• 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!

Estimates Say Fewer Jobs, Larger Deficits if Republicans Were in Charge

Boo Radley said:
I have showed you the facts. And not being worse is better than being worse. Not hard to follow if you want to follow it. ;)
Click to expand...

LOL, claiming that things would have been worse is irrelevant because one you cannot prove it and second, your claims don't matter because things would have been worse than what, what they are now? Record unemployment, record deficits, and a 1.6% economic growth?
 
Conservative said:
I don't buy the claim that we would be in a depression today.
Click to expand...

Based on anything other than faithful conveinence?

Some of the banks that took TARP money did so under Govt. pressure and all that money has been paid back except of cource for Freddie and Fannie. The banks came up with the money to pay back the loans and the banks would have come up with the money to prevent failure.
Click to expand...

So it all would have just stopped following Lehman :roll Do you truly understand the state of the global financial system during that particular time?

Our economy wasn't established under the principles that if you fail you get bailed out.
Click to expand...

Never said it was. But the actions of a select few cannot be allowed to spillover onto the lives of productive responsible citizens and firms. As stated before, this will negatively impact risk taking behavior (vital to a market economy) in the long run.

The problem I have with the tax policies include the fact that we have 47% of the people not paying any Federal Income taxes and supporting politicians that have no problem raising those taxes on the 53% that do. The right economic policy is a flat tax and cutting Federal spending. Everyone pays something and the govt. cuts their massive appetite for power through fiscal responsibility.
Click to expand...

Conservative, can you come up with anything more thannormative rants when engaging in these discussion?
 
Conservative said:
LOL, claiming that things would have been worse is irrelevant because one you cannot prove it and second, your claims don't matter because things would have been worse than what, what they are now? Record unemployment, record deficits, and a 1.6% economic growth?
Click to expand...

What happens when credit spreads reach historic levels?
 
Goldenboy219 said:
What happens when credit spreads reach historic levels?
Click to expand...

there will be business failures when credit spreads reach historical levels, the free market will handle the problem. Failure occurs and someone steps in to take over the businesses.
 
Conservative said:
LOL, claiming that things would have been worse is irrelevant because one you cannot prove it and second, your claims don't matter because things would have been worse than what, what they are now? Record unemployment, record deficits, and a 1.6% economic growth?
Click to expand...

But I have proven it in education. Absolutely.
 
Conservative said:
there will be business failures when credit spreads reach historical levels, the free market will handle the problem. Failure occurs and someone steps in to take over the businesses.
Click to expand...

Now you have given a rough description of liquidationism. The question is not "if" we will recover. It is "when". In the long run, markets self correct. In the long run, we are all dead.
 
Boo Radley said:
But I have proven it in education. Absolutely.
Click to expand...

Interesting, and why do you believe that? I believe Bureau of Labor statistics which show the stimulus plan to be a failure. Whether or not things would have been worse really is irrelevant to the 16 million unemployed. Obama is about to experience the worst Congressional loss in U.S. history because the majority in this country don't see things better and see what you seem to believe.
 
Conservative said:
Interesting, and why do you believe that? I believe Bureau of Labor statistics which show the stimulus plan to be a failure. Whether or not things would have been worse really is irrelevant to the 16 million unemployed. Obama is about to experience the worst Congressional loss in U.S. history because the majority in this country don't see things better and see what you seem to believe.
Click to expand...

Something to ponder:http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/117xx/doc11706/08-24-ARRA.pdf
 
Conservative said:
Interesting, and why do you believe that? I believe Bureau of Labor statistics which show the stimulus plan to be a failure. Whether or not things would have been worse really is irrelevant to the 16 million unemployed. Obama is about to experience the worst Congressional loss in U.S. history because the majority in this country don't see things better and see what you seem to believe.
Click to expand...

I believe it because I showed you where stimulus money kept people employed in education, and when that specific money was gone, those jobs were lost. We see it here where I work, and people are employed strickly due to stimulus money and won't be when it's gone. Students will suffer for it. It is a simple fact, and I have supported that fact with links.

BTW, your link doesn't address this at all.
 
Thanks, but I have no interest in CBO numbers preferring instead to take the BEA, BLS, and Treasury Data. If you spend as much money as the Obama Adminstration has spent and generate these kind of results you or anyone else would be fired. To believe that there weren't some successes due to all that spending would be ridiculous but the question is at what cost. Three trillion added to the debt and there are still 16 million reported unemployed and that doesn't count the private business owners and contractors out of work.

So would things have been worse? Who knows, I believe 3 trillion added to the debt has to be factored in as well as the costs in the future of servicing this debt and funding all those Obama programs.

obama has been a miserable failure as I predicted when he was running for the office and all he has done is confirm my predictions.
 
Conservative said:
Thanks, but I have no interest in CBO numbers preferring instead to take the BEA, BLS, and Treasury Data. If you spend as much money as the Obama Adminstration has spent and generate these kind of results you or anyone else would be fired. To believe that there weren't some successes due to all that spending would be ridiculous but the question is at what cost. Three trillion added to the debt and there are still 16 million reported unemployed and that doesn't count the private business owners and contractors out of work.

So would things have been worse? Who knows, I believe 3 trillion added to the debt has to be factored in as well as the costs in the future of servicing this debt and funding all those Obama programs.

obama has been a miserable failure as I predicted when he was running for the office and all he has done is confirm my predictions.
Click to expand...

Who said anything about the CBO? I offered more than that. Did you reaad any of those links?
 
Boo Radley said:
Who said anything about the CBO? I offered more than that. Did you reaad any of those links?
Click to expand...

I wasn't responding to you, but now that you mention it, I didn't read your links nor do I have any interest in doing so. I prefer BEA,BLS, and U.S. Treasury data as they present an accurate picture and come from non partisan data.

Economic conditions today have given the Republicans the largest percentage lead over Democrats since Gallop started doing the polling and that is evidence that your links don't matter but that the actual data does. You want to run around telling everyone how bad things would have been after increasing the debt by 3 trillion dollars and having 16 million unemployed, be my guest. Have fun and hope you enjoy being laughed at.
 
Conservative said:
I wasn't responding to you, but now that you mention it, I didn't read your links nor do I have any interest in doing so. I prefer BEA,BLS, and U.S. Treasury data as they present an accurate picture and come from non partisan data.

Economic conditions today have given the Republicans the largest percentage lead over Democrats since Gallop started doing the polling and that is evidence that your links don't matter but that the actual data does. You want to run around telling everyone how bad things would have been after increasing the debt by 3 trillion dollars and having 16 million unemployed, be my guest. Have fun and hope you enjoy being laughed at.
Click to expand...

Explains why you can't respond to fact. You don't know the facts. It helps you to respond if you know what you're responding to.
 
Boo Radley said:
Explains why you can't respond to fact. You don't know the facts. It helps you to respond if you know what you're responding to.
Click to expand...

You are absolutely correct, why would anyone believe that Bureau of Economic Analysis, Bureau of Labor Statistics, and the U.S. Treasury offer accurate data. Obviously CBO projections and Obama Administration propaganda is a lot more accurate. Looks like the people in the Gallop poll aren't reading your so called data either.
 
Question for Boo - How many jobs were saved and what was the formula for calculating this number?
 
Hugh_Akston said:
Question for Boo - How many jobs were saved and what was the formula for calculating this number?
Click to expand...

I haven't counted. But I did provide articles that gave numbers on teachers, and how many are now losing their jobs because the stimulus money is ending. So, I did give some numbers to look at. If we KNOW some education jobs were saved, evidence given, then we KNOW some jobs were saved. The only debate after that is how many.
 
Conservative said:
You are absolutely correct, why would anyone believe that Bureau of Economic Analysis, Bureau of Labor Statistics, and the U.S. Treasury offer accurate data. Obviously CBO projections and Obama Administration propaganda is a lot more accurate. Looks like the people in the Gallop poll aren't reading your so called data either.
Click to expand...

My problem isn't with your offical sources, but with your interpretation of what they are saying. The numbers those sources provide don't say what you claim.

As for any poll, there is likely a lot of misinformation represented in any poll. What people believe is seldom equal to fact. Facts remaind facts even when people believe falsehoods.
 
Boo Radley said:
I haven't counted. But I did provide articles that gave numbers on teachers, and how many are now losing their jobs because the stimulus money is ending. So, I did give some numbers to look at. If we KNOW some education jobs were saved, evidence given, then we KNOW some jobs were saved. The only debate after that is how many.
Click to expand...

So Obama and the administration took a local problem and turned it into a federal problem? What gives Congress the right to force people in states where there isn't a problem to pay for the salaries of teachers in states like California who can't afford their vast list of entitlements, let alone pay their teachers? They "saved jobs" to the detriment of our children. Rather than fix the problem (entitlement spending), they have made it much worse by putting an even bigger burden on those who haven't been born yet. Brilliant!!! :roll:
 
Hugh_Akston said:
So Obama and the administration took a local problem and turned it into a federal problem? What gives Congress the right to force people in states where there isn't a problem to pay for the salaries of teachers in states like California who can't afford their vast list of entitlements, let alone pay their teachers? They "saved jobs" to the detriment of our children. Rather than fix the problem (entitlement spending), they have made it much worse by putting an even bigger burden on those who haven't been born yet. Brilliant!!! :roll:
Click to expand...

You make quite a leap. Where were you on NCLB?

But no, the stimulus money just gave states more respources with which to hold on to teachers. And they did so without the strings NCLB attached. Thus, it only helped states without putting any more burden on them.

But the point was jobs were saved. This is a fact. The only point of debate is how many.

As for future gnerations, crowded classrooms and the effect of losing teachers will also effect future generations. As will fighting two needless wars. Sooner or later we will have to deal with the debt. And it will require both cutting spending and rasing taxes. But there is no will to do that yet. And Reagan argue for deficit spending during a recession as I recall.

But those are a different discussion. ;)
 
Last edited:
Boo Radley said:
You make quite a leap. Where were you on NCLB?

But no, the stimulus money just gave states more respources with which to hold on to teachers. And they did so without the strings NCLB attached. Thus, it only helped states without putting any more burden on them.

But the point was jobs were saved. This is a fact. The only point of debate is how many.

As for future gnerations, crowded classrooms and the effect of losing teachers will also effect future generations. As will fighting two needless wars. Sooner or later we will have to deal with the debt. And it will require both cutting spending and rasing taxes. But there is no will to do that yet. And Reagan argue for deficit spending during a recession as I recall.

But those are a different discussion. ;)
Click to expand...

I agree that jobs were saved, but we don't know how many and the cost was far too great. I was against NCLB. The role of education shouldn't be in the governments hands at any level of government (federal, state or local). How many times does government have to prove their ineptitude at damn near everything they do before the rest of the population wakes up to the truth?
 
Hugh_Akston said:
I agree that jobs were saved, but we don't know how many and the cost was far too great. I was against NCLB. The role of education shouldn't be in the governments hands at any level of government (federal, state or local). How many times does government have to prove their ineptitude at damn near everything they do before the rest of the population wakes up to the truth?
Click to expand...

We are the government. And you find ineptitude everywhere. It isn't limited to government. Nor would I take government out of education completely. First, doing so would enble to rich to have even greater advantage. Poor communities would be very limited in what they could provide. While I think government, we the people, should listen more to those who know about education, the fact is it costs some money no matter you pare it down. And that money has to come from us the people, one way or another. Government is a good vehicle to collect and distribute our money and manager our efforts.

If we want to minimialize the advantage of wealth, and create good citizens dispite wealth, then we need a public eucation system.
 
Boo Radley said:
We are the government. And you find ineptitude everywhere. It isn't limited to government. Nor would I take government out of education completely. First, doing so would enble to rich to have even greater advantage. Poor communities would be very limited in what they could provide. While I think government, we the people, should listen more to those who know about education, the fact is it costs some money no matter you pare it down. And that money has to come from us the people, one way or another. Government is a good vehicle to collect and distribute our money and manager our efforts.

If we want to minimialize the advantage of wealth, and create good citizens dispite wealth, then we need a public eucation system.
Click to expand...

We aren't the government and we haven't been for quite some time. The 17th amendment removed the voice of the states from DC and as the past year and half has proven, Congress is voting on legislation that goes against the will of the people. And as far as the rich comment went, take a look at charter school programs and voucher programs that have worked very well. These kids aren't rich by any stretch and there iss success story after success story.
 
Hugh_Akston said:
We aren't the government and we haven't been for quite some time. The 17th amendment removed the voice of the states from DC and as the past year and half has proven, Congress is voting on legislation that goes against the will of the people. And as far as the rich comment went, take a look at charter school programs and voucher programs that have worked very well. These kids aren't rich by any stretch and there iss success story after success story.
Click to expand...

If congress is doing as you claim, all we have to do is vote them out. I, however, suggest they really aren't. Most of what they passed, we actually expressly wanted. The noise, the mud, the lies confused people a tad, but when asked about specifics, people actually wanted much of what they got. I suggest we listen better.

Some charter schools have worked, and some haven't worked as well. But there has been nothing that has had to take the entire population. There won't be either.
 
Hugh_Akston said:
So Obama and the administration took a local problem and turned it into a federal problem? What gives Congress the right to force people in states where there isn't a problem to pay for the salaries of teachers in states like California who can't afford their vast list of entitlements, let alone pay their teachers? They "saved jobs" to the detriment of our children. Rather than fix the problem (entitlement spending), they have made it much worse by putting an even bigger burden on those who haven't been born yet. Brilliant!!! :roll:
Click to expand...

These kind of statements irk me. Not because they are false, only off base (which can be considered a talking point). US debt is only a problem in so much that foreign holdings yield increases relative to the yields on US holdings of foreign securities. The thinking is, the more debt held by trading partners and speculators, the more "yield" or interest will flow outward (bleeding wealth). But there is a catch, and many people simply are unaware; ceteris paribus. So while the foreign held composition has increased by a few percentage points since 2008 (less than 3%), US investors have increased their holdings of foreign capital in the tune of about 35%+ to nearly $6 trillion. It does not take much research to reveal that the US earns a better income investing abroad than other nations earn by investing here. The US typically earns $30 billion per year while we are considered................. Are you ready for this one? A net debtor! How is this exactly?

This is (uncommonly) referred to as "Financial Dark Matter". I will be doing a piece on financial dark matter in the Econ subforum some time in the next month.

I also do not expect a response.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom