• 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 Job Market Loses Steam

Harshaw said:
I never said it did. But MG said "it hasn't seemed to work one iota." Yet there was job growth. So perhaps you should be after her to explain why she thinks the tax cuts couldn't have affected it at all. That is what "not one iota" means.
Click to expand...

She did not state it as fact, but as it not "seeming" to have worked. You implied something pretty direct.
 
Redress said:
She did not state it as fact, but as it not "seeming" to have worked. You implied something pretty direct.
Click to expand...

:roll: Then perhaps you should ask her why she says it doesn't "seem" to have worked when there was job growth.
 
MG, why do you think it seems to not work when there was job growth after?

There, happy?

I again point out that the job growth may very well not have had much to do with the tax cuts on over 200k people. In point of fact, I doubt those tax cuts had much effect.
 
Here is the way I see it. Yes, 71,000 private sector jobs were created, but that is not enough to keep up with all those people coming out of school and entering the work force. As for who is responsible, Obama is not doing enough, the downturn began in 2007, while Bush was still in office, and Clinton signed the repeal of Glass-Steagal into law. There is plenty of blame to go around. The primary villain, however, is pure, unadulterated greed.
 
Redress said:
MG, why do you think it seems to not work when there was job growth after?

There, happy?
Click to expand...

Whatevs. Not sure why it took so much prompting, though.


I again point out that the job growth may very well not have had much to do with the tax cuts on over 200k people. In point of fact, I doubt those tax cuts had much effect.
Click to expand...

I never said otherwise. My only point was the question you just asked MG.
 
"US Job Market Loses Steam"?????

What? Surely this article must be from 2007. I mean, when was the last time really that the job market had any steam?
 
danarhea said:
Here is the way I see it. Yes, 71,000 private sector jobs were created, but that is not enough to keep up with all those people coming out of school and entering the work force. As for who is responsible, Obama is not doing enough, the downturn began in 2007, while Bush was still in office, and Clinton signed the repeal of Glass-Steagal into law. There is plenty of blame to go around. The primary villain, however, is pure, unadulterated greed.
Click to expand...

To put the fiscal stimulus into relative perspective, China enacted a $586 billion stimulus package. What makes this so significant is the size of the Chinese economy ($4.8 trillion GDP, $8.8 trillion GDP PPP), between 12% and 7% of GD. The US stimulus package $780 billion (US economy of $14.4 trillion) was around 5.5% of GDP. A stimulus package of around $1.5 trillion would have had a far greater effect in boosting aggregate demand.
 
Goldenboy219 said:
To put the fiscal stimulus into relative perspective, China enacted a $586 billion stimulus package. What makes this so significant is the size of the Chinese economy ($4.8 trillion GDP, $8.8 trillion GDP PPP), between 12% and 7% of GD. The US stimulus package $780 billion (US economy of $14.4 trillion) was around 5.5% of GDP. A stimulus package of around $1.5 trillion would have had a far greater effect in boosting aggregate demand.
Click to expand...
Must... stop... staring... at avatar.

No.

Must... look.... more...
 
Goldenboy219 said:
To put the fiscal stimulus into relative perspective, China enacted a $586 billion stimulus package. What makes this so significant is the size of the Chinese economy ($4.8 trillion GDP, $8.8 trillion GDP PPP), between 12% and 7% of GD. The US stimulus package $780 billion (US economy of $14.4 trillion) was around 5.5% of GDP. A stimulus package of around $1.5 trillion would have had a far greater effect in boosting aggregate demand.
Click to expand...

You miss the fact that China spent it's stimulus in about one year. In our sorry state of politics, the stimulus was passed with the hope/expectation that we would have a strong economy in 2010 for the elections.
 
washunut said:
You miss the fact that China spent it's stimulus in about one year. In our sorry state of politics, the stimulus was passed with the hope/expectation that we would have a strong economy in 2010 for the elections.
Click to expand...

Two years. And the US was of the last nations to enact such measures.
 
danarhea said:
Here is the way I see it. Yes, 71,000 private sector jobs were created, but that is not enough to keep up with all those people coming out of school and entering the work force. As for who is responsible, Obama is not doing enough, the downturn began in 2007, while Bush was still in office, and Clinton signed the repeal of Glass-Steagal into law. There is plenty of blame to go around. The primary villain, however, is pure, unadulterated greed.
Click to expand...

How is greed to blame? People were trying too hard to make money?
 
apdst said:
How is greed to blame? People were trying too hard to make money?
Click to expand...

If by greed we mean most Americans who spend more than they can afford. Then yes greed was a key cause of our current problems. It would also say that the congress are some of the greediest among us.
 
washunut said:
If by greed we mean most Americans who spend more than they can afford. Then yes greed was a key cause of our current problems. It would also say that the congress are some of the greediest among us.
Click to expand...

That's not greed, nor did people spending more than they could afford cause the recession. It was the doom-saying from politicians that had more to do with the recession, that cause a slow down in spending, more than anything else.
 
apdst said:
That's not greed, nor did people spending more than they could afford cause the recession. It was the doom-saying from politicians that had more to do with the recession, that cause a slow down in spending, more than anything else.
Click to expand...

Could not disagree more.
 
washunut said:
Could not disagree more.
Click to expand...

Didn't expect otherwise. There are alot of folks that can't/won't see that it's the uncertainty that the government created among private business, along with the, "the end is nigh", pontificatting that cause the recession. The Dems had to degrade the economy, so they could get elected. More importantly, it took the recession to get Obama elected.
 
apdst said:
Didn't expect otherwise. There are alot of folks that can't/won't see that it's the uncertainty that the government created among private business, along with the, "the end is nigh", pontificatting that cause the recession. The Dems had to degrade the economy, so they could get elected. More importantly, it took the recession to get Obama elected.
Click to expand...

The housing bubble was going to burst eventually, just like the dot com bubble. The high leverage levels by financial institutions is also a risk that eventually ends poorly. People signing up for houses they could not afford with no money down. Did the government hurt as well, yes.

When you point to just one problem that put us where we are changes the subjext to a meaningless blame game.
 
Harshaw said:
1) They weren't "humongous."

2) 7-8 million jobs were created after they were enacted.

3) You asked what was different today, so I answered it.
Click to expand...

Not humongous???

chart-of-the-day-bush-policies-deficits-june-2010.gif
 
Harshaw said:
2) 7-8 million jobs were created after they were enacted.
Click to expand...

How do you know if they were due to the tax cuts? These people don't seem to think they helped much:

Sluggish private job growth indicates failure of tax cuts
Changes in tax law since 2001 reduced federal government revenue by $870 billion through September 2005. Supporters of these tax cuts have touted them as great contributors to growth in jobs and pay. But, in reality, private-sector job growth since 2001 has been disappointing, and a closer look at the new jobs created shows that federal spending—not tax cuts—are responsible for the jobs created in the past five years.

If tax cuts have created jobs at all since 2001, it will have happened in the private sector. Assuming that job growth in 2006 matches the Bush Administration's projections, the economy will have added about 2.0 million jobs to the private sector from FY2001 through FY2006. But how many of these two million jobs actually can be attributed to tax cuts and how many to increased government spending—particularly increased defense spending—in this period?

snap20050126-650.gif


Based on Defense Department estimates of the number of private-sector jobs created by its own spending, we project that additional defense spending will account for a 1.495 million gain in private sector jobs between FY2001 and FY2006. Furthermore, increases in non-defense discretionary spending since 2001 will have added yet another 1.325 million jobs in the private sector, for a total of 2.82 million jobs created by increased government spending. Increased mandatory government spending—which is not even included in these estimates or the accompanying chart—would account for even more job creation. The mere fact that the projected job growth resulting from increased defense and other government spending exceeds the actual number of jobs projected to be added to the economy through 2006 clearly indicates that the tax cuts hardly seem plausible as the engine of the modest job growth in the economy since 2001.
Click to expand...

JobWatch
 
Middleground said:
How do you know if they were due to the tax cuts? These people don't seem to think they helped much:



JobWatch
Click to expand...


The EPI? Really? Nothing more biased out there? Economic Policy Institute is a well known biased org.


j-mac
 
j-mac said:
The EPI? Really? Nothing more biased out there? Economic Policy Institute is a well known biased org.


j-mac
Click to expand...

And yet you cannot muster how MG's post was off base or irrelevant. J-Mac: "Your source is wrong!" MG: "Why?" J-Mac:"Because it is!"

:lamo Priceless!
 
Goldenboy219 said:
And yet you cannot muster how MG's post was off base or irrelevant. J-Mac: "Your source is wrong!" MG: "Why?" J-Mac:"Because it is!"

:lamo Priceless!
Click to expand...


Nope, I don't think so there GoldenBOY. All you need do is Google Economic Policy Institute bias, and you get a wealth of articles documenting how they have a well known liberal bias.

j-mac
 
j-mac said:
Nope, I don't think so there GoldenBOY. All you need do is Google Economic Policy Institute bias, and you get a wealth of articles documenting how they have a well known liberal bias.

j-mac
Click to expand...

But lets assume the specific institution has a bias lean; does that automatically relieve you from explaining to all of us the inaccuracies of MG's source? To be honest, i think you are just blowing hot air. If you could explain the shortcoming, you would have done so already.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom