• 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. Deficit Decline to 2.8% of GDP Is Unprecedented Turn

No, with every post of yours I see I realize how fortunate I was to get a degree and actually get out in the real world dealing with real people, hiring, firing, and yes promoting good hard working people rather than having my nose buried in a textbook. I guess getting beat is all in the definition. I will put my resume and results up against yours any day

There is no need to get personal. That you lose your cool and resort to uncivil responses shows you are here strictly to partisan foot stomp!
 
What should be done about it is get rid of liberal feel good policies that create dependence not successful growth. Tough love is going to be needed and not sure that the public is ready for that. Return ALL social programs except the ones already forced on the American people(SS and Medicare) to the states where they belong. Return the Federal Govt. to its original intent, to defend and protect this country. Social programs should all be at the state and local level.

and that will raise wages for people making minimum or slightly better, how again?

Moving social welfare programs from the federal to the state governments would just move the problem from one government to another.

Instead, how about:
Making policy that people who work should be better off than people who don't?
Providing training for people who want to take on better paying jobs at a cost they can afford to pay?
Getting the cost of health care off of the backs of the employers?
Enforcing the laws against hiring illegal aliens?

Seems to me that would do more to help the lower socioeconomic people move up the ladder than simply moving their government benefits from the federal to the state level.

It also seems to me that, absent the stronger economy that exists today as opposed to six years ago, no programs are going to help anyone.
 
The microeconomics of middle and lower class Americans feeding their family are the worst they've been in nearly 75 years.

:lol:

Do explain in greater detail!
 
and that will raise wages for people making minimum or slightly better, how again?

Moving social welfare programs from the federal to the state governments would just move the problem from one government to another.

Instead, how about:
Making policy that people who work should be better off than people who don't?
Providing training for people who want to take on better paying jobs at a cost they can afford to pay?
Getting the cost of health care off of the backs of the employers?
Enforcing the laws against hiring illegal aliens?

Seems to me that would do more to help the lower socioeconomic people move up the ladder than simply moving their government benefits from the federal to the state level.

It also seems to me that, absent the stronger economy that exists today as opposed to six years ago, no programs are going to help anyone.

Changes occur with far less difficulty at the state/local level; one big driving factor is that they cannot simply print or endlessly borrow money required to fund them. Many states simply view these federal funds as "free money" being pumped into their state's economy. State/local elected officials don't tend to win (or lose) elections based on federal tax, spending and borrowing policy - congress critters enjoy a 90%+ re-election rate so they just don't really care about making changes to that which is clearly working to keep most of them in office.
 
Changes occur with far less difficulty at the state/local level; one big driving factor is that they cannot simply print or endlessly borrow money required to fund them. Many states simply view these federal funds as "free money" being pumped into their state's economy. State/local elected officials don't tend to win (or lose) elections based on federal tax, spending and borrowing policy - congress critters enjoy a 90%+ re-election rate so they just don't really care about making changes to that which is clearly working to keep most of them in office.

You must not keep up with California politics.
 
There is no need to get personal. That you lose your cool and resort to uncivil responses shows you are here strictly to partisan foot stomp!

Sorry, but I am totally cool, no malice at all, just logic, common sense, and facts. I am a partisan American who understands the foundation upon which this country was built and it wasn't the liberal foundation nor what today's Democrat Party stands for. I grew up a JFK Democrat so please tell me what Democrat today represents JFK's economic values?
 
Sorry, but I am totally cool, no malice at all, just logic, common sense, and facts.

Your post history contradicts this self-description.

I am a partisan American who understands the foundation upon which this country was built and it wasn't the liberal foundation nor what today's Democrat Party stands for. I grew up a JFK Democrat so please tell me what Democrat today represents JFK's economic values?

Wrong thread!
 
and that will raise wages for people making minimum or slightly better, how again?

Moving social welfare programs from the federal to the state governments would just move the problem from one government to another.

Instead, how about:
Making policy that people who work should be better off than people who don't?
Providing training for people who want to take on better paying jobs at a cost they can afford to pay?
Getting the cost of health care off of the backs of the employers?
Enforcing the laws against hiring illegal aliens?

Seems to me that would do more to help the lower socioeconomic people move up the ladder than simply moving their government benefits from the federal to the state level.

It also seems to me that, absent the stronger economy that exists today as opposed to six years ago, no programs are going to help anyone.

Pretty simple, hungry people work and those who work for minimum wage for a long period of time need to stop being coddled and forced to realize there are consequences for poor performance and no economic growth. The way to help lower socioeconomic people is to not provide them with a safety net for life but rather let neighbor help neighbor with that neighbor not being the Federal Taxpayers.

The economic ignorance today is staggering as far too many people think with their hearts and not their brain. Moving the problem to the state and local government is exactly what our Founders wanted, govt. closer to the people. You think a Federal Bureaucrat in D.C. gives a damn about a problem in Boise, Idaho? Better believe that Representative from Boise, Idaho does

A strong economy depends on people having more spendable income not the govt. pumping billions into it. It requires giving people incentive to grow and become entrepreneurs, take risk, and be rewarded for that risk taking, not channeling their hard work and efforts to others.
 
Your post history contradicts this self-description.



Wrong thread!

Wrong interpretation by you and symbolic of your mindset. Logic and common sense from a street smart person will always trump your book smart beliefs. Facts show the failures of liberalism as does the current 3.8 trillion dollar Federal Govt. with most of that in entitlement spending.
 
:lol:

Do explain in greater detail!

Wages and median incomes are falling. Job creation is a sick joke. Welfare claims are at an all-time high. Home values are getting back to where they were pre-recession, which is good if you're a baby boomer who owns a home but a catastrophe if you're a millennial whose going to need to buy one soon. Inflation is out of control (if you look at REAL all-item inflation rather than the slight-of-hand CPI prices are rising at closer to 10% per year than the CPI's 1% to 2%). The offshoring of manufacturing jobs is continuing at a steady rate and the offshoring of service jobs continues to increase.
 
Wrong interpretation by you and symbolic of your mindset.

You don't know me, and yet in a thread about GDP you made multiple remarks regarding your superiority.

Logic and common sense from a street smart person will always trump your book smart beliefs.

Just because i understand the terminology and employ actual analysis of varies data releases in no way renders my position inferior. That you embrace anti-intellectualism only serves as fault in your credibility.

Facts show the failures of liberalism as does the current 3.8 trillion dollar Federal Govt. with most of that in entitlement spending.

Your opposition is entirely partisan. I get it, you don't do economics. That surely not a valid reason to ridicule those that do!
 
Pretty simple, hungry people work and those who work for minimum wage for a long period of time need to stop being coddled and forced to realize there are consequences for poor performance and no economic growth. The way to help lower socioeconomic people is to not provide them with a safety net for life but rather let neighbor help neighbor with that neighbor not being the Federal Taxpayers.

The economic ignorance today is staggering as far too many people think with their hearts and not their brain. Moving the problem to the state and local government is exactly what our Founders wanted, govt. closer to the people. You think a Federal Bureaucrat in D.C. gives a damn about a problem in Boise, Idaho? Better believe that Representative from Boise, Idaho does

A strong economy depends on people having more spendable income not the govt. pumping billions into it. It requires giving people incentive to grow and become entrepreneurs, take risk, and be rewarded for that risk taking, not channeling their hard work and efforts to others.
That philosophy was tried the last time we had an economic collapse. It is referred to as the great depression. There was no safety net then, no government pumping money into the economy, no one being "coddled", just neighbor helping neighbor. Oh, yes, and people were hungry and more than willing to work.

How did that one work out?
 
Wages and median incomes are falling.

But why?

Unit labor costs are increasing!

Job creation is a sick joke.

Normative rant and nothing else.

Welfare claims are at an all-time high.

Even if we concede this point, we should expect welfare claims to increase as the country ages and the population grows.

Home values are getting back to where they were pre-recession, which is good if you're a baby boomer who owns a home but a catastrophe if you're a millennial whose going to need to buy one soon.

Another normative rant!

Inflation is out of control (if you look at REAL all-item inflation rather than the slight-of-hand CPI prices are rising at closer to 10% per year than the CPI's 1% to 2%).

This is nonsense.

fredgraph.png


The offshoring of manufacturing jobs is continuing at a steady rate and the offshoring of service jobs continues to increase.

Maybe you should study up on basic microeconomic trade theory before spouting off at the mouth. It would save quite a bit of time for everyone you engage, along with yourself!
 
You don't know me, and yet in a thread about GDP you made multiple remarks regarding your superiority.



Just because i understand the terminology and employ actual analysis of varies data releases in no way renders my position inferior. That you embrace anti-intellectualism only serves as fault in your credibility.



Your opposition is entirely partisan. I get it, you don't do economics. That surely not a valid reason to ridicule those that do!

Everybody does economics, Kush, whether they want to or not and whether they understand it or not. There is real economics and there is textbook economics. Real economics affect real people and are generated by human behavior. Textbook economics measure results only and never measure human behavior nor put results into context with human behavior. GDP has four major components with the largest being consumer spending and that is totally ignored by the leftwing but the reality today is we do have more people dependent on that Federal Govt. than ever before and that is a prescription for disaster. The solution certainly isn't to make it bigger.
 
Textbook economics measure results only and never measure human behavior nor put results into context with human behavior. GDP has four major components with the largest being consumer spending and that is totally ignored by the leftwing but the reality today is we do have more people dependent on that Federal Govt. than ever before and that is a prescription for disaster. The solution certainly isn't to make it bigger.

Categorizing on the basis of textbook vs real is red herring. You are attempting to shift the discussion from the topic to a venue for ideological mud-slinging. Not interested in such futile engagements.

You don't do economics. You bitch, moan, and rant. Calling it "real economics" doesn't change anything.
 
Categorizing on the basis of textbook vs real is red herring. You are attempting to shift the discussion from the topic to a venue for ideological mud-slinging. Not interested in such futile engagements.

You don't do economics. You bitch, moan, and rant. Calling it "real economics" doesn't change anything.

No, what I am doing is humanizing is, something I fear you do not understand. Have you ever run a business? Ever had to hire or fire people? Any idea what it is like to interview someone to represent you that shows up looking the way many of the kids today look? How much should those people be paid? Long hair, holes in the jeans, earrings, an I don't give a damn attitude? Ever invest your own money in a business and have those kind of people representing you

Do you ever think of the consequences for your actions when it comes to earning a paycheck? Does the entitlement mentality really benefit the employer and the individual?

You focus on numbers and not the people behind the numbers. You claim that unemployment is dropping whereas the official rate is indeed dropping but that is due to a large growth in part time workers. You claim expenses should be adjusted for inflation for comparison purposes but ignore that revenue grows as well but will never keep up with the liberal spending appetite.

You are right, I don't DO economics, I live them every day
 
No, what I am doing is humanizing is, something I fear you do not understand. Have you ever run a business? Ever had to hire or fire people? Any idea what it is like to interview someone to represent you that shows up looking the way many of the kids today look? How much should those people be paid? Long hair, holes in the jeans, earrings, an I don't give a damn attitude? Ever invest your own money in a business and have those kind of people representing you

This has nothing to do with the discussion. It's not about me or my experiences nor is it about you or yours.

Do you ever think of the consequences for your actions when it comes to earning a paycheck? Does the entitlement mentality really benefit the employer and the individual?

WTF does this have to do with the discussion?

You focus on numbers and not the people behind the numbers. You claim that unemployment is dropping whereas the official rate is indeed dropping but that is due to a large growth in part time workers.

More nonsense. A major driver of the low unemployment rate is people dropping out of the labor force. Roughly half of which is attributed to an aging population. There was a thread in which the discussion was centered around this fact. Of course, ideological hacks turn into deniers of empirical analysis when the results don't confirm their bias.

You claim expenses should be adjusted for inflation for comparison purposes but ignore that revenue grows as well but will never keep up with the liberal spending appetite.

This comment doesn't even make any sense. What does real dollar terms have to do with your perception of political expenditures?

You are right, I don't DO economics, I live them every day

You pretend to be an expert, yet have a very limited understanding of the topic. And i'm being kind. The proof is in your post history; full of half-truths, partisan hackery, and confusion.
 
But why?

Unit labor costs are increasing!

Oh.

Good to know that unit labor costs are a direct measure of lower and lower middle class wages.

What, they're not?

So then what's your point again?

Normative rant and nothing else.

Okay.

So the creation of two part-time jobs that pay minimum wage, neither of which provide benefits, is the same thing as the creation of an equal number of good jobs.

You know that's what you're arguing, right?

Even if we concede this point, we should expect welfare claims to increase as the country ages and the population grows.

We should expect 20% of American households to be receiving SNAP?

Maybe if we've been smoking crack that's what we'd expect.

Another normative rant!

Riiiiiiight.

Agreed.

There's something wrong with home ownership being normal.

So the inability of Americans to afford homes, while completely abnormal, isn't really a concern.

:roll:

This is nonsense.

fredgraph.png

Remember dude, we're talking about lower and lower middle class people here.

Not the economy overall.

Look at the things that people who are living paycheck to paycheck buy, paycheck to paycheck.

The price of a Firebird Trans Am is down but the price of a loaf of bread and a gallon of milk is, relatively speaking, through the roof.

Maybe you should study up on basic microeconomic trade theory before spouting off at the mouth. It would save quite a bit of time for everyone you engage, along with yourself!

Like I said, the microeconomics, specifically, of a working man trying to feed his family.

Not microeconomic trade theory.

Not "I've got a BS in economics and now work in data entry".

But how our economy is actually effecting the three lowest quartiles of the American people.

Bottom line is that those people are sucking ass.









Maybe you should study up on basic microeconomic trade theory before spouting off at the mouth. It would save quite a bit of time for everyone you engage, along with yourself!
 
You know that's what you're arguing, right?

Nonsense!

Market based economies will always tend to let the poor slip through the cracks. This is becoming more and more apparent as capital's representation of output continues to outpace that of labor. Blind ranting is not a valid substitute for economic analysis. Hiding behind the poor is a cowardly way to debate.
 
Have a nice day dude.

Perhaps in our next exchange, you can attempt to make a valid point. You will eventually learn that emotionally driven responses get the best of you.
 
...GDP has four major components with the largest being consumer spending and that is totally ignored by the leftwing...
Hilarious...since most of the "left" who know a little about macro argue from the Keynes POV....which is all about demand.....and you are a suppy-sider!
 
Yes. Excuses. Partisans will be partisan.
I love correlation vs. causation fallacy's from apologists.
So then you never blamed Obama for a bad or struggling economy? You never criticize for deficit spending or any of his economic policies?

Correlation vs. causation, right? Or is it only causation when it's bad and simply correlation when it's good? C'mon, show that partisanship!
 
Back
Top Bottom