fish82;1220287 wrote:And without record low workforce participation, the unemployment rate is 12%.

See how that works?

Cute but there would be more workforce participation were it not for budget cuts. Same goes for real unemployment. Neither stat undermines that ultimate point that budget cuts, being improper while at the zero lower bound in a depressed economy, are what are making these problems worse. Conservatives having more power to enact their policies will make all these problems worse.

"Cute but there would be more workforce participation were it not for budget cuts."

And where is the money coming from? This is zillionth time you've made this tired and incorrect argument. We can be a Soviet 1980's era where we have 100% unemployment where half of the country isn't working and isn't really getting paid. How well did that work out for them?

The Obamacomomy is a failure. We made the worst decision in modern history and we might make it again. Socialism doesn't work. It never has. Christ.

Conservatives having more power to enact their policies will make all these problems worse.

If we follow that reasoning( that tightening of the budget will hurt the struggling economy)...than a huge tax increase to pay for a new entitlement program at the time of record deficits and unemployment is going to make problems worse also.

The general consensus is that if Romney is elected and conservatives win more power, deficit spending will still occur, but a repeal of the Obamacare tax is a possibility, which will not hurt the struggling economy. You see...you will still have your quantitative easing...you just won't be getting a tax increase from Obamacare. There will be plenty of other taxes filtering in as Bush tax cuts and payroll tax cuts expire.

HitsRus;1220560 wrote:There will be plenty of other taxes filtering in as Bush tax cuts and payroll tax cuts expire.

And if that happens and Obamacare remains, we haven't seen yet how bad the economy can be.

Part of me hopes it does happen. Maybe then the American sheeple will finally wake-up from their socialist nightmare.

Naw...they'll just ask the Feds for another bailout, another program we can't afford, another inefficient, bloated, & politically corrupt "fix" to our national economic whoas.

What was I thinking?

HitsRus;1220560 wrote:If we follow that reasoning( that tightening of the budget will hurt the struggling economy)...than a huge tax increase to pay for a new entitlement program at the time of record deficits and unemployment is going to make problems worse also.

The general consensus is that if Romney is elected and conservatives win more power, deficit spending will still occur, but a repeal of the Obamacare tax is a possibility, which will not hurt the struggling economy. You see...you will still have your quantitative easing...you just won't be getting a tax increase from Obamacare. There will be plenty of other taxes filtering in as Bush tax cuts and payroll tax cuts expire.

I agree and have said this before...raising taxes and cutting spending are both bad when rates are at zero...

Manhattan Buckeye;1220525 wrote:"Cute but there would be more workforce participation were it not for budget cuts."

And where is the money coming from? This is zillionth time you've made this tired and incorrect argument. We can be a Soviet 1980's era where we have 100% unemployment where half of the country isn't working and isn't really getting paid. How well did that work out for them?

The Obamacomomy is a failure. We made the worst decision in modern history and we might make it again. Socialism doesn't work. It never has. Christ.

Do u actually pay attention to the markets or do u just bitch and moan? Investors are begging to lend to the federal government. Furthermore, strategic counter-cyclical spending does work and is NOT socialism. Governments trying to deleverage at the same time as the private sector does not work.

Important to note though that the ACA adds to the deficit in the near term so its tax raises are offset by additional spending (although im not aware of any analysis on the effects of healthcare spending). I.e. letting bush rates expire for top earners being off-set by massive increase in infrastructure spending would be ok because it has a much higher multiplier than having people with low marginal propensity to consume hang onto it, etc.

BoatShoes;1220700 wrote:Do u actually pay attention to the markets or do u just bitch and moan? Investors are begging to lend to the federal government. Furthermore, strategic counter-cyclical spending does work and is NOT socialism. Governments trying to deleverage at the same time as the private sector does not work.

I'll ignore the profanity, but yes I'm going to make my voice heard as long as this incompetent government is in power and wanna-be economic geniuses are touting a super-Keynesian plan that has already failed miserably. Where else is money going to go? OUr super awesome online bank accounts with 0.3% interest rates? Western Europe (an example of failed policies)? Eventually this money will be paid back. But more importantly why should we trust our government to be even halfway efficient and have any sort of multiplier effect? Even hard core Keynesians understand that for Democrat "tax and spending" policies to work the government has to address needs and opportunities for growth. Do you really trust this administration to do that?

I don't trust out political class to carry a cup of coffee to me from across the street without screwing it up (and going into more trillions of debt). They are incompetent. I was at a BBQ party Saturday night with many California and NY ex-pats (who I'm sure are mostly DEM), EVERYONE is unhappy with our leadership. Romney can't be worse than Obama.

Manhattan Buckeye;1221115 wrote:...as long as this incompetent government is in power and wanna-be economic geniuses are touting a super-Keynesian plan that has already failed miserably.

The $800 billion Porkulus Sammich is working dammit. We just need to give Barry 4 more years to prove it.

1. Stimulus wasn't a failure just like the new deal wasn't either. Both created economic growth just weren't enough. If Hitler hadn't come to power FDR doesn't pass adequate stimulus in largest full employment program in history and is a failed president. Unless euro collapses and wwIII breaks out it looks like that's obamas fate.

2. Maybe MB doesn't trust the feds but clearly investors with money on the line do. And I trust em to write a check to the states and that's all they'd have to do.

3. Keep saying Romney can't be worse but david cameron was way more qualified than barry and is a Romney clone and is unequivocally doing worse.

4. Even if u accept there's lots if problems with america...like a beat up car, you have to have a battery that works before u fix other problems. Unemployment must be fixed first.

5. Long term budget problems are a healthcare cost problem...even if totally privatize Medicare unless costs are controlled, economy is destroyed anyway. Obamacare isn't enough but a step in the right direction

Obama is offering little but we play the hand we're dealt and we know from the sad natural experiments in the world that the gop alternative is worse.

My sweet santa clause christ.

1) The stimulus wasn't just a failure, it might have been the biggest failure in the history of the U.S. Look at recovery stats from previous recessions, we've blown our proverbial load on the likes of Solyndra and other politically motivated targets that barely made a dent in employment and pissed our money down the drain.

2) If you have the balls to call me out have the balls to give the Feds your money, there is a place on your 1040 where you can willingly give the government more money (assuming you pay any taxes at all - my guess is you don't). I don't trust the Feds, see #1.

3) What does Cameron have to do with any of this? Oh, nothing (BTW, my wife was just at Wimbledon since I'm one of the fewer and fewer Americans that can afford that type of thing). Seriously, WTF?

4) Agreed, but we just can't pay people to dig ditches and others to fill them up. That doesn't work. We need real growth, that includes fostering a business friendly environment. That means fewer regulations, less government bloat, fewer restrictions on businesses that want to hire. Currently under the Obamaconomy businesses are dared to hire. We have an administration with an economic background. It is poor.

5) Healthcare just became every taxpayer's business - the problem is only half of Americans pay taxes. Under Obamacare the "penalty" is unenforceable. This just raised the taxes of people that make between US$50,000 to US$200,000 (the ultra-wealthy will opt out, and the poor won't pay it and the government can't force them to pay it). It is a terrible law. I've read most of it, and the worst parts (the 1099 aspect which would have caused the most egregious business bureaucracy in the history of the world [seriously, no hyperbole - every single business transaction would be under the auspices of the federal government], which thankfully was eventually canned since even a broken clock is accurate twice a day and the banks/hedge funds that support the DEMS demanded it get canned).

This administration has outCartered Jimmy Carter. Even Larry Summers disagrees with his policies. We can't just spend ourselves out of this. And we certainly can't spend ourselves in incompetent manners which the administration has done.

The regime today announced they plan to go to war with Willard over extending the tax cuts for those only under $250,000 to try and make it seem like the GOP are willing to see taxes go up on everyone to protect the super rich.

The desperation is starting to set in.

Manhattan Buckeye;1221402 wrote:4) Agreed, but we just can't pay people to dig ditches and others to fill them up. That doesn't work. We need real growth, that includes fostering a business friendly environment. That means fewer regulations, less government bloat, fewer restrictions on businesses that want to hire. Currently under the Obamaconomy businesses are dared to hire. We have an administration with an economic background. It is poor.

I was going to say that. If unemployment must be fixed first, then hire a few million people to dig ditches (with spoons), and a few million to fill them back in. Boom, problem solved. Of course, nothing of value is created. I thought the New Deal proved that doesn't work?

IggyPride00;1221431 wrote:The regime today announced they plan to go to war with Willard over extending the tax cuts for those only under $250,000 to try and make it seem like the GOP are willing to see taxes go up on everyone to protect the super rich.

The desperation is starting to set in.

I would have no problem with that. If the taxes must raise, it is all people who should contribute...finally.

Manufacturing jobs in Ohio:


Yes, clearly Obama/Democrats and their filthy "socialism" are the only ones responsible for our lack of jobs. :rolleyes:

IggyPride00;1221431 wrote:The regime today announced they plan to go to war with Willard over extending the tax cuts for those only under $250,000 to try and make it seem like the GOP are willing to see taxes go up on everyone to protect the super rich.

The desperation is starting to set in.

That is exactly what the GOP is willing to do.

I Wear Pants;1221540 wrote:That is exactly what the GOP is willing to do.

Reality check-Obama and the Ds wanted them ALL to go up from the beginning. They only changed to this "well, everyone under 250k will stay the same FOR NOW but those over 250k will go up" once they realized the GOP would balk at this. They only changed for political reasons, now which is worse?

jmog;1221544 wrote:Reality check-Obama and the Ds wanted them ALL to go up from the beginning. They only changed to this "well, everyone under 250k will stay the same FOR NOW but those over 250k will go up" once they realized the GOP would balk at this. They only changed for political reasons, now which is worse?

They shouldn't have been implemented in the first place. You don't start trillion dollar wars and put it on the credit card for later generations to pay for.

I Wear Pants;1221546 wrote:They shouldn't have been implemented in the first place. You don't start trillion dollar wars and put it on the credit card for later generations to pay for.

As opposed to the current administration creating even bigger deficits than the "trillion dollar wars" did?

I agree with you about deficit spending, 100%. However, you can NOT sit here and with a straight face complain about Bush's deficit spending and then vote for Obama who's deficits make Bush look like a fiscal genius.

I Wear Pants;1221546 wrote:They shouldn't have been implemented in the first place. You don't start trillion dollar wars and put it on the credit card for later generations to pay for.

1) Neither war cost anywhere near a trillion dollars. Now if you add both wars together with years of rebuilding Iraq and Afghanistan (out of the goodness of our imperialist war-mongering hearts), then yes, it's just over a trillion.

2) Nobody could have guessed how much either war would cost before we entered them.

3) The 2001 tax cuts were passed before 9/11, and during a recession. And after the economy lagged through the rest of 2001 and 2002, the unemployment rate reached the lowest level since WWII and stayed low until 2007. Bush's tax cuts didn't cost anything (no tax cut does because it's not the government's money in the first place), and even if they did they don't come close to Obama's torching $1 Trillion at the outset of his presidency, with nothing to show for it.

We can disagree with the wars and all, but there isn't any debate about how GWB vs. Obama responded to a bad economy and the ensuing results.

Footwedge;1220098 wrote:The private sector has outsourced about 5 million jobs. And this is Obama's doing? Might want to check out Obama's legislation that provides tax incentives for the private sector in bringing the jobs back here. Gee, why didn't your bud George think of that?

The private sector responds to consumer demands (i.e. less expensive products), and survival instincts. These are simple concepts.

As for obama, his War on the Private Sector, his War on Domestic Energy, and his War on Free Market Capitalism, cannot be overcome by any measure of tax gimmickry you, or he, may wish to apply for political expediency.

Footwedge;1220098 wrote:The private sector has outsourced about 5 million jobs. And this is Obama's doing? Might want to check out Obama's legislation that provides tax incentives for the private sector in bringing the jobs back here. Gee, why didn't your bud George think of that?

PS -- the private sector has also created millions of jobs, solely related to exports.

obama: "we will bankrupt the coal industry" ........

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-07-09/patriot-said-to-get-funding-ahead-of-possible-bankruptcy.html


He wasn't kidding.

Change we can believe in ...

QuakerOats;1221706 wrote:The private sector responds to consumer demands (i.e. less expensive products), and survival instincts. These are simple concepts.

Yeah...so only price dictates demand, eh? Americans happily paid a premium for goods and services when their net worth and income was significantly higher even 5 short years ago. That all changed under Bush the 43rd, whenever the net wealth/worth of the middle class dropped a teeny, weeny 39%. Need a link?

As for obama, his War on the Private Sector, his War on Domestic Energy, and his War on Free Market Capitalism, cannot be overcome by any measure of tax gimmickry you, or he, may wish to apply for political expediency.

LOL. The only economic war on anybody...were the banksters and the corporate elite pulling the puppet strings of the Congressional pussies.

Ignorance we can believe in......

The right wing cries that the private sector jobs have shrunk...yet think it's good business not to police the power brokers.

Ignorance we can believe in.....