and it requires us to give money and be beholden to tinpot dictators and other assholes even if we produce more of our own oil.

with regard to the tax rates, it really doesn't matter the rates but rather the percentage being paid and the fact that about 50% of income earning Americans don't pay any FIT. I don't support another dime going to the Federal Govt. until they cut the size back where it belongs, closer to 1.6 trillion dollars.

i support cutting the corporate rate below Europe, and collect it from both the big corporations and the small ones. i would raise all marginal rates back to 1990s levels, not just the rich. also, i would tax investment income as income above a cap. i'm negotiable about where to set that cap.
 
How many employees on the assembly line in a GM plant have a chance to manage their own store or even become part of management? Wal-Mart promotes from within, something liberals don't seem to understand

Probably a lot, but I'm not an expert in the internal promotion policies of GM. So you think that GM wouldn't promote a line worker to department supervisor, or a department supervisor to shift superintendent, or a shift superintendent to operations manager, or a operations manager to plant manager or a plant manager to a VP spot, or a vp to a CEO?
 
i have known several walmart employees. they were treated and paid like ****. not only that, but the complete lack of control over schedule made me mad enough that i don't shop there unless i absolutely have to. i would love to see the workers organize.



i don't consider the ACA a good solution, i don't think minimum wage increases will do much of anything (though i would tie MW to inflation,) and i don't GAF about Keystone. sure, build it. i also don't support carbon taxes, as they are regressive. there should be a NASA style moonshot to replace oil, though, because it is a finite resource, a dirty technology, and it requires us to give money and be beholden to tinpot dictators and other assholes even if we produce more of our own oil.



i support cutting the corporate rate below Europe, and collect it from both the big corporations and the small ones. i would raise all marginal rates back to 1990s levels, not just the rich. also, i would tax investment income as income above a cap. i'm negotiable about where to set that cap.


Why would anyone support more money going to a fat, bloated 3.8 trillion dollar Federal Govt? Until the govt. accounts for the trillions that go to it each year not another dime in taxes

I competed against Wal-Mart and you are talking about a few disgruntled employees. Overall they do well with their people including most promotions from inside not the outside. Their pay isn't nearly as bad as you and others are led to believe. I have their pay structure and the percentage they promote from within.

As for unions, they have outlived their usefulness decades ago and need to go the way of the dinosaur. We have laws to protect the workers and don't need a bloated union management all making well in excess of 6 digits to do what the laws do
 
Probably a lot, but I'm not an expert in the internal promotion policies of GM. So you think that GM wouldn't promote a line worker to department supervisor, or a department supervisor to shift superintendent, or a shift superintendent to operations manager, or a operations manager to plant manager or a plant manager to a VP spot, or a vp to a CEO?

GM is controlled by the unions and unions stifle individuality and growth opportunities. Unions now control about 11% of the work force, gee, wonder why?
 
GM is controlled by the unions and unions stifle individuality and growth opportunities. Unions now control about 11% of the work force, gee, wonder why?

So you are saying that unions prevent promotion from within? I wasn't aware of that. It would seem like unions would strive to achieve promotion from within, rather than requiring that companies hire outsiders who are potentially not union members.
 
I competed against Wal-Mart and you are talking about a few disgruntled employees. Overall they do well with their people including most promotions from inside not the outside. Their pay isn't nearly as bad as you and others are led to believe. I have their pay structure and the percentage they promote from within.

Got it. You would rather have to compete with GM for employees than Walmart.
 
Why would anyone support more money going to a fat, bloated 3.8 trillion dollar Federal Govt? Until the govt. accounts for the trillions that go to it each year not another dime in taxes

I competed against Wal-Mart and you are talking about a few disgruntled employees. Overall they do well with their people including most promotions from inside not the outside. Their pay isn't nearly as bad as you and others are led to believe. I have their pay structure and the percentage they promote from within.

As for unions, they have outlived their usefulness decades ago and need to go the way of the dinosaur. We have laws to protect the workers and don't need a bloated union management all making well in excess of 6 digits to do what the laws do

our disagreement is so complete that further discussion will bear no fruit. have a good one.
 
So you are saying that unions prevent promotion from within? I wasn't aware of that. It would seem like unions would strive to achieve promotion from within, rather than requiring that companies hire outsiders who are potentially not union members.

Haven't been around unions much, have you? It is all about seniority, not quality.
 
Got it. You would rather have to compete with GM for employees than Walmart.

Haven't met many good union employees but have met a lot of good retail employees. I employed over 1200, how many have you ever employed?
 
Do you realize that there were 146 million Americans working in December 2007 when the recession began and that number is 145 million now, 7 years later?

Yeah, I realize it. And it was called the Great Recession. Within two years, employment was down to 138 million. We've now regained nearly all those lost jobs. (The figure for April was 145.7 million, and it's been six-and-a-half years.) As I noted earlier, public-sector employment during this period has dropped by 600K.

>>No population growth?

I don't understand. Are you asking if there has been any?

>>No significant labor force growth?

The civilian labor force has expanded from 153.9 million in December 2007 to 155.4 million last month.

>>Please name for me the economic policies that have made this economy better than it was when Obama took office or when the recession began?

I would point to:

  • the continued implementation of TARP (I'd say Bush's decision to go with TARP kept us out of a depression)
  • the so-called "economic stimulus" — tax cuts (especially for small businesses), public works projects, extended unemployment benefits
  • the 2010 tax cut package (extending Bush-era rates, cutting the payroll tax, cuts for capital improvements and increased R & D credits, raising the estate tax exemption, additional credits for college tuition and children)
  • the decision to rescue the automakers (saved millions of jobs)
  • the Wall Street reforms
  • the ACA, which will help control healthcare costs in the future

I think more could have been done, but, as I see it, Mr. Boehner is unwilling to turn his back on the fifty or so Tea Party members of his caucus and help enact legislation that could get, say, 170 Republican votes and 60 from Democrats.

>>Do you think ACA promotes job growth?

In the long run, I think the ACA will have a significantly positive impact of the economy in a variety of ways. I'd say a "healthier" (no pun intended) labour market is one of them.

>>How about higher taxes and regulations?

Which ones?

>>How about minimum wage increases?

The federal minimum hasn't been raised since 2006.

>>How about delays in the Keystone Pipeline? How about EPA regulations on coal?

I think we need to do a lot more to control Climate Change. I think there are economic trade-offs involved.

>>I find it interesting how people here love to point out the proposed lies of GW Bush but ignore the lies and poor performance of Obama. Why is that?

Fwiw, I don't think I've ever said, here or anywhere else, that Mr. Bush lied. How has Obama lied? Again fwiw, I don't think his job performance has been poor.
 
Haven't met many good union employees

Ever meet a cop or a fireman in a union?

>>Haven't been around unions much, have you? It is all about seniority, not quality.

If you haven't been around them much, how do you know what they're about?
 
>>Please name for me the economic policies that have made this economy better than it was when Obama took office or when the recession began?

I would point to:

  • the continued implementation of TARP (I'd say Bush's decision to go with TARP kept us out of a depression)
  • the so-called "economic stimulus" — tax cuts (especially for small businesses), public works projects, extended unemployment benefits
  • the 2010 tax cut package (extending Bush-era rates, cutting the payroll tax, cuts for capital improvements and increased R & D credits, raising the estate tax exemption, additional credits for college tuition and children)
  • the decision to rescue the automakers (saved millions of jobs)
  • the Wall Street reforms
  • the ACA, which will help control healthcare costs in the future

I don't quibble over a lot.. just when facts are wrong.

TARP didn't save us. TARP propped up failed Banks who had their hands in the pockets of the politicians. Citi, BofA, GS and others should have failed and failed hard. But they got special treatment, Government was better off giving that money to Main Street instead of Wall Street.

Stimulus created nothing. Stimulus was done in 2010 and it's now 2014 and we still don't have the number of jobs we did in 2007. That's a massive fail. It's also a massive fail because it cost based on who you follow, from $90k to $250k job created. That's 2x to 5xs median income.

You saved 2 Automakers who were bankrupt prior to the recession. Of which Government lost money on. Ford didn't take a bail out.

There hasn't been one reform on Wall Street. Frank-Dodd is still in the process of regulation writing which is probably will never be done.

ACA doesn't keep costs down, it shifts costs to younger people. The typically poorer bunch.

I think more could have been done, but, as I see it, Mr. Boehner is unwilling to turn his back on the fifty or so Tea Party members of his caucus and help enact legislation that could get, say, 170 Republican votes and 60 from Democrats.

If you don't comprise and try to swing a big dick every time you speak, you aren't gonna make friends. Clinton made friends and he got alot of **** done. That's the difference.



In the long run, I think the ACA will have a significantly positive impact of the economy in a variety of ways. I'd say a "healthier" (no pun intended) labour market is one of them.

ACA won't promote jobs. Rather there has always been a shortage of Doctors and Nurses in the industry. What you will find is less and less Doctors taking hits in Government insurance and go completely private. Thus creating bigger shortages similar to those in the VA which did practice Death Panels. ;)

The federal minimum hasn't been raised since 2006.

This is wrong. Minimum wage was raised in 2009. It was the last step of 2007 law. What has changed is inflation rates.


I think we need to do a lot more to control Climate Change. I think there are economic trade-offs involved.

Climate changes all the time, we typically call it seasons. Some times it snows, rains, storms, floods, have tornado, hurricane, and sometimes on the same day. It happens. But what doesn't change is stupidity of people who build homes on ocean front property, or on a flood plain, or in tornado alley. Drought in California? Who would of guessed, California has a desert climate in the southern half of the state? Anybody think it was a stupid idea to build farmlands in those areas or even have major cities there? Probably not.. So until we realize this.. there is no reason for the rest of the country to suffer.
 
Ever meet a cop or a fireman in a union?

>>Haven't been around unions much, have you? It is all about seniority, not quality.

If you haven't been around them much, how do you know what they're about?

Government unions are pure evil. Ever met a cop or firefighter making $200,000 plus a year in retirement? I have.
 
The 288,000 jobs gained is a totally different accumulative process

Yes. The +288K figure comes from the "establishment" survey, while the number you gave is from the "household" survey. The household survey is used to generate the various measures of under/unemployment, and the figure from CES is really more useful if yer looking to gauge monthly changes in employment. It's published on this page.

>>I choose mine as there are too many assumptions in the 288,000 model for my taste You don't agree...I don't much care.

What are the assumptions that concern you? Here is a summary of them from the agency.

>>retail spending up only 0.1% for April

But, like I said, up +1.5% in March. These figures bounce around, so a moving average is often more useful. February's number was +0.3%, ao the three-month average is a little more than +0.6%, an annual rate of about 7.5%. I don't see that as "stalling," but I suppose others may judge me to be "clueless or in denial."
 
Yes. The +288K figure comes from the "establishment" survey, while the number you gave is from the "household" survey. The household survey is used to generate the various measures of under/unemployment, and the figure from CES is really more useful if yer looking to gauge monthly changes in employment. It's published on this page.

>>I choose mine as there are too many assumptions in the 288,000 model for my taste You don't agree...I don't much care.

What are the assumptions that concern you? Here is a summary of them from the agency.

>>retail spending up only 0.1% for April

But, like I said, up +1.5% in March. These figures bounce around, so a moving average is often more useful. February's number was +0.3%, ao the three-month average is a little more than +0.6%, an annual rate of about 7.5%. I don't see that as "stalling," but I suppose others may judge me to be "clueless or in denial."

Mmi I want to at least thank you for laying your argument out in a civil manner. It is appreciated, even if I disagree with you in nearly every aspect.

With that said, the biggest "lie" I see coming from Obama is when he touts that he is for the lower and middle classes, when in practice his policies hit us the hardest.
 
I don't quibble over a lot.. just when facts are wrong.

Well, I was asked for a list of what I thought has worked, not for facts. And before you say that it's obvious there's a big difference between the two, I don't think everything you put in that post is a "fact" either. For example:

>>TARP didn't save us. TARP propped up failed Banks who had their hands in the pockets of the politicians. Citi, BofA, GS and others should have failed and failed hard. But they got special treatment, Government was better off giving that money to Main Street instead of Wall Street.

I don't agree that those banks were "failed." If the ones you listed had indeed "failed," and I'm not at all clear on what that would have involved, I think we would have been in a lot of trouble. Finally, I don't think the money was "given" to the banks; as I understand it, it was "lent" to them. As of last month, the Treasury has shown a $32 billion profit on the TARP expenditures.

>>Stimulus created nothing. Stimulus was done in 2010 and it's now 2014 and we still don't have the number of jobs we did in 2007. That's a massive fail. It's also a massive fail because it cost based on who you follow, from $90k to $250k job created. That's 2x to 5xs median income.

Private-sector employment in Dec 2009 was 138 million. In April, it was 145.7 million. I think saying "we still don't have the number of jobs we did in 2007" is misleading. It could be argued instead that we've now gained back all the jobs we lost.

That $250K figure can be dismissed, I'd say. $90K is much more reasonable, but I'm not sure that takes into account all of the associated economic impacts, especially the tax revenues collected from people who got the jobs. That seems reasonable, since we're, in this context, talking about public expenditures to fund a jobs program. Accounting for those would yield a figure closer to $60K.

I'm sure you'd want to use a larger number. In the end, I'd say it's very difficult to calculate. One important feature of the ARRA may be that it gave people the idea that the government was doing something to alleviate the economic crisis at the time, much like some of the programs instituted by FDR. In a modern advanced industrial economy, it's important to keep up public confidence. Otherwise, things can really get out of hand.

I would agree that the legislation could have been crafted more wisely. But it's easy to say that Obama should not have allowed the Congress to have as much control over the design of the bill, given that it required congressional support to even get to his desk.

>>You saved 2 Automakers who were bankrupt prior to the recession. Of which Government lost money on. Ford didn't take a bail out.

The estimates I've seen are that the auto rescue saved around three million jobs, at a time when we sure couldn't afford to lose them. The agreement the administration negotiated included significant increases in fuel efficiency that strengthen the companies' competitiveness, have a positive impact on our balance of trade, and help the environment.

>>There hasn't been one reform on Wall Street. Frank-Dodd is still in the process of regulation writing which is probably will never be done.

Yeah, I can't really argue with that. I might wanna call it a work in progress. We did collect some big fines and more are in the works as I understand it — something like $100 billion collected so far. Better than taxes, right?

>>ACA doesn't keep costs down, it shifts costs to younger people. The typically poorer bunch.

I disagree. Not much point going over it, I suppose. Maybe we can agree that it will be a long time before the effects can be assessed effectively.

>>If you don't comprise and try to swing a big dick every time you speak, you aren't gonna make friends. Clinton made friends and he got alot of **** done. That's the difference.

You see it as Obama's fault; I think the Republicans are the ones that won't cut deals. And it's a shame cuz I figure the votes are there to get some important stuff done. I like Boehner, but I'm disappointed with his performance. I think he needs to lead the House, and could do that if he stopped allowing a relatively small group of Tea Partiers to control the process.

Obama is sort of "reserved," not a back-slapper. But it would be tough to compete with Clinton on that. I can see that both Reagan and Clinton, and Bush43 as well, had that going for them — they were very likeable. But we're talking about the country's business here. I'm confident that Boehner could get things done. I'm really saddened that he hasn't.

>>ACA won't promote jobs. Rather there has always been a shortage of Doctors and Nurses in the industry. What you will find is less and less Doctors taking hits in Government insurance and go completely private. Thus creating bigger shortages similar to those in the VA which did practice Death Panels. ;)

I'm thinking we should scrap the VHA and turn it over to the private sector. I grew up on a naval air station, and I can't believe what's been going on. Well, maybe I can believe it, but we can't tolerate it.

I think the "pre-existing condition" of 40 million or whatever it was uninsured was a big problem, both for the uninsured and for society. I figure it was a major driver of healthcare costs. To be honest, Id be willing to say goodbye to the insurance companies and their 15-20% administrative costs. The office workers could be employed in a single-payer system and the overpaid executives could just fend for themselves as far as I'm concerned.

I figure the biggest thing we need to do to control healthcare costs is come up with a way to stop people from destroying themselves with obesity, lack of exercise, and drugs like alcohol and tobacco. That would free up a lot of doctors to work on other problems. Other than public education, I don't have an idea of how to get that done. I'm hopeful that some of the elements of Obamacare will help, like preventative care benefits.

>>This is wrong. Minimum wage was raised in 2009. It was the last step of 2007 law. What has changed is inflation rates.

Yeah, I wasn't at all sure about that and was just too lazy to look it up. I guess I was thinking of more or less when the bill was passed, but of course it's always phased in.

>>Climate changes all the time … what doesn't change is stupidity of people who build homes on …

Another issue we won't agree on and probably not worth debating. I'm convinced that we need to do a lot more and soon. I think the damage will be substantial to say the least and affect everyone within a few decades. I've never been active at all on the environment except personally — recycling, limiting energy consumption. I think it's a disaster waiting to happen.
 
Last edited:
Government unions are pure evil. Ever met a cop or firefighter making $200,000 plus a year in retirement? I have.

Yes, I have met some retired officers and firefighters, mostly through my work. I may even have asked some of them how much they earn in retirement income, but all the information I collect in an interview goes directly into a highly secure database without getting any attention from me except as strings of numbers and characters.

In my experience, they generally come across as some of the finest people you could hope to meet. They're always nice t' me, something I value, since not everyone thinks highly of federal employees.
 
Ever meet a cop or a fireman in a union?

>>Haven't been around unions much, have you? It is all about seniority, not quality.

If you haven't been around them much, how do you know what they're about?

Only spent 35 years in the private sector so no never spent much time around unions, LOL. Worked strike duty and had union members throwing bricks at vehicles and flicking cigarettes at loaded gasoline trucks, yes real classy people

No police and firemen in my community are in unions. I supported FDR in his statement that there is no place for unions in the Public Sector. Wonder why such a liberal believed that?
 
mmi;1063279298]Yeah, I realize it. And it was called the Great Recession. Within two years, employment was down to 138 million. We've now regained nearly all those lost jobs. (The figure for April was 145.7 million, and it's been six-and-a-half years.) As I noted earlier, public-sector employment during this period has dropped by 600K.

The recession ended in June 2009 and we are into June 2014. Compare the economic results today with those of Reagan's and get back to me. Due to the high inflation and unemployment then that recession was worse than this one. Reagan leadership and Obama's lack of leadership generated significantly different results. When the recession began in 81 there were 99 million working Americans, when Reagan ran for a second term that number was over 7 million more. By the end of the second Reagan Term we had 17 million more Americans working than when he took office.

Too many people bought the rhetoric from the media as to how bad this recession was. Tell me, how did this recession affect you and your family?

>>No population growth?

I don't understand. Are you asking if there has been any?

I am telling you that population growth occurred and the labor force didn't grow in relationship mostly due to discouraged workers. That is a sign of poor leadership and economic policies

>>No significant labor force growth?

The civilian labor force has expanded from 153.9 million in December 2007 to 155.4 million last month.

Compare the labor force growth during the Reagan and I will continue to use Reagan as an example because the recession of 81-82 was worse than this one because if affected more people.


>>Please name for me the economic policies that have made this economy better than it was when Obama took office or when the recession began?

I would point to:

  • the continued implementation of TARP (I'd say Bush's decision to go with TARP kept us out of a depression)
  • the so-called "economic stimulus" — tax cuts (especially for small businesses), public works projects, extended unemployment benefits
  • the 2010 tax cut package (extending Bush-era rates, cutting the payroll tax, cuts for capital improvements and increased R & D credits, raising the estate tax exemption, additional credits for college tuition and children)
  • the decision to rescue the automakers (saved millions of jobs)
  • the Wall Street reforms
  • the ACA, which will help control healthcare costs in the future

The economic results don't agree with you and this list is being given credit for something that no one can quantify. QE has done more for Wall Street than any economic policies to help the American people. The rich have gotten richer and the poor poorer.

What people want to ignore is that Bush took over an economy in recession, had 9/11, had a Democrat Congress from 2007-2009 and yet grew GDP 4.5 trillion dollars. The stimulus plan was a payoff to Obama economic supporters, ie unions. Tell me how much of a tax cut did you get?

I think more could have been done, but, as I see it, Mr. Boehner is unwilling to turn his back on the fifty or so Tea Party members of his caucus and help enact legislation that could get, say, 170 Republican votes and 60 from Democrats.

Again, you buy what you are told, how many House passed bills are sitting in Harry Reid's desk and not being debated? Reid is much more of a problem than the House.

>>Do you think ACA promotes job growth?

In the long run, I think the ACA will have a significantly positive impact of the economy in a variety of ways. I'd say a "healthier" (no pun intended) labour market is one of them.

That is a pipe dream. We have a 17.3 trillion dollar debt and this adds to it thus the debt service is going up. How does a bill that costs this much and yet leaves 31 million people uninsured benefit the economy and American People?

>>How about higher taxes and regulations?

Which ones?

Ask the people of W. Va. about regulations on Coal production. How could a Democrat state of W. Va. be so anti Obama now? How about the Keystone Pipeline? I could go on

>>How about minimum wage increases?

The federal minimum hasn't been raised since 2006.

So what? Is the cost of living the same in each state? States can raise the minimum wage so why is this something the Federal Govt. should get involved in? You think it is the Federal Responsibility to tell a private sector business what to pay its worker? What investment does the Federal Govt. have in that business in terms of actual dollars?

>>How about delays in the Keystone Pipeline? How about EPA regulations on coal?

I think we need to do a lot more to control Climate Change. I think there are economic trade-offs involved.

Why? Global Warming is a hoax

>>I find it interesting how people here love to point out the proposed lies of GW Bush but ignore the lies and poor performance of Obama. Why is that?

Fwiw, I don't think I've ever said, here or anywhere else, that Mr. Bush lied. How has Obama lied? Again fwiw, I don't think his job performance has been poor.

What you show are examples of brainwashing. You don't think Obama has lied? Wow, you haven't been paying attention and are going to believe exactly what you want to believe. This is the most corrupt Administration and one of the least transparent in history. IRS, Benghazi, ACA, Economic predictions, again I could go on but you are only going to believe what you want to believe.
 
Only spent 35 years in the private sector so no never spent much time around unions, LOL. Worked strike duty and had union members throwing bricks at vehicles and flicking cigarettes at loaded gasoline trucks, yes real classy people

No police and firemen in my community are in unions. I supported FDR in his statement that there is no place for unions in the Public Sector. Wonder why such a liberal believed that?

I totally agree that we shouldn't have public sector unions.

I am fairly neutral on unions otherwise. No union should be granted special powers by the state that it wouldn't have without legislation and couldn't get beyond simple group negotiations, however unions are one of the best tools that individual employees have when negotiating with a relatively much more powerful employer (more powerful than an individual employee).

It's ashamed that unions were destroyed by corruption and thuggery.
 
I totally agree that we shouldn't have public sector unions.

I am fairly neutral on unions otherwise. No union should be granted special powers by the state that it wouldn't have without legislation and couldn't get beyond simple group negotiations, however unions are one of the best tools that individual employees have when negotiating with a relatively much more powerful employer (more powerful than an individual employee).

It's ashamed that unions were destroyed by corruption and thuggery.

Couldn't have said it better myself. Very good summation.

Although I would have said at the end "It's a shame that unions were destroyed by corruption and thuggery".;)
 
Yes, I have met some retired officers and firefighters, mostly through my work. I may even have asked some of them how much they earn in retirement income, but all the information I collect in an interview goes directly into a highly secure database without getting any attention from me except as strings of numbers and characters.

In my experience, they generally come across as some of the finest people you could hope to meet. They're always nice t' me, something I value, since not everyone thinks highly of federal employees.

And Iget that.. people think they do a noble profession. But Federal firefighters aren't what I am talking about or Federal police (Capitol police and so on). I still think their benefits are still a bit up there. But they aren't the worse offenders. I am talking about Police and Fire of local manner. Towns/Cities have gone bankrupt because of the retirement payouts because their unions wouldn't come to an agreement to lower benefits or increase pay in. You know cities like Stockton and Detroit (although they had bigger problems).
 
I don't agree that those banks were "failed." If the ones you listed had indeed "failed," and I'm not at all clear on what that would have involved, I think we would have been in a lot of trouble. Finally, I don't think the money was "given" to the banks; as I understand it, it was "lent" to them. As of last month, the Treasury has shown a $32 billion profit on the TARP expenditures.
Those banks by definition were insolvent. They had more liability then assets on their books. TARP was designed to give them money to remain solvent, basically they were considered "Too Big To Fail". So they got $200 billion in TARP money (which was "repaid") on top of that access to Fed money. The "repayment" came largely from Federal Reserve money which was given to them at lower interest rates.

Private-sector employment in Dec 2009 was 138 million. In April, it was 145.7 million. I think saying "we still don't have the number of jobs we did in 2007" is misleading. It could be argued instead that we've now gained back all the jobs we lost.

It can't be argued. As the ARRA (Stimulus) became law in February 17, 2009. If you are arguing we got back to where we were.. you still would fail. In 2008 there was 137m jobs, in 2012, there was 131m. We are still short 6 million jobs.

That $250K figure can be dismissed, I'd say. $90K is much more reasonable, but I'm not sure that takes into account all of the associated economic impacts, especially the tax revenues collected from people who got the jobs. That seems reasonable, since we're, in this context, talking about public expenditures to fund a jobs program. Accounting for those would yield a figure closer to $60K.

If it takes $90k to create the job, it doesn't mean the wages was $90k but rather the Government spent $90k to create that job from stimulus. So there is no positive tax revenue for several years later. Assuming it's $60k job created and standard deductions (marriage, 1 child and such). You are typically looking $4,000 collected. That means it would tax 7.5 years to make up the $30k difference between the cost of creating the job and wage given for that job. It also means it would take 22.5 years to pay off $90,000 to create that job.

I'm sure you'd want to use a larger number. In the end, I'd say it's very difficult to calculate. One important feature of the ARRA may be that it gave people the idea that the government was doing something to alleviate the economic crisis at the time, much like some of the programs instituted by FDR. In a modern advanced industrial economy, it's important to keep up public confidence. Otherwise, things can really get out of hand.

No, if I wanted to use that large number I would haven't said ranged between $90k to $250k. I would have flatly said $250k, so I am not being dishonest in this debate. So spend $800 billion plus interest for a confidence booster? That's horrible economic policy.

I would agree that the legislation could have been crafted more wisely. But it's easy to say that Obama should not have allowed the Congress to have as much control over the design of the bill, given that it required congressional support to even get to his desk.

Congress didn't design the bill. It was the Tides Foundation who wrote the bill. Obama could have nixed the bill and sent it back and got what he wanted. He owned the House and the Senate at the time.


The estimates I've seen are that the auto rescue saved around three million jobs, at a time when we sure couldn't afford to lose them. The agreement the administration negotiated included significant increases in fuel efficiency that strengthen the companies' competitiveness, have a positive impact on our balance of trade, and help the environment.[/qoute]

It was 1.5 million.. And that time 2 of those companies GM and Chrysler close to bankrupt and had been for years. GM itself today is in the red again, they lost $5.2 billion (net income). It's had 20 recalls so far this year. So far this year those recalls have cost them $1.5 billion. Not to mention the lawsuits that are heading it's way. GM should have died in 2008/2009. To save it was reckless.

Chrysler is now Fiat and Fiat would have likely bought the company anyways as Fiat needed a way to enter the American market. Something they've failed to do successfully in the past.

Yeah, I can't really argue with that. I might wanna call it a work in progress. We did collect some big fines and more are in the works as I understand it — something like $100 billion collected so far. Better than taxes, right?

$100 billion on trillion of dollars of fraud by Banks and Insurance? Yeah, let's get pennies on the dollar and not force them out of business for criminal activity. Talk about moral hazard.


I disagree. Not much point going over it, I suppose. Maybe we can agree that it will be a long time before the effects can be assessed effectively.

How can you disagree? The ACA is designed to force young healthy people buy insurance because they cost less to insurance then older people. It's about shifting the cost "equally".
 
You see it as Obama's fault; I think the Republicans are the ones that won't cut deals. And it's a shame cuz I figure the votes are there to get some important stuff done. I like Boehner, but I'm disappointed with his performance. I think he needs to lead the House, and could do that if he stopped allowing a relatively small group of Tea Partiers to control the process.

No, I see it as a President who said he was above party politics when running in 2008 and that ended pretty quickly. He made enemies. He doesn't meet with congressional leaders or call them until he needs them. So he's not greasing the palms he needs or wants to talk to. That's horrible management skills. If I am a congressional member and the President never called or talked to me but beats on his bully pulpit everyday lambasting me, you think I am gonna vote or work with him? Hell, no, I am gonna make his life a living hell as he didn't say hey man that's a political show out there.. let's really nail this down in private.

Obama is sort of "reserved," not a back-slapper. But it would be tough to compete with Clinton on that. I can see that both Reagan and Clinton, and Bush43 as well, had that going for them — they were very likeable. But we're talking about the country's business here. I'm confident that Boehner could get things done. I'm really saddened that he hasn't.

But that's Washington. You can't be the asshole who says my way or the highway. Nobody is gonna wanna work with you. Boehner job is to be opposition (an opposing view). Not to be a yes man.. Obama has 2009-2010 for that and his Democrat Congress pushed back on him a few times.


I'm thinking we should scrap the VHA and turn it over to the private sector. I grew up on a naval air station, and I can't believe what's been going on. Well, maybe I can believe it, but we can't tolerate it.

US has to make a choice in what's important to them. VA is heavily underfunded but at the same time Congress and others wanted to expand VA's role to include all military personal that served. You have to cut something to increase the funding or increase tax rates to all.

I think the "pre-existing condition" of 40 million or whatever it was uninsured was a big problem, both for the uninsured and for society. I figure it was a major driver of healthcare costs. To be honest, Id be willing to say goodbye to the insurance companies and their 15-20% administrative costs. The office workers could be employed in a single-payer system and the overpaid executives could just fend for themselves as far as I'm concerned.

The 40 million people don't have "pre-existing" conditions. There is only 1.5 million Americans who have a condition which is deemed not insurable or insurance costs too much. And you'll find nobody who will disagree with that part of ACA.

I don't believe in Government provided insurance. As a military brat (not an attack) do you? You lived under Government provided health care, you see what's happen at the VA and yet you want to privatize that but think Health Insurance companies should go? That makes no sense.



I figure the biggest thing we need to do to control healthcare costs is come up with a way to stop people from destroying themselves with obesity, lack of exercise, and drugs like alcohol and tobacco. That would free up a lot of doctors to work on other problems. Other than public education, I don't have an idea of how to get that done. I'm hopeful that some of the elements of Obamacare will help, like preventative care benefits.

US health care costs come from the fact it's reactionary and not preventive and I would have supported a yearly check up funded program for all citizens. Couple that with no denial of coverage due to pre-existing condition and you have a pretty good law that almost all would have agreed with.

Another issue we won't agree on and probably not worth debating. I'm convinced that we need to do a lot more and soon. I think the damage will be substantial to say the least and affect everyone within a few decades. I've never been active at all on the environment except personally — recycling, limiting energy consumption. I think it's a disaster waiting to happen.

And the problem is you won't convince people to change their habits.
 
Back
Top Bottom