• 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!

Stimulus Boosted Jobs in 2nd Quarter, CBO Says

Conservative said:
You are right, bea.gov, bls.gov, and the U.S. Treasury sites all offer theory, LOL.
Click to expand...

Care to show where i said the raw data sites offer theory? Another case of conservative making things up.

Like a typical liberal, your arrogance is showing as is your lack of logic, common sense, and facts.
Click to expand...

You have been demolished in every one of my responses. It's getting boring squashing the intellectually ill-equipped.

You may get the last word (because that is all that you have left).
 
Last edited:
j-mac said:
Ok, but who appoints the Fed chairman? Isn't that the President, and Congress approves them?

And regardless of which entity is buying our own debt doesn't the threat of hyper inflation exist with the Fed buying our own debt?

j-mac
Click to expand...

No.

The Fed purchases government debt from private entities via open market operations. It does not purchase it directly from the treasury.

The board of governers are appointed for 14 year terms, thereby eliminating political motive (the reason the Fed was created).
 
Last edited:
Goldenboy219 said:
Nope! If a particular credit market is running short on liquidity, it will require greater rates of interest to induce investors.
Click to expand...

And pumping liquidity into their won't lower those interest rates?
 
Goldenboy219 said:
Care to show where i said the raw data sites offer theory? Another case of conservative making things up.



You have been demolished in every one of my responses. It's getting boring squashing the intellectually ill-equipped.

You may get the last word (because that is all that you have left).
Click to expand...

What really is quite telling is that you are the only one claiming intellectual superiority whereas I call that individual insecurity. Normally insecure individuals always tell others how great they are. You seem to get tired of anyone that refutes your rhetoric with actual facts, logic, and common sense. Giving me the comments of a Nobel Prize winning economists doesn't make you look smarter but it does making you look very gullible.

Those so called intellectual economists seem to ignore actual results and that was the point. Their theory seems to trump reality in your world and theirs.
 
Last edited:
Goldenboy219 said:
That is because there is no need to explain the effects of inflation within credit markets.
Click to expand...

How can you claim such a bold assertion? Why would there be no need to explain that?

No. While one can speculate about relative purchasing power (as you often do), changes in purchasing power do not cause speculation. Irrational profit expectations fuel speculation.
Click to expand...

So if I have $10 saved in the bank, and the bank lends out $7 against that, there are multiple claims to the same $7. The $10 that person 1 has and the $7 that person 2 has cannot both be true with the dollar at its current level. So won't both believe that they have more purchasing power than they actually believe (at least one has to have less that he expects), and won't both act in accordance with that? And so once people realize that they have less than they expected, won't that cause problems? Expecially for person 1 who must now save because he has less purchasing power saved than he thought before. Won't that cause over-speculation because demand will necessarily contract while people get the security back that they once thought they had?

Of course it does. Less money being spent (or a greater demand for money) naturally means less of a demand of goods (fixed supply or not).
Click to expand...

Until prices adjust to the level where people have the savings/security that they want. Once the prices adjust (because that money is basically out of circulation), you don't have a problem.

This is false. People produce because they believe they will be able to sell their goods at a price that is greater than their cost. In fact, people will hold onto their dollars if they believe the value of them will continue to increase relative to what is being produced.
Click to expand...

That's not true at all. Why do people then buy computers knowing that they will become better and the price stay relatively stable in a very short span of time? They don't hold onto their money waiting for the technology to improve, they buy now knowing that their technology will be obsolete in just a few years.
 
Goldenboy219 said:
No.

The Fed purchases government debt from private entities via open market operations. It does not purchase it directly from the treasury.

The board of governers are appointed for 14 year terms, thereby eliminating political motive (the reason the Fed was created).
Click to expand...

Why all of this talk of the politics of the Fed when he was just asking whether or not the Fed can induce hyperinflation?
 
j-mac said:
When demo's have the purse strings.
Click to expand...

Except that reality refutes you right now.

Nonsense, this Presidents agenda has been nothing if not payback to political allies.
Click to expand...

Still haven't figured out the difference between facts and opinions have you?

What kind of backward arse thinking is that?
Click to expand...

The same kind Donald Sutherland argued about a month ago. Actually he argued the identical argument. Too bad I was arguing that a month before he did. Still. Great minds think alike. Hence why I can't agree with you on anything Mr. "Cops can threaten to rape and kill your family during an interrogation."

Look, tell me how unemployment payments that at top rates come in around $250.00 per week, are equal in spending power retail wise, to a job that brings in $1000.00 per week?
Click to expand...

That was basically nonsense. People on unemployment still have to eat. If they had no income coming in, they'd cut spending on all non-necessities. Instead with unemployment payments, they go and spend it at discounters. There's a reason why over the last 18 months discounters have been doing extremely well. Walmart has reached store saturation and is still kicking butt.

Propping up union pensions.
Click to expand...

And they did that when?

FYI:
http://www.debatepolitics.com/break...s-2nd-quarter-cbo-says-11.html#post1058997443
 
Conservative said:
Because you told me you were taking on more responsibility at the company where you work.

I am still waiting for you to apply your own financial situation to the national scene, when your taxes go up do you have more or less spendable income and how does that affect spending?
Click to expand...

That would be now and not preclude me from done anything in the past or at the same time. You can't really know anything about any of us.

I will spend just as much as I do now. There will be no noticable difference. Same with those making 250,000 and more.
 
Boo Radley said:
That would be now and not preclude me from done anything in the past or at the same time. You can't really know anything about any of us.

I will spend just as much as I do now. There will be no noticable difference. Same with those making 250,000 and more.
Click to expand...

I can't wait until you go on your own and find out what the real world is like. I assure you that you will change your tune. When you have less spendable income you spend less and that is what happens when taxes go up. Cannot believe I am having this argument.
 
Conservative said:
I can't wait until you go on your own and find out what the real world is like. I assure you that you will change your tune. When you have less spendable income you spend less and that is what happens when taxes go up. Cannot believe I am having this argument.
Click to expand...

I'm 51 fellow. I've done a few things. So, save the silliness for someone else. ;)
 
Boo Radley said:
I'm 51 fellow. I've done a few things. So, save the silliness for someone else. ;)
Click to expand...

What exactly have you done that makes a difference to anyone else? the silliness is believing that raising taxes is going to put 16 million Americans back to work and will cut the debt. You don't seem to have a clue how our economy works and the role private business plays in it.
 
apdst said:
Ever operated your own business?
Click to expand...

Good of you to ask instead of assume, yes in a partnership. An antique store for a few years. learn more about Barbie dolls than I ever wanted to know. Partner got ill and I didn't care enough about it to take over. But it was a nice bit of fun for awhile and we made a few bucks.
 
Conservative said:
What exactly have you done that makes a difference to anyone else? the silliness is believing that raising taxes is going to put 16 million Americans back to work and will cut the debt. You don't seem to have a clue how our economy works and the role private business plays in it.
Click to expand...

This is part of your problem, I've made no such claim about putting anyone back to work. I said that taxes on 1% would help with the defitcit and not effect people going back to work at all.
 
Boo Radley said:
Good of you to ask instead of assume, yes in a partnership. An antique store for a few years. learn more about Barbie dolls than I ever wanted to know. Partner got ill and I didn't care enough about it to take over. But it was a nice bit of fun for awhile and we made a few bucks.
Click to expand...

How would an 18% increase in taxes have affected your bottom line?
 
Boo Radley said:
This is part of your problem, I've made no such claim about putting anyone back to work. I said that taxes on 1% would help with the defitcit and not effect people going back to work at all.
Click to expand...

Do you have any idea how much money increasing the taxes on the top 1% would generate for the govt? And that is based upon that top 1% not changing their spending and saving habits. You really don't understand incentive, do you?

The idea behind tax cuts is not to have 100 people paying $1 in taxes but having 200 people paying .75 each. That is what reducing taxes does, increases the number of taxpayers and thus why tax revenue goes up.
 
I'm sorry to break it to all of you who don't get it, but any tiny dip in the unemployment rate means nothing because it's just that a tiny dip.

When we have the total number of jobs meet or exceed the total number or even 3/4 of the number of unemployed you will have something to crow about.

Until then your blowing smoke, and I wonder what you're smoking.

Obama if a failure and the inner circle including Rahm Emanuel, David Axlrod and the whole economic team is bailing because they see the hand writing on the wall Obama is going down in flames come the 2012 election.

Fact is Obama is becoming the third rail of politics for Democrats in the House and Senate.

Those who stand for nothing fall for anything.

The only thing we have to fear is everything Obama and his cadre of henchmen, radicals, and wackos. stand for.
 
Last edited:
Conservative said:
Do you have any idea how much money increasing the taxes on the top 1% would generate for the govt? And that is based upon that top 1% not changing their spending and saving habits. You really don't understand incentive, do you?

The idea behind tax cuts is not to have 100 people paying $1 in taxes but having 200 people paying .75 each. That is what reducing taxes does, increases the number of taxpayers and thus why tax revenue goes up.
Click to expand...

The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office predicts that the economy would be stronger with the cuts, but only through 2012, when the extra borrowing they require "would reduce or 'crowd out' investment in productive capital." Even former Federal Reserve chairman Alan Greenspan, an early advocate of the cuts, now says Congress should let them expire.

washingtonpost.com

In a nod to deficit reduction, Obama did propose that lawmakers let the tax cuts expire for high-income households, couples making more than $250,000. Doing so would reduce the deficit by $678 billion from where it would be if the cuts were extended for everyone.

Bush-ama tax cuts: The $2.2 trillion decision - May. 4, 2010
 
Boo Radley said:
The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office predicts that the economy would be stronger with the cuts, but only through 2012, when the extra borrowing they require "would reduce or 'crowd out' investment in productive capital." Even former Federal Reserve chairman Alan Greenspan, an early advocate of the cuts, now says Congress should let them expire.

washingtonpost.com

In a nod to deficit reduction, Obama did propose that lawmakers let the tax cuts expire for high-income households, couples making more than $250,000. Doing so would reduce the deficit by $678 billion from where it would be if the cuts were extended for everyone.

Bush-ama tax cuts: The $2.2 trillion decision - May. 4, 2010
Click to expand...

Still hanging your hat on CBO numbers, a CBO whose record isn't very good at predicting anything. Stop making a fool of yourself and use some logic and common sense for a change. You continue to buy Obama rhetoric so tell me what economic prediction Obama has made that has been accurate?
 
Conservative said:
Still hanging your hat on CBO numbers, a CBO whose record isn't very good at predicting anything. Stop making a fool of yourself and use some logic and common sense for a change. You continue to buy Obama rhetoric so tell me what economic prediction Obama has made that has been accurate?
Click to expand...

You'll notice there are two sources there, but there's nothing wrong with the CBO my lost friend. ;)
 
Boo Radley said:
You'll notice there are two sources there, but there's nothing wrong with the CBO my lost friend. ;)
Click to expand...

I don't care how many sources you provide, it is accuracy that matters. Tell me what the CBO has been accurate on with regard to any Obama legislation?
 
Conservative said:
I don't care how many sources you provide, it is accuracy that matters. Tell me what the CBO has been accurate on with regard to any Obama legislation?
Click to expand...

Exactly. Accuracy matters. ANd the more sources you have looking at it and saying the same thing, the more likely it is accurate.
 
Boo Radley said:
Exactly. Accuracy matters. ANd the more sources you have looking at it and saying the same thing, the more likely it is accurate.
Click to expand...

Do you know the difference between an op ed piece or predictions and actual results? I am still waiting for what prediction the Obama Administration or the CBO has made regarding that agenda that has been accurate?
 
Conservative said:
Do you know the difference between an op ed piece or predictions and actual results? I am still waiting for what prediction the Obama Administration or the CBO has made regarding that agenda that has been accurate?
Click to expand...

Sure do. And I know the difference between an expert and a hack. Between facts and opinon and between someone ignore the facts because they don't like them and someone honestly addressing them.

:neener
 
Boo Radley said:
Sure do. And I know the difference between an expert and a hack. Between facts and opinon and between someone ignore the facts because they don't like them and someone honestly addressing them.

:neener
Click to expand...

LOL, so an expert to you is someone who makes wrong predictions? The results matter, not the predictions. You continue to post opinions that have been proven wrong with actual results yet you claim these people are experts. Is that how you operate in real life?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom