• 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!

Obama says GOP making life harder for the jobless

CaptainCourtesy said:
Folks on both sides are more interested in winning elections and blaming/attacking the other side than actually doing anything. When folks wonder what is the biggest problem facing American, today, or wonder what is the number one thing that prevents solutions, all folks need to do is look at the idiotic partisanship on both sides. Then they can stop wondering.
Click to expand...

Solution = Scrapping the Two Party System + Introducing proportional Representation so it forces Co-operation.
 
Redress said:
What we need is a president like Reagan. One who cuts taxes(PolitiFact | Tax cut for 95 percent? The stimulus made it so), and raises spending to previously unimagined levels(American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia).

Oh wait....
Click to expand...

You're not going to get any of the "Reagan is God" folks to recognize that his economic positions were absurd and damaging any more than you can get an "Obama is God" person to see that he was way under-qualified to be President.
 
MrVicchio said:
Yes, I have no clue at all.
Click to expand...

That's blatantly apparent to everyone here.

I didn't lay out in EXACT detail and minute point by point explanation why their actions were bad.
Click to expand...

See above. I didn't expect you to. However, making generalized comments with clearly no actual understanding doesn't suggest you are anything more then a hack. When Don talks about this stuff, he goes into extreme detail discussing specific side affects and potential consequences often with mathematical calculations behind his posts. You just make broad, vague, factless partisan attacks. No one comes down on Don for his posts. You get slammed all of the time. Perhaps you should first educate yourself before posting? Just some advice.

Besides, no matter what I post you'll claim that I'm wrong, that your superior knowledge of the subject is superior and that I don't understand it.
Click to expand...

Well, when all you have is vague, ambiguous commentary that doesn't show you know anything, what else can I do?

Does the fact that I bring up real specific points and you can't address them suggest anything to you?

I do have better things to do then try to satisfy your level of "explanation"
Click to expand...

Indeed, you could actually educate yourself as to what you talk about.

Has anyone else noticed that when OC demands you explain something, if it's not hyper-explained he ****s on your post as if you are a stupid idiot, yet when forced to explain anything he just runs away?
Click to expand...

Incorrect. I only ask those who clearly don't understand to explain they understand. Basically I only ask you as a tool to hint that maybe you need to learn. Have you seen me do that to Phattonx? No. Because he understands. I don't agree with his views but he does understand. I don't always agree with RightinNYC, but he does understand. You and others like you, that's something else.

As for running away, care to look at where I explained linear regression to Zimmer? Running away you say?
 
Jetboogieman said:
Solution = Scrapping the Two Party System + Introducing proportional Representation so it forces Co-operation.
Click to expand...

I'm not much of a student of these types of governments that are regularly employed in other countries, but I'm starting to think you might be right. Problem is, I doubt those in the two-party system would have any intention of giving up their power.
 
CaptainCourtesy said:
You're not going to get any of the "Reagan is God" folks to recognize that his economic positions were absurd and damaging any more than you can get an "Obama is God" person to see that he was way under-qualified to be President.
Click to expand...

Actually, Reagan's policies where not that damaging, and in some ways did help pull us out of the economic bad times. Tex cuts do work. Spending does work. The problem was that it was not followed up with a serious attempt to reduce the deficit once times had improved.
 
CaptainCourtesy said:
You're not going to get any of the "Reagan is God" folks to recognize that his economic positions were absurd and damaging any more than you can get an "Obama is God" person to see that he was way under-qualified to be President.
Click to expand...

The funny sh*t is that Obama is doing many of the same policies as Reagan. But apparently the hacks here think it's okay to blame Obama despite his similar policies to Reagan.

1) Flooding the market with spending. Check
2) Expanding military spending. Check
3) Reducing interest rates. Check
4) Giving incentives to corporations to spend. Check
5) Lowering taxes. Check.

Wait, I forgot. Who are we talking about?
 
CaptainCourtesy said:
No, the problem is Washington is doing NOTHING.
Click to expand...

Not really. The problem is the recession was financial/liquidity based.

As history shows, there are no good responses that work. I've asked the hacks here to come up with plans, but they don't seem to understand the difference between a regular recession and one that started in the financial sector.

If we look at actual data (shocking I know), historically financial based recessions take significently longer to heal independent of who is in office.
 
Redress said:
Actually, Reagan's policies where not that damaging, and in some ways did help pull us out of the economic bad times. Tex cuts do work. Spending does work. The problem was that it was not followed up with a serious attempt to reduce the deficit once times had improved.
Click to expand...

From an overall standpoint, though, Reagan's concept of "trickle down" economics is absurd. It does not take into account the psychology of human greed. If you help those on top, the assumption that they will help those beneath them is ridiculous. They will just keep more for themselves. From my recollection, we say a huge widening of upper and other classes, economically, during the Reagan years. I had a lot of respect for some of Reagan's policies... his foreign policies, especially, but he really missed the boat, economically.
 
CaptainCourtesy said:
From an overall standpoint, though, Reagan's concept of "trickle down" economics is absurd. It does not take into account the psychology of human greed. If you help those on top, the assumption that they will help those beneath them is ridiculous. They will just keep more for themselves. From my recollection, we say a huge widening of upper and other classes, economically, during the Reagan years. I had a lot of respect for some of Reagan's policies... his foreign policies, especially, but he really missed the boat, economically.
Click to expand...

Oh granted. Trickle down was no a good policy.
 
obvious Child said:
Not really. The problem is the recession was financial/liquidity based.

As history shows, there are no good responses that work. I've asked the hacks here to come up with plans, but they don't seem to understand the difference between a regular recession and one that started in the financial sector.

If we look at actual data (shocking I know), historically financial based recessions take significently longer to heal independent of who is in office.
Click to expand...

I was speaking more in general, not solely about economics.
 
Redress said:
Oh granted. Trickle down was no a good policy.
Click to expand...

I'm going to have disagree with that. As Reagan showed, corporate trickle down works. And as Bush showed, bonus depreciation caused a glut of corporate spending. When Reagan blew the bank on military spending, defense contractors geared up production, hiring new workers and increasing demand on suppliers. I don't need to explain the rest to you as I'm 100% you get it.

But individual trickle down doesn't work because it ignores the marginal propensity to save/consume.
 
obvious Child said:
Is reading fundamental? Did I say there were jobs?
Click to expand...

It sounded like you said there were jobs. Maybe you should focus on learning how to write in a manner that accurately conveys your point? Bring on more personal attacks, 'cuz I know it's all you really have.
 
apdst said:
It sounded like you said there were jobs. Maybe you should focus on learning how to write in a manner that accurately conveys your point? Bring on more personal attacks, 'cuz I know it's all you really have.
Click to expand...

No it didn't. How was I pointing out that his faulty assumption underlying his argument is that there are jobs equates to me thinking there jobs? Did you fail to recognize the word "FAULTY?"

Seriously, comprehension of the written English language eludes you.
 
Redress said:
Gotta love political grandstanding with things like unemployment benefits in a time with close to 10 % unemployment. What makes it hilarious is these same republicans who voted against this because of the debt had no problem squandering the near balanced budget Clinton left them.
Click to expand...

subsidizing people staying unemployed means more people will stay unemployed.
 
Redress said:
Oh granted. Trickle down was no a good policy.
Click to expand...

it certainly beats the government stealing wealth and doling it out to dem elites
 
obvious Child said:
No it didn't. How was I pointing out that his faulty assumption underlying his argument is that there are jobs equates to me thinking there jobs? Did you fail to recognize the word "FAULTY?"

Seriously, comprehension of the written English language eludes you.
Click to expand...

Learn to express yourself properly and you won't have to worry about my opinion of your posts.
 
obvious Child said:
I'm going to have disagree with that. As Reagan showed, corporate trickle down works. And as Bush showed, bonus depreciation caused a glut of corporate spending. When Reagan blew the bank on military spending, defense contractors geared up production, hiring new workers and increasing demand on suppliers. I don't need to explain the rest to you as I'm 100% you get it.

But individual trickle down doesn't work because it ignores the marginal propensity to save/consume.
Click to expand...

You are right about individual trickle down. Trickle down from businesses is a more tenuous and hard to measure thing. It is certainly not nearly a 1 for 1 relationship. Reagan's military spending was not really trickle down economics, as it was not considered part of his economic policy, but it did work that way. You could argue that tax cuts to businesses that hire new people is a form of trickle down economics, and it highlights the problem with the whole thing. The tax cut will not cause businesses to hire any one new(that takes an increased demand for labor), but it will cause businesses to hire new people sooner, over having current employees work overtime. Of course, that is only true if there is confidence of a continued demand, which is why we are seeing such high unemployment still. Businesses are not hiring more people or calling people back because they lack confidence in the duration of demand, so you have businesses running with lots still on layoff, but those working are working lots of overtime.

CC is also wrong in assigning the problem with trickle down to greed, like that is some bad thing. No one can blame a person or corporation for maximizing profits...it's what they should do.
 
Moderator's Warning:
This is just a warning. Things are getting a tad heated for a couple people. Be careful you do not cross the line into personal insults. Thank you :cool:
 
Originally Posted by Goyboy:
I didn't say that the GOP members were any better at reducing the national debt. They are equally guilty of adding to the national debt.
Click to expand...

Boo Radley said:
I would agree to equal guilt. Do you hold equal distian? Will you believe anything republicans say?
Click to expand...
Me believe everything that Republicans say? No way.

No political party has a monopoly on good ideas. No political party has a monopoly on bad ideas.
 
TurtleDude said:
subsidizing people staying unemployed means more people will stay unemployed.
Click to expand...

Actual unemployment(including underemployed and discouraged workers) is over 20 % in the county I live in. Unemployment benefits is not the problem, lack of jobs is.

Word got out last week that the Meijer's(think Wallmart, but local to Michigan, and bigger than Wallmart by far within Mi) in this town was hiring a couple new stock people. This is a minimum wage, part time, no benefit job. I found out about this when I went to Meijer's last week to do grocery shopping, and the two computer terminals where you can fill out applications instore had about 30 people around them. The cashier when I checked out explained it to me when I asked, and said that it had been like that constantly for the last 3 days since word had gotten out.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom