• 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!

US economy adds 288,000 jobs in June

Listen, we agree on something very important.

You cannot trust the experts entirely.

Why do you think I'm a Socialist?

Because I read Gailbraith, the Great Worldly Philosphers, studied the IMF Crisis, the 1998 Ruskie Fin. Crisis, the IMF-instigated Malawai famine, the Savage Capitalism of 19th century Central America, the economic conditions leading up to the conflagrations of the (except Guetamal where it was since, iirc 50s or 60s) 80s in war and fratricide (Central America), Pre-39 Nazi Germany, A Monetary History of the United States by Friedman and was able, due probably to luck or some other element of my personality, to read between the lines and see things for what they really were.

If I'm at the top, I'm going to push everyone else down.

It's nearly ALL about Relatively.

The more people at the top, or near the top, the lesser the disparity of Power I have.

It's only HUMAN, for the Rich to push those below them and keep them down. I would do it too, if I wasn't so well versed in the History of Exploitation and part of a "race" derived from rape and immiseration.

Fair enough and I appreciate you instigating peace between us - well, a cease fire (lol).

It sounds like we want more or less the same thing but we just have different ideas how to get there.

Me?

I don't trust big business or government...at ALL.

But at least big business can be forced through economic boycott (like hopefully will happen to the Washington Redskins to change their name) to conform as the masses want.

But government cannot be once they are elected.
And, IMO, it is government that is helping big business.

I agree with socialization to a point...like free health are for children and food/shelter/basic medical for everyone that needs it.

But - IMO - all programs like too big to fail and corporate bailouts and QE's do is prop up lousy corporations at taxpayers expense.

I want the least possible power for the federal government (including a massive reduction in the military budget) and death to the Fed.

Obviously you disagree with much/some of this...and there is no point in beating each other up trying to convince the other.


Can we not agree we want the best for Americans but that we disagree on the method and move on?

Believe it or not - I don't like aggregating people.

I just believe strongly in things.
 
Which explains the current even-longer private sector growth how?

It doesn't. Neither does it explain the great economy we had when our top marginal tax rate was 90% in the 1950's and 70% in the 1960's.



Never mind that our population's current overall labor participation rate is still HIGHER than at any time before about 1978:

View attachment 67169209



And was it private enterprise that drove that nearly-full employment? NO.



And during wars, is it private enterprise that drives nearly-full employment? NO.

ALL the examples of nearly-full employment are due to one thing and one thing only: GOVERNMENT SPENDING...and the taxes that spending requires.

Couldn't disagree more profoundly. Best of luck to you.
 
Fair enough and I appreciate you instigating peace between us - well, a cease fire (lol).

It sounds like we want more or less the same thing but we just have different ideas how to get there.

Me?

I don't trust big business or government...at ALL.

But at least big business can be forced through economic boycott (like hopefully will happen to the Washington Redskins to change their name) to conform as the masses want.

But government cannot be once they are elected.
And, IMO, it is government that is helping big business.

I agree with socialization to a point...like free health are for children and food/shelter/basic medical for everyone that needs it.

But - IMO - all programs like too big to fail and corporate bailouts and QE's do is prop up lousy corporations at taxpayers expense.

I want the least possible power for the federal government (including a massive reduction in the military budget) and death to the Fed.

Obviously you disagree with much/some of this...and there is no point in beating each other up trying to convince the other.


Can we not agree we want the best for Americans but that we disagree on the method and move on?

Believe it or not - I don't like aggregating people.

I just believe strongly in things.

I don't ignorantly trust Big Government or Business.

The difference is that Government can serve much more good than Big Business... In *general*.

"But at least big business can be forced through economic boycott (like hopefully will happen to the Washington Redskins to change their name) to conform as the masses want."

I believe the All Mighty dollar gives Big Business more power than you think it does.

As for the Redskins name, as a support of the Native American plight, I think it's a Stupid waste of political capital. They should be more focused on lowering the rate of rape on the reservations, which is 3x the national average, than some ****ing sport team's name.

"But government cannot be once they are elected.
And, IMO, it is government that is helping big business."

I think the Government can be more adequately checked by a well-armed society. While, in theory, this cold hold true for Big Business I just don't see it as having such a great impact. The fear of guns may scare Walmart, but what about the Prison companies that push harder line punishments solely for the purpose of prolonging their access to slave labor? Something about scaring businesses with guns doesn't sit well with me, I don't think I can explain it in words. Something about scaring Politicians with guns... it does sit well with me. Maybe because I view them as our Public Servants, slaves that should be obsequescent (huge sp) to the last.

"I agree with socialization to a point...like free health are for children and food/shelter/basic medical for everyone that needs it.

But - IMO - all programs like too big to fail and corporate bailouts and QE's do is prop up lousy corporations at taxpayers expense.

I want the least possible power for the federal government (including a massive reduction in the military budget) and death to the Fed.

Obviously you disagree with much/some of this...and there is no point in beating each other up trying to convince the other."

1. Yes, that's exactly where I believe the line stops. At the *needs* of the Needy. Not much past that, at all.

2. QE was necessary because it traded toxic non-liquid assets in the market for liquid Gov't dollars. Too Big to Fail is bad, and generally (outside 2008 and other necessities) I agree it is indeed terrible.

3. I agree with a reduction in military budget, but only to make funds available for reforms that benefit the whole society. Including the rich, as their businesses would grow from increased consumer demand.

4. I think there is, not "beating" but, and I'll try my best part because I do have a temper lol, a cordial correspondence.

"Can we not agree we want the best for Americans but that we disagree on the method and move on?"

I actually could not give two god damn ****s about America.

I love my Fatherland, Nicaragua and its People's Party, the Sandinistas.

I just use American policy to sharpen my mental blade so that when I go back to the Fatherland once I get my PhD here (and renige on the gargantuan debt I'll tally) I can be versed enough to actually do some good with my book learning, unlike Wheelock whose reading only led to great pains for my nation during the terrorist campaign the US had against us from 1980-88.

American policy is my intellectual playground because it is the most discussed here. That is all. To me at least.

But I want to be wrong, because if somehow I get in power in my Fatherland (political, not top but as an advisory or National Assemblyman) and I make legislature that is bad it will hurt my Fatherland and its Great People. I want to limit that possibility as much as possible. So I come here, with what I've read and get into the grit of polemny because that's the only way to spread the wheat from the chaff of my personal ideals and economic concepts.
 
That's plainly incorrect. Full-time employment bottomed out at 108 million and change at the tail end of the recession, and has since rebounded to over 119 million.

Historical data can be found here: Table A-9. Selected employment indicators

You are going with the non-seasonally adjusted figures. When you look at the NSA figures, you may notice that there is always a dip in the winter months. It is not atypical to see a million or more jobs lost during the winter. It is as misguided to attribute the gains from that point to Obama as it is to attribute the NSA losses during the winter months to any government body.
 
Only decreasing taxes on those who have a high spending or conversely low savings rate. In other words, cutting taxes on the middle class, not the rich.
You can argue the fairness factor somewhere else, but the most effective way would be to lower the tax burden for lower income people, and make up for those lost revenues by taxing those who have an enormous savings rate: the rich

Exactly what purpose would it be to raise the taxes on the rich other than to make jealous people feel better. The govt. isn't going to get that much revenue by doing that and it sets a dangerous precedence which I believe is what socialists want. There is no reason to raise the taxes on anyone but there is plenty of reason to cut the budget significantly.

The problem with far too many is they seem to think that rich people bury their cash in the back yard. They don't, they hire people, they spend, they save, they invest, all helping the economy.
 
So...if tax cuts are wonderful for an economy and tax hikes are so detrimental to an economy, how is it then that the longest streak of positive private-sector job growth on record (before the current streak under Obama) followed the tax HIKES by Bush 41 and Clinton? How is it that our economy did quite well in the 1950's even though we had a 90% top marginal tax rate (under Eisenhower, no less)? How is it that the longest streak of positive private sector job growth on record has come under Obama with his oh-so-tyrannical stimulus and tax increases? Betcha didn't see that particular headline on Fox News!

You ask why we added 9M jobs under Bush (and Obama's added more than that in less time, btw) - I reply with the fact that we were in a war...and economies normally expand in a war. What brought us out of the Depression? The taxpayer-funded build-up for WWII. And I remember very well what my fellow conservatives were saying during the 1982 recession (which was then the worst since the Depression) under Reagan: "We just need a good war". Why did people say that? Because they understood then that wars tend to force economies to expand. But why do wars cause economies to expand? Because most wars, being taxpayer-funded, are in economic terms nothing more than government-funded economic stimuli.

Feel free to refute what I've pointed out to you.

Look, you don't want to keep more of your money then send it to the govt. but we have a consumer generated economy that is driven by people keeping, spending, saving, or investing their own cash. You don't seem to understand the concept, nor the reality that Clinton didn't inherit a recession like Bush and Reagan did and Obama still has fewer people working today than when the recession started with a larger labor force. Facts simply get in the way of your opinions and feelings. I don't understand the jealousy and ignorance of liberals who have no problem with a 3.9 trillion dollar govt, 17.5 trillion in debt, and massive dependence on the govt, Apparently that is what you want and if so go some place else.

Oh, by the way, when the recession began there were 146.3 million working Americans and that is 146.2 million today almost 7 years later. Obama took office with 142.2 million working Americans and that is 146.2 million today so the increase in 6 years is 4 million which I believe is less than the 9 million Bush had in 7 years. Not sure where you get your information but I can guess.
 
Last edited:
Exactly what purpose would it be to raise the taxes on the rich other than to make jealous people feel better. The govt. isn't going to get that much revenue by doing that and it sets a dangerous precedence which I believe is what socialists want. There is no reason to raise the taxes on anyone but there is plenty of reason to cut the budget significantly.

The problem with far too many is they seem to think that rich people bury their cash in the back yard. They don't, they hire people, they spend, they save, they invest, all helping the economy.

I won't argue the fairness factor with you either. The point is if the goal is to have more moneys flowing in the economy without decreasing government revenues, the most effective method would be to lower the tax burden on low savers(poor people) and higher the tax on high savers(rich people).
 
I won't argue the fairness factor with you either. The point is if the goal is to have more moneys flowing in the economy without decreasing government revenues, the most effective method would be to lower the tax burden on low savers(poor people) and higher the tax on high savers(rich people).

Why do you think we need more revenue flowing into a bloated Federal Govt? Most poor people don't pay any FIT so how do you cut taxes for people who don't pay FIT?
 
Why do you think we need more revenue flowing into a bloated Federal Govt? Most poor people don't pay any FIT so how do you cut taxes for people who don't pay FIT?

Don't be obtuse. I think its fair to say even people who pay on the low end of FIT are poor.
 
Why do you think we need more revenue flowing into a bloated Federal Govt? Most poor people don't pay any FIT so how do you cut taxes for people who don't pay FIT?

...

It doesn't help when Republicans intentionally cut revenue flows to the Federal govt.

But hey, they're your party so it's obvious you're going to ignore That.

:roll:
 
Couldn't disagree more profoundly. Best of luck to you.

You disagree...but can you explain why it is, if government spending is SO bad for an economy, that the taxpayer-funded government economic stimulus that was WWII didn't drive us further into the Depression instead of bringing us out of the Depression as it surely did?

Didn't think so.
 
You disagree...but can you explain why it is, if government spending is SO bad for an economy, that the taxpayer-funded government economic stimulus that was WWII didn't drive us further into the Depression instead of bringing us out of the Depression as it surely did?

Didn't think so.

Well, generally home sale volume, according to Green iirc, indicates recessions. Except the Korean War, where (Lucas Green, was that his name?) gov't stimulus stopped a recession from occuring.

But remember, gov't Stimulus is the worst form of expense. Because... REPUBLICANZZZZZZ. But seriously.

Government stimulus is good, as per private sector read up on the "Empty State Building", aka, the Empire State Building. Material and Labour costs shrunk so greatly even though the investment was supposedly bad, it was so low they could afford to wait out the bad times until the Condition of the National Economy increased and rents increased expontentially compared to the cost of investment and maintenance during the bad times.

And Germany always invests in High-Capital output industries during Bad times (the crowd out issue works BOTH ways) and it pays its dividends since electricity and transport capacity and consumer, as per the nature of "efficient" capitalism, good demand increases as the cost of Production decreased while gov't stimulus pushes forth growth.

Increased Gov't spending during "good times" = Bad

Increased Gov't spending during "bad times", especially in industries of Social Overhead Capital, = Good.

Economics is not a "simple" study, but it certainly is not atrociously over complicated.

It's gotten to the point where I'm far more interested in Chemistry and Neurobiology (and their linkages) since I've spent the ages of 16-21 dedicated to the study of Economics and the Law of Diminishing Marginal Returns has showed me there is a limit to the study. And as John Stuart Mill, who read all the contemporary texts on Economics at the age of 12 (according to: The Great Wordly Philosphers), thanks to his great father, I find the study itself now dissapointing.

Of course Partisan push-back will always be present, but that does not at all mean it is accurate or even worth an articulate response.

But, that's just my two sense.
 
You disagree...but can you explain why it is, if government spending is SO bad for an economy, that the taxpayer-funded government economic stimulus that was WWII didn't drive us further into the Depression instead of bringing us out of the Depression as it surely did?

Didn't think so.

I don't respond well to taunts. It isn't that I can't explain my position. It is that I don't consider it worth the effort in this case.
 
Don't be obtuse. I think its fair to say even people who pay on the low end of FIT are poor.

I don't see an answer to my question but then again I understand that people advocate higher taxes never answer direct questions.
 
...

It doesn't help when Republicans intentionally cut revenue flows to the Federal govt.

But hey, they're your party so it's obvious you're going to ignore That.

:roll:

Republicans cut revenue flow? It doesn't help when we have so many poorly informed people. Govt. revenue set records after the Reagan and Bush tax cuts so where is the revenue cut?
 
Part 1 of my reply:

Look, you don't want to keep more of your money then send it to the govt. but we have a consumer generated economy that is driven by people keeping, spending, saving, or investing their own cash. You don't seem to understand the concept,

Really? So it was private investment - and not the biggest government stimulus in history (also known as WWII) - that got us out of the Depression? And our economy was actually tanking during the 1950's when our top marginal tax rate was 90%, and during the 1960's when our top marginal tax rate was 70%?

Private investment is crucial, guy - there's no argument there - BUT today's conservatives seem to have forgotten the equally crucial role that the government plays in building the nation's economy. When I was a young man in college, when Carter was president, a very common saying among the conservatives of the day (and I was very much a conservative then) was "We just need a good war". Why did we conservatives say that? Because we all understood the stimulative effect that government spending (especially on infrastructure) had on the nation's economy. We didn't really want another war - Vietnam was still an open wound and none of us wanted to take a chance on the Cold War turning hot - but we knew that when the government invested in infrastructure, all Americans benefited.

nor the reality that Clinton didn't inherit a recession like Bush and Reagan did

REALLY? Let me guess - you're what, no more than, say, 35 years old? Because if you were much older, you'd probably remember that during the 1992 election we were still trying to recover from a recession that had started in 1990. It had officially ended in 1991...but just as we're still recovering from the Great Recession even though it officially ended in August 2009 (yes, that's when it officially ended), in 1992 we were still recovering from the 1990 recession...which is why "It's the economy, stupid" cost Bush 41 the election. And I've said MANY times that I give Bush 41 more credit than Clinton for the mid-90's economic boom.

Not only that, but while Reagan did inherit an economic mess (which, while it was NOWHERE nearly as bad as the Great Recession y'all handed Obama, was not something that could be blamed on either party - see "lasting effects of Arab Oil Embargo"), neither Reagan NOR Bush 43 inherited a huge economic deficit. In fact, the SURPLUS that Bush inherited was big enough that it was calculated that it would pay of our nation's ENTIRE debt by 2012!

So...what happened to that mighty surplus that Bush 43 inherited, that was going to pay off our entire national debt by 2012? Hm?

and Obama still has fewer people working today than when the recession started with a larger labor force.

Because we are STILL recovering from the Great Recession, guy...in addition to the little fact that Obama's having to deal with the MOST obstructionist Congress since the Civil War, one in which the Republicans have forgotten how it was a truly massive government economic stimulus (also called WWII) that pulled us out of the Depression.

Facts simply get in the way of your opinions and feelings.

You need to go re-check your 'facts'...because you really show a lack of understanding of even recent economic history. I used to be like you - I used to be a strong conservative. I understand why you think as you do...but you've apparently zero clue as to why we liberals think as we do.
 
Part 2 of my reply:

I don't understand the jealousy and ignorance of liberals who have no problem with a 3.9 trillion dollar govt, 17.5 trillion in debt, and massive dependence on the govt, Apparently that is what you want and if so go some place else.

Jealousy? Let me get this straight - the Democratic party is strongest in almost EVERY ethnic and demographic group except for older white males...but the REASON all the other ethnic and demographic groups are majority-Dem is because they're 'jealous'? Do you not see the silliness of the concept? Here's another example: What's the single most economically-successful ethnic group? Asians, right? Right. And if they're the most successful, would they be 'jealous' of the success of whites? NOT likely. And what party does the socially-conservative Asian community support to an ever-increasing degree? The Democratic party. Think about that one for a while.

And "ignorance"? Lemme see here - which side is it that increasingly insists on creationism being taught in schools, that almost to a man believes that 98% of the world's climatologists (and over 90% of the rest of the world's scientists) are lying about climate change, that wants to slash school funding, that thinks that teachers are getting paid too much? Oh, right - the CONSERVATIVES. And what states generally have the LOWEST educational attainment? RED states.

Yet y'all try to call us 'ignorant'.

And as far as the numbers go...remember, Bush 43 was handed a SURPLUS that would have paid off our ENTIRE national debt by 2012. What did he do as soon as he could? Slashed taxes and sent us on an illegal and unprovoked invasion of Iraq, among other things. How was our economy when Bush 43 took office, as compared to when Bush 43 left office? In other words, guy, y'all have NO room to speak.

Oh, by the way, when the recession began there were 146.3 million working Americans and that is 146.2 million today almost 7 years later. Obama took office with 142.2 million working Americans and that is 146.2 million today so the increase in 6 years is 4 million which I believe is less than the 9 million Bush had in 7 years. Not sure where you get your information but I can guess.

Y'know what? I did make a mistake - I did overstate how many jobs have been created under Obama, and that's no one's fault but my own - thank you for pointing that out. NOW, look to yourself - because you seem to have conveniently forgotten that when Obama first took the oath of office, we were LOSING over half million jobs PER MONTH. Our economy was in free fall, in the worst economic trouble we'd been in for EIGHTY FREAKING YEARS.

Not only did YOUR boys take a surplus that SHOULD have paid off our ENTIRE national debt by 2012 and turn it into the largest deficit in American history (yes, the Bush 2009 budget did include what is STILL the largest deficit in our history)...but YOUR boys also decided to oppose every freaking thing that Obama tried to do to fix the economy...which has resulted in the most obstructionist Congress since the Civil War. It's doggone hard to fix the economy when half the government - the Republican half - does everything they can to gum up the people who ARE trying to fix the economy.

Here's a WONDERFUL example: Obama tried to take away the tax break that corporations were getting for outsourcing our jobs overseas...and the Republicans filibustered it, refused to let us take that tax break away from the corporations! This was in something like 2010...and our recovery was then still very weak...and Obama was trying to keep corporations from shipping American jobs overseas...and what did the Republicans do? They FILIBUSTERED it! It's been the same old story the whole time: whatever Obama does, it must be wrong or evil or corrupt or scandalous or stupid or bad. Thou Shalt Not give him credit for doing ANYTHING right!

And you know what? I saw this coming back in the early 1990's...when I first really began rethinking why it was I was a conservative. I saw then how my fellow conservatives were hating liberals not for what the liberals were doing or supporting...but because they were liberals. I saw it when the Republicans laughed with glee when Oliver North got away with Iran-Contra, with what would today have rightly been called treason. I saw it when Strom Thurmond warned Clinton not to come to his state because he couldn't promise that the president wouldn't be shot (which btw was recently repeated against Hillary). And these are but two of the many, many examples of how the Right was going down the wrong path. And I could not allow myself to remain part of a group that hates just for the sake of hate.
 
Republicans cut revenue flow? It doesn't help when we have so many poorly informed people. Govt. revenue set records after the Reagan and Bush tax cuts so where is the revenue cut?

No, what happened is you're confusing the numbers with the rate of growth. While the raw numbers were higher, the rate of growth of the tax revenue was slashed...which meant it could not keep up with what the government was spending...

...which is why, although Bush 43 inherited a surplus that was estimated to pay off our ENTIRE national debt by 2012, by the end of his eight years, he'd turned it into what is today still the biggest deficit in American history - the 2009 budget (which was written by Bush).

AGAIN, if high taxes are SO bad, why is it that our economy boomed in the 1950's with a 90% top marginal tax rate? And if government spending is SO bad, why is it that WWII pulled us out of the Depression instead of sinking us even further into the Depression, since WWII was pretty much COMPLETELY government-funded?
 
Well, generally home sale volume, according to Green iirc, indicates recessions. Except the Korean War, where (Lucas Green, was that his name?) gov't stimulus stopped a recession from occuring.

But remember, gov't Stimulus is the worst form of expense. Because... REPUBLICANZZZZZZ. But seriously.

Government stimulus is good, as per private sector read up on the "Empty State Building", aka, the Empire State Building. Material and Labour costs shrunk so greatly even though the investment was supposedly bad, it was so low they could afford to wait out the bad times until the Condition of the National Economy increased and rents increased expontentially compared to the cost of investment and maintenance during the bad times.

And Germany always invests in High-Capital output industries during Bad times (the crowd out issue works BOTH ways) and it pays its dividends since electricity and transport capacity and consumer, as per the nature of "efficient" capitalism, good demand increases as the cost of Production decreased while gov't stimulus pushes forth growth.

Increased Gov't spending during "good times" = Bad

Increased Gov't spending during "bad times", especially in industries of Social Overhead Capital, = Good.

Economics is not a "simple" study, but it certainly is not atrociously over complicated.

It's gotten to the point where I'm far more interested in Chemistry and Neurobiology (and their linkages) since I've spent the ages of 16-21 dedicated to the study of Economics and the Law of Diminishing Marginal Returns has showed me there is a limit to the study. And as John Stuart Mill, who read all the contemporary texts on Economics at the age of 12 (according to: The Great Wordly Philosphers), thanks to his great father, I find the study itself now dissapointing.

Of course Partisan push-back will always be present, but that does not at all mean it is accurate or even worth an articulate response.

But, that's just my two sense.

And what you described is classic Keynesianism, isn't it? Stimulus during bad times, pay off the debt during good times...the Goldilocks economy. Neither too hot nor too cold, neither too bad nor too good.
 
Glen Contrarian;1063491051]Part 1 of my reply:



Really? So it was private investment - and not the biggest government stimulus in history (also known as WWII) - that got us out of the Depression? And our economy was actually tanking during the 1950's when our top marginal tax rate was 90%, and during the 1960's when our top marginal tax rate was 70%?

Private investment is crucial, guy - there's no argument there - BUT today's conservatives seem to have forgotten the equally crucial role that the government plays in building the nation's economy. When I was a young man in college, when Carter was president, a very common saying among the conservatives of the day (and I was very much a conservative then) was "We just need a good war". Why did we conservatives say that? Because we all understood the stimulative effect that government spending (especially on infrastructure) had on the nation's economy. We didn't really want another war - Vietnam was still an open wound and none of us wanted to take a chance on the Cold War turning hot - but we knew that when the government invested in infrastructure, all Americans benefited.


Sorry, I don't understand people like you who are fixated on rates/percentages and not what people actually paid. I couldn't care less what the rates are or were it is what people actually pay that is matters and the reality is 47-50% of American income earners most making 50000 or less aren't paying ANY Federal Income Taxes and the top 5% are paying most of them. That fact escapes low information voters.

You also have no concept as to what your taxes fund, infrastructure is mostly funded by gasoline taxes which the govt. in its infinite wisdom put on budget like they did with SS and Medicare so politicians had the power to spend it as they saw fit mostly on social items that bought votes.


REALLY? Let me guess - you're what, no more than, say, 35 years old? Because if you were much older, you'd probably remember that during the 1992 election we were still trying to recover from a recession that had started in 1990. It had officially ended in 1991...but just as we're still recovering from the Great Recession even though it officially ended in August 2009 (yes, that's when it officially ended), in 1992 we were still recovering from the 1990 recession...which is why "It's the economy, stupid" cost Bush 41 the election. And I've said MANY times that I give Bush 41 more credit than Clinton for the mid-90's economic boom.

In December 1992 the economic growth in this country was 4.2% which looks more like a recovery should look after a recession. Keep calling this the Great Recession as I am sure it makes you feel good but I was in my late 30's early 40's during the 81-82 recession and that one was much, much worse affecting every American because of the high misery index(inflation plus unemployment) and it was Reagan leadership that got us out of that recession as well as leading to the largest electoral landslide victory in U.S. History. Keep denying reality. You simply have no idea what you are talking about nor do you understand leadership. How did this recession affect you and your family compared to how 17.5% interest rates and high inflation of the early 80's? Right, this recession didn't affect you and your family as it had record low interest rates and low inflation.

Not only that, but while Reagan did inherit an economic mess (which, while it was NOWHERE nearly as bad as the Great Recession y'all handed Obama, was not something that could be blamed on either party - see "lasting effects of Arab Oil Embargo"), neither Reagan NOR Bush 43 inherited a huge economic deficit. In fact, the SURPLUS that Bush inherited was big enough that it was calculated that it would pay of our nation's ENTIRE debt by 2012!

Your opinion noted, wrong but it is your opinion. I am waiting for you to show me the Clinton surplus using Treasury data

Debt to the Penny (Daily History Search Application)

While you are at it learn what constitutes the deficit and what was added to the debt?

You people have a serious problem understanding basic civics and economics and show over and over again that endless facts showing the official numbers have no place in your partisan world.


So...what happened to that mighty surplus that Bush 43 inherited, that was going to pay off our entire national debt by 2012? Hm?

Of course that is why Obama has added 6.8 trillion to the debt in 6 years, all Bush's fault and all because that evil GW Bush bullied his way back into the WH and spent all that money and held up all those shovels for those shovel ready jobs that never arrived.



Because we are STILL recovering from the Great Recession, guy...in addition to the little fact that Obama's having to deal with the MOST obstructionist Congress since the Civil War, one in which the Republicans have forgotten how it was a truly massive government economic stimulus (also called WWII) that pulled us out of the Depression.

Exactly right, it was Bush's fault with a Democrat congress controlling the legislation and purse strings from January 2007-2008, and even though the Democrats controlled the Congress from 2009-2011 it is the Republican House's fault for stopping the Obama stimulus, Obama take over of GM/Chrysler, Obama recycling of TARP money, Obama's ACA program, Obama's supplemental expenses of Afghanistan, Obama's bailout of Freddie and Fannie, oh, wait those programs were approved. Wonder what it was that Obama wanted that the GOP prevented? Hmmm



You need to go re-check your 'facts'...because you really show a lack of understanding of even recent economic history. I used to be like you - I used to be a strong conservative. I understand why you think as you do...but you've apparently zero clue as to why we liberals think as we do.

yeah, you are right, I learn a lot from liberals every day, how to re-write history, how to ignore actual results, how to distort and divert. I do know why liberals think like they do, they use their heart instead of their brain ignoring logic and common sense.
 
I don't respond well to taunts. It isn't that I can't explain my position. It is that I don't consider it worth the effort in this case.

Considering how you not only respond to other similar "taunts" and how you certainly have offered a few of your own, I'd say the more likely reason you choose not to respond is that you know the right answer, but you cannot allow yourself to post that answer because it goes against everything you personally want to believe.
 
Part 2 of my reply:



Jealousy? Let me get this straight - the Democratic party is strongest in almost EVERY ethnic and demographic group except for older white males...but the REASON all the other ethnic and demographic groups are majority-Dem is because they're 'jealous'? Do you not see the silliness of the concept? Here's another example: What's the single most economically-successful ethnic group? Asians, right? Right. And if they're the most successful, would they be 'jealous' of the success of whites? NOT likely. And what party does the socially-conservative Asian community support to an ever-increasing degree? The Democratic party. Think about that one for a while.

And "ignorance"? Lemme see here - which side is it that increasingly insists on creationism being taught in schools, that almost to a man believes that 98% of the world's climatologists (and over 90% of the rest of the world's scientists) are lying about climate change, that wants to slash school funding, that thinks that teachers are getting paid too much? Oh, right - the CONSERVATIVES. And what states generally have the LOWEST educational attainment? RED states.

Yet y'all try to call us 'ignorant'.

And as far as the numbers go...remember, Bush 43 was handed a SURPLUS that would have paid off our ENTIRE national debt by 2012. What did he do as soon as he could? Slashed taxes and sent us on an illegal and unprovoked invasion of Iraq, among other things. How was our economy when Bush 43 took office, as compared to when Bush 43 left office? In other words, guy, y'all have NO room to speak.



Y'know what? I did make a mistake - I did overstate how many jobs have been created under Obama, and that's no one's fault but my own - thank you for pointing that out. NOW, look to yourself - because you seem to have conveniently forgotten that when Obama first took the oath of office, we were LOSING over half million jobs PER MONTH. Our economy was in free fall, in the worst economic trouble we'd been in for EIGHTY FREAKING YEARS.

Not only did YOUR boys take a surplus that SHOULD have paid off our ENTIRE national debt by 2012 and turn it into the largest deficit in American history (yes, the Bush 2009 budget did include what is STILL the largest deficit in our history)...but YOUR boys also decided to oppose every freaking thing that Obama tried to do to fix the economy...which has resulted in the most obstructionist Congress since the Civil War. It's doggone hard to fix the economy when half the government - the Republican half - does everything they can to gum up the people who ARE trying to fix the economy.

Here's a WONDERFUL example: Obama tried to take away the tax break that corporations were getting for outsourcing our jobs overseas...and the Republicans filibustered it, refused to let us take that tax break away from the corporations! This was in something like 2010...and our recovery was then still very weak...and Obama was trying to keep corporations from shipping American jobs overseas...and what did the Republicans do? They FILIBUSTERED it! It's been the same old story the whole time: whatever Obama does, it must be wrong or evil or corrupt or scandalous or stupid or bad. Thou Shalt Not give him credit for doing ANYTHING right!

And you know what? I saw this coming back in the early 1990's...when I first really began rethinking why it was I was a conservative. I saw then how my fellow conservatives were hating liberals not for what the liberals were doing or supporting...but because they were liberals. I saw it when the Republicans laughed with glee when Oliver North got away with Iran-Contra, with what would today have rightly been called treason. I saw it when Strom Thurmond warned Clinton not to come to his state because he couldn't promise that the president wouldn't be shot (which btw was recently repeated against Hillary). And these are but two of the many, many examples of how the Right was going down the wrong path. And I could not allow myself to remain part of a group that hates just for the sake of hate.

Facts simply refute your rhetoric and basic lack of understanding of civics and economic. Tell me exactly what the Democrat Controlled Congress that took office in January 2007 did to prevent the recession that began in December 2007? Tell me exactly what legislation they proposed that Bush vetoed that would have prevented that recession? You have a very selective memory that tells you what you want to believe.

You keep spouting the surplus story but no matter how many times you post it doesn't make it right. Clinton took office with a 4.4 trillion dollar debt and left it at 5.7 trillion. Don't see any surplus reducing those numbers nor do I see any economic policies in place today that prevented 6.8 trillion dollars being added to the debt.

The liberal play book, take away tax breaks for those that create jobs, create economic growth, and produce the engine that drives the U.S. economy. That is liberal logic and people who believe that businesses and individuals have money trees in their back yard so they can print whatever they need.

I don't hate liberals, I feel sorry for them. I grew up a liberal democrat and learned how all that spending in the name of compassion actually worked, providing only compassion for liberal bureaucrats to retain power. Unlike you I understand that the American people need their money more than the Federal Govt. why is it I never get an answer from liberals as to how much in state federal and local taxes should an individual pay out of their paycheck? It really is too bad you don't get it.
 
No, what happened is you're confusing the numbers with the rate of growth. While the raw numbers were higher, the rate of growth of the tax revenue was slashed...which meant it could not keep up with what the government was spending...

...which is why, although Bush 43 inherited a surplus that was estimated to pay off our ENTIRE national debt by 2012, by the end of his eight years, he'd turned it into what is today still the biggest deficit in American history - the 2009 budget (which was written by Bush).

AGAIN, if high taxes are SO bad, why is it that our economy boomed in the 1950's with a 90% top marginal tax rate? And if government spending is SO bad, why is it that WWII pulled us out of the Depression instead of sinking us even further into the Depression, since WWII was pretty much COMPLETELY government-funded?

Rate of growth? So it is rate of growth that matters to you, why? Apparently it is important for you to have rate of growth equal to the amount of Federal spending because all that federal spending on top of state and local spending is necessary and the American people keeping more of what they earn is the problem and requires more spending, on what?

Tired of the surplus argument and the tax rate argument which means nothing because they are both strawman arguments with the surplus being a lie and tax rates not equal to tax revenue collected.
 
Considering how you not only respond to other similar "taunts" and how you certainly have offered a few of your own, I'd say the more likely reason you choose not to respond is that you know the right answer, but you cannot allow yourself to post that answer because it goes against everything you personally want to believe.

You would be incorrect about that and, no, I'm not going to get into it with you.
 
Back
Top Bottom