• 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!

The economy is not a machine - it's an ecosystem.

Bullseye said:
What you do see is that "G" is taken out of the economy from entities who would put that money back into GDP more effectively and efficiently than the government.
Click to expand...

You haven't even begun to demonstrate anything of the sort.
 
Kushinator said:
You haven't even begun to demonstrate anything of the sort.
Click to expand...
Ever heard of taxes? How do you think government gets its money. It takes it away from people and businesses that would otherwise spend/save/invest it themselves. QED
 
Bullseye said:
Ever heard of taxes?
Click to expand...

Yes.

It takes it away from people and businesses that would otherwise spend/save/invest it themselves. QED
Click to expand...

And uses the proceeds (plus borrowing!) to pay for a plethora of essential services. It all flows into the private sector, one way or another.
 
Kushinator said:
Yes.



And uses the proceeds (plus borrowing!) to pay for a plethora of essential services. It all flows into the private sector, one way or another.
Click to expand...
Essential? Maybe some but not all. Desired by the population? Again by some but not all.
 
Bullseye said:
Essential? Maybe some but not all. Desired by the population? Again by some but not all.
Click to expand...

Are we supposed to all get everything we want all the time?
Is there any country on this planet or any other where everyone gets everything they want, and ONLY what THEY want, all the time?

"Maybe some but not all" sounds about the way democracy in a constitutional republic is supposed to sound.
Everyone is supposed to get some of what they want, while others get some of what they want, and the idea is to try our best to make sure that we don't have a lot of people who get ZIP, ZERO, ZILCH, NADA.

So if you're going to try to make a case that you're getting "ZIP, ZERO, ZILCH, NADA", you've failed miserably.
 
Checkerboard Strangler said:
Are we supposed to all get everything we want all the time?
Is there any country on this planet or any other where everyone gets everything they want, and ONLY what THEY want, all the time?

"Maybe some but not all" sounds about the way democracy in a constitutional republic is supposed to sound.
Everyone is supposed to get some of what they want, while others get some of what they want, and the idea is to try our best to make sure that we don't have a lot of people who get ZIP, ZERO, ZILCH, NADA.

So if you're going to try to make a case that you're getting "ZIP, ZERO, ZILCH, NADA", you've failed miserably.
Click to expand...
Do you just make **** up as you go. How in the world do you come up with this nonsense?
 
jaeger19 said:
Just to point out.. one of the tenets of medicine is "do no harm". In other words.. there are times when a hands off approach is the most appropriate with a patient.
Click to expand...

Absolutely. That's why in 2009-2010 when our economy was in free fall and we were hemorrhaging jobs it was absolutely necessary for Dr. Obama to step in and take action. Allowing the deficit to increase a bit was acceptable. A stimulus package was necessary in order to save an economy that was already dying.

But when President Obama left office our economy was already incredibly strong. We were already at full employment. Wages were already rising. At that point, there was very little that "Doctor" Trump could have or should have done to **** with it. Instead, he passed tax cuts we didn't need at a time when we should have been paying down the deficits from the previous recession. Instead, he's starting a trade war that is doomed to kill jobs and hurt consumers.

Eliminating regulations is like a Doctor telling his patient to go ahead and eat whatever you want, drink whatever you want, and smoke whatever you want. That's insanely stupid for a patient that had a major heart attack just ten years ago.
 
Bullseye said:
Ever heard of taxes? How do you think the government gets its money.
Click to expand...
Well, actually the government could just print the money.


Bullseye said:
It takes it away from people and businesses that would otherwise spend/save/invest it themselves.
Click to expand...
In things that would benefit them and only them, not the country as a whole. Somethings we all need, and there's no realistic way for a private company to provide those resources and make a profit in a way that isn't counter productive. Roads are a perfect example. If private businesses owned roads there would be chaos. Toles would make it hard for people to get where they want to go, and create horrible problems when one company got a good monopoly on a specific route.

When everyone benefits from a good or service then everyone should chip in based on how much they benefit. If some members of society and or businesses benefit exponentially more than others then they should pay exponetially more.


Bullseye said:
QED
Click to expand...

Not sure you actually know what this means.
 
MrWonka said:
Absolutely. That's why in 2009-2010 when our economy was in free fall and we were hemorrhaging jobs it was absolutely necessary for Dr. Obama to step in and take action. Allowing the deficit to increase a bit was acceptable. A stimulus package was necessary in order to save an economy that was already dying.

But when President Obama left office our economy was already incredibly strong. We were already at full employment. Wages were already rising. At that point, there was very little that "Doctor" Trump could have or should have done to **** with it. Instead, he passed tax cuts we didn't need at a time when we should have been paying down the deficits from the previous recession. Instead, he's starting a trade war that is doomed to kill jobs and hurt consumers.

Eliminating regulations is like a Doctor telling his patient to go ahead and eat whatever you want, drink whatever you want, and smoke whatever you want. That's insanely stupid for a patient that had a major heart attack just ten years ago.
Click to expand...
You have a future in fiction writing. And general fact spinning. You conveniently ignore that the patients "recovery" from Dr. Obama ministrations was piss-poor to totally abysmal. The only reason he got to full employment was because so many working age people gave up looking. And no the economy was not on a death dive when he took over. it leveled off and began recovering before Obama found his first shovel-ready job.
 
Bullseye said:
You have a future in fiction writing. And general fact spinning. You conveniently ignore that the patients "recovery" from Dr. Obama ministrations was piss-poor to totally abysmal. The only reason he got to full employment was because so many working age people gave up looking. And no the economy was not on a death dive when he took over. it leveled off and began recovering before Obama found his first shovel-ready job.
Click to expand...
It is always enjoyable watching Mr BULLSEYE go off-topic in his own threads, I've seeing this happening for many years. The argument back in '08 was that we were not going to see a recession.
 
Bullseye said:
You conveniently ignore that the patients "recovery" from Dr. Obama ministrations was piss-poor to totally abysmal.
Click to expand...
Not even remotely a fact. You should learn what facts actually are before you start accusing people of spinning them. Within 6 months of taking office President Obama had the economy growing again thanks to his stimulus package. In his first year in office he inherited -2.8% growth, the following year he turned it around to +2.5% growth. That's a 5.3% change from one year to the next.

The only problem we had was that after the 2010 elections Republicans gained enough seats in the Senate to filibuster all his future job creation legislation. Republicans intentionally slowed our recovery because they knew a good recovery would doom them in 2012.

Bullseye said:
The only reason he got to full employment was that so many working-age people gave up looking.
Click to expand...
Nonsensical garbage. The truth is that the real unemployment rate looked too good so Republicans had to try and move the goal post and pretend the U-6 rate was what mattered. But it's irrelevant because that rate fell back to normal levels by the end of Obama's 2nd term as well. In fact, as of today the U-6 unemployment rate which Republicans claimed was what mattered is currently still at 7.6%. That's almost 4% points higher than the official rate.

Bullseye said:
And no the economy was not on a death dive when he took over. it leveled off and began recovering before Obama found his first shovel-ready job.
Click to expand...

A desperate bull**** lie. We were losing almost 800,000 jobs per month when Obama took over. He immediately passed the stimulus package. The first funds from the stimulus package hit the economy in June of 2009 which is the exact month that the recession ended. Even by the most conservative estimates President Obama's stimulus package created or saved at least 3 million jobs. In truth it was probably closer to 5 or 6 million. When you add in his decision to use the money from TARP to help GM and Chrysler through bankruptcy you can add another million jobs on top of that. All this doing, and at a bare minimum cost to the overall deficit.

Keep lying to yourself all you want to. It's only a matter of time before this bubble Trump is creating bursts just like it did under Bush.
 
Gimmesometruth said:
It is always enjoyable watching Mr BULLSEYE go off-topic in his own threads, I've seeing this happening for many years. The argument back in '08 was that we were not going to see a recession.
Click to expand...

From one leftist and purely political perspective, the One Percent was "willing to let the black guy do all the hard work", and take the credit for a good economy.
 
Bullseye said:
Essential? Maybe some but not all. Desired by the population? Again by some but not all.
Click to expand...

Again, the expenditures all flow into the private sector. Whether or not you accept our reality irrelevant. Still you've failed to acknowledge deficit spending, which is estimated to be roughly 1/5 of total tax revenue.
 
Gimmesometruth said:
It is always enjoyable watching Mr BULLSEYE go off-topic in his own threads, I've seeing this happening for many years. The argument back in '08 was that we were not going to see a recession.
Click to expand...

It could have been those Bush 43 rebate checks that pulled us out:roll:
 
danielpalos said:
trade deficits are an indication we need to improve that sector through infrastructure upgrade or replacement.
Click to expand...

No.

Historical trade deficits are an indicator of a savings imbalance.
 
Vadinho said:
Very true. Let us assume that one could successfully predict future behavior. That knowledge itself would allow the person knowing it to anticipate future behavior which would affect future behavior meaning that perfect knowledge today about tomorrow is in itself a path towards influencing future behavior. This leads one to conclude that perfect information itself is not the key to managing an economy. In my opinion, the most important thing about managing an economy is understanding the goals one is pursuing by doing the managing. This is why the Fed is focused on inflation and in the late 70s, unemployment was added to the mix due to the acceptance of the Phillips Curve which has since been completely debunked as pure fantasy, Phillips himself even admitting it had no real basis other than being an interpretation of data. All one can do is try to control the excesses of human behavior. If you lean too far to the left, you get communism. Too far to the right, you get history repeating itself prior to 1930.
Click to expand...

I'd say that's about right. Which is that an when it comes to controlling an economy.. effort should be made to mediate the extremes.. and otherwise allow itself self corrections.
 
MrWonka said:
Not even remotely a fact. You should learn what facts actually are before you start accusing people of spinning them. Within 6 months of taking office President Obama had the economy growing again thanks to his stimulus package. In his first year in office he inherited -2.8% growth, the following year he turned it around to +2.5% growth. That's a 5.3% change from one year to the next.

The only problem we had was that after the 2010 elections Republicans gained enough seats in the Senate to filibuster all his future job creation legislation. Republicans intentionally slowed our recovery because they knew a good recovery would doom them in 2012.


Nonsensical garbage. The truth is that the real unemployment rate looked too good so Republicans had to try and move the goal post and pretend the U-6 rate was what mattered. But it's irrelevant because that rate fell back to normal levels by the end of Obama's 2nd term as well. In fact, as of today the U-6 unemployment rate which Republicans claimed was what mattered is currently still at 7.6%. That's almost 4% points higher than the official rate.



A desperate bull**** lie. We were losing almost 800,000 jobs per month when Obama took over. He immediately passed the stimulus package. The first funds from the stimulus package hit the economy in June of 2009 which is the exact month that the recession ended. Even by the most conservative estimates President Obama's stimulus package created or saved at least 3 million jobs. In truth it was probably closer to 5 or 6 million. When you add in his decision to use the money from TARP to help GM and Chrysler through bankruptcy you can add another million jobs on top of that. All this doing, and at a bare minimum cost to the overall deficit.

Keep lying to yourself all you want to. It's only a matter of time before this bubble Trump is creating bursts just like it did under Bush.
Click to expand...
You keep throwing the same old BS against the wall but none of it sticks. Honest, verifiable data backs up everything I've stated repeatedly and all you have is excuses and talking points. Waa, waa, the mean old Republicans blocked him, the recession was so bad, waa, waa, boo, boo. "We were loosing 800,000 jobs a month" - yeah for about two months. And all that BS about the stimulus; give me a break, even after passage it would takes months an months to eve start hiring for the first project. You guys are marvelously creative and totally divorced from facts. Save and create jobs? Seriously - the unemployment rated didn't drop below 8% until September of 2012. He never had a single year of 3% growth - we were told be him slow growth was the "new normal". Whatever you're smoking to create the fantasy that Obama did a good job on the economy. Open a MJ clinic and sell it - you'll make a fortune.
 
Kushinator said:
Again, the expenditures all flow into the private sector.
Click to expand...
That a wild exaggeration/misleading claim. You assume that money distributed by politicians and bureaucrats is as effective as money spent by the people that earn it. First off - federal bureaucracy sucks part of it away to pay for the bureaucracy. Second the money is spent according to political policies not economic principles. Bottom line: saying "it all goes to the same place" is patently ridiculous.
]
Kushinator [q8 Whether or not you accept our reality irrelevant. Still you've failed to acknowledge deficit spending said:
Not sure what you're getting at - of course we're deficit spending - you seem to think that's a good thing. I don't.
Click to expand...
 
Bullseye said:
That a wild exaggeration/misleading claim. You assume that money distributed by politicians and bureaucrats is as effective as money spent by the people that earn it. First off - federal bureaucracy sucks part of it away to pay for the bureaucracy. Second the money is spent according to political policies not economic principles. Bottom line: saying "it all goes to the same place" is patently ridiculous.
]
Not sure what you're getting at - of course we're deficit spending - you seem to think that's a good thing. I don't.
Click to expand...

Actually the saying "it all goes to the same place".. is accurate. As he says.. it ends up in the private sector (the caveat would be private sectors in other countries as well not just the US).
 
jaeger19 said:
Actually the saying "it all goes to the same place".. is accurate. As he says.. it ends up in the private sector (the caveat would be private sectors in other countries as well not just the US).
Click to expand...
Yeah, IF you assume the entire private sector is one huge place and the money is evenly spread over it you may have a valid point. But reality intrudes on that rosy assumption. Tax dollars are spent in accordance with a federal budget which is created via a huge political/bureaucratic process where Representatives and Senators trade their vote for spending in their state or district or for pet ideological causes; in addition the administrative cost of the bureaucracy comes out of that. The pathological case is the half-trillion we dropped on Solyndra. Economic decision makers in the private sector allocate resources to best serve their economic goals.
 
Bullseye said:
That a wild exaggeration/misleading claim. You assume that money distributed by politicians and bureaucrats is as effective as money spent by the people that earn it. First off - federal bureaucracy sucks part of it away to pay for the bureaucracy. Second the money is spent according to political policies not economic principles. Bottom line: saying "it all goes to the same place" is patently ridiculous.
Click to expand...

It's not wild, nor is it an exaggeration. Almost all of that government spending goes to either buying domestic goods and services, paying people who will spend their checks primarily on domestic goods and services, or paying salaries to government workers who have earned their paychecks. Those people pay rent, buy food, pay for utilities, etc., primarily domestic stuff.

Compare that to the money that (mostly upper-tier) people would save on taxes - much of it would be saved (which does zero for the economy), a larger proportion spent on imported goods, and almost none of it spent on necessities (since they were still able to cover necessities with the higher taxes). Considering the demand lost to savings and imports, those tax savings are not nearly as beneficial for the economy as tax money being spent.

Bullseye said:
Not sure what you're getting at - of course we're deficit spending - you seem to think that's a good thing. I don't.
Click to expand...

Deficit spending is a straight addition to the private sector. When the government deficit spends, it doesn't borrow private sector assets, it adds to private sector assets. And it is not like normal debt, in that it never gets "paid back."
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom