Obama (hint) to create jobs.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/09/05/obama-to-spend-labor-day-at-union-rally-ahead-jobs-speech/

The campaign speech in Detroit produced a hint of Obama up coming speech “Stimulus Created Jack Shit WTF Now”.
In Obama address to the Detroit crowd of friends and blinded assholes the idea of creating jobs by building America infrastructure was introduced (STOP) Didn’t the Stimulus Pork Plan suppose to do that or was that just smoke and mirror?

If this is the same regurgitated shit this Half Ass Public Servant got for the America people who is out of work and needs jobs.. You may want to call you congress and senator .. tell them this “Mofo Obama”

MOFO what does this mean “MOVE ON FIRING OBAMA”

Well, he's apparently going to propose spending about $300 trillion more of those dollars we don't have to spend. When the Republicans in the House demand some kind of offset to this spending, they will be labeled obstructionists and people who don't care if the economy gets better because they want to make Obama look bad (as if he isn't doing a bang up job of that all by himself).

Clueless Obama has no plan or idea of how to do anything.

Fuck the Global Financing Banking asshole this is America and let others follow in the foot steps of America. Take your Global Bank shit someplace else … mofo

What to create jobs …..

Give back to business the line of credit we once had (2008) before this Global Bullshit Banking mentality started.
My two companies lost valuable working money when our line of credit was dropped from $300 to $210 for one and the other was $250 to 125 With that drop in line of credit I had to let some people go and was not able to advance my companies buy volume good and make higher profits off the saving of volume buying which resulted in less profit and more layoffs.

Many Business and Business owner have back taxes 2010 from the Federals … those companies that have back taxes of $15,000 or less .. for get about it … let them have a reprieve from paying those taxes. This will also let small business to reinvest in their companies and have additional spending capital for good and services…= create jobs.

Writerbuckeye;886143 wrote:Well, he's apparently going to propose spending about $300 trillion more of those dollars we don't have to spend. When the Republicans in the House demand some kind of offset to this spending, they will be labeled obstructionists and people who don't care if the economy gets better because they want to make Obama look bad (as if he isn't doing a bang up job of that all by himself).

Well perhaps considering they did not demand spending cuts to offset the loss of revenue from the extension of the bush tax cuts that is not that out of line. If you cut taxes or extend tax cuts without offsetting spending cuts it is the same as direct spending without offsetting cuts. However, in this instance, direct spending borrowed at 2% interest will improve aggregate demand moreso than extensions in marginal tax rates that run a deficit. I think both should be done because raising tax rates or cutting spending hurt aggregate demand in the short run but republicans incoherently only believe in one...the least effective one mind you. For them, the deficit is the greatest evil until they are given the opportunity to increase it by cutting taxes without offsetting spending cut. Nevermind that offsetting spending cuts would nullify the stimulative effective of either tax cuts of direct spending.

Explain to me how you can adhere to both positions and have a coherent philosophical worldview? Republicans do not hold themselves to the same standard they hold democrats and that is obstruction my friend.

You do understand (and if you could reply in less than 700 words, that would be great), that the prior stimuli programs were abject failures, do you not?

BoatShoes;886368 wrote:Explain to me how you can adhere to both positions and have a coherent philosophical worldview? Republicans do not hold themselves to the same standard they hold democrats and that is obstruction my friend.

Who's obstructing, again?

To understand the conservative/libertarian view on economics, you must believe in growth principles and capitalistic ideals. In such, there will be winners and losers (ee-gad, can't have losers in today's world now can we?). To the winners, go the spoils. To the losers, goes a valuable lesson in what NOT to do and they are given another opportunity to succeed. In the end, creating positive growth, fostering equal opportunities for all, getting government out of the way, keeping the playing field safe, and REWARDING accomplishment (instead of punitive confiscation of capital and wealth) provide MORE revenue to governments (fed, state, local), new wealth, and far less redistribution of wealth already created.

I know you know these principles, yet you are forever married to government being the lead dog and not the individual/entrepreneuer/risk-taker. When people are given the power, then we all prosper. It was that way for just over 200 years, but now we seem condemned to trying the socialist nee comunist rag....which fails every time it's tried.

America was great because of its people, not because of its government.

queencitybuckeye;886376 wrote:You do understand (and if you could reply in less than 700 words, that would be great), that the prior stimuli programs were abject failures, do you not?

That is not true. The stimulus prevented things from being even worse. The CBO just came out with a report that read that as many as 2.9 million more people are working because of the recovery act and people who had jobs worked more hours...amounting to an impact of as much as 4 million jobs.

Unemployment would be The original stimulus was not large enough to stave off the economic contraction. The sudden increase in consumer savings and the huge plunge in residential housing construction amounted to a shock of 6% of GDP. The ARRA only contained $500 in direct spending spread over 2 years amounting to about 1.5% of gdp...just not large enough to do the job.

If the world listened to you we would be even worse off than we are now. It is a shame that time travel does not exist so as to compare the alternative worse future you would have caused.

BGFalcons82;886426 wrote:Who's obstructing, again?

To understand the conservative/libertarian view on economics, you must believe in growth principles and capitalistic ideals. In such, there will be winners and losers (ee-gad, can't have losers in today's world now can we?). To the winners, go the spoils. To the losers, goes a valuable lesson in what NOT to do and they are given another opportunity to succeed. In the end, creating positive growth, fostering equal opportunities for all, getting government out of the way, keeping the playing field safe, and REWARDING accomplishment (instead of punitive confiscation of capital and wealth) provide MORE revenue to governments (fed, state, local), new wealth, and far less redistribution of wealth already created.

I know you know these principles, yet you are forever married to government being the lead dog and not the individual/entrepreneuer/risk-taker. When people are given the power, then we all prosper. It was that way for just over 200 years, but now we seem condemned to trying the socialist nee comunist rag....which fails every time it's tried.

America was great because of its people, not because of its government.

See...it's like I'm trying to have a debate with a record here...I'm trying to talk about specific policy responses in a very specific economic situation reminiscent of the Japanese problem in the 1990's that requires very specific policy responses that we know work and you're giving me a manifesto. It is totally erroneous to claim I'm forever married to "big government" when I'm calling for a specific policy action we know works in a specific scenario...this binary world you live in is not meshed with reality...because I don't believe people out to suffer as the long-run market corrections play out over decades does not equal "married to big government." When entrepreneurs lose skills and can't get access to credit and capital as banks horde cash in a liquidity trap and interest rates are at the zero bound all of what you say sounds good but doesn't play out.

And either way...my point was that Republicans are the ones who do not understand that both raises in marginal rates and cuts in federal government spending outlays contract aggregate demand and contract economic growth...and yet you are the one erroneously claiming that you understand "growth economics." So your dissertation does nothing to dispel the inherently contradictory policy actions being undertaken by those who favor the right side of the political spectrum.

BoatShoes;886497 wrote:That is not true. The stimulus prevented things from being even worse. The CBO just came out with a report that read that as many as 2.9 million more people are working because of the recovery act and people who had jobs worked more hours...amounting to an impact of as much as 4 million jobs.

Unemployment would be The original stimulus was not large enough to stave off the economic contraction. The sudden increase in consumer savings and the huge plunge in residential housing construction amounted to a shock of 6% of GDP. The ARRA only contained $500 in direct spending spread over 2 years amounting to about 1.5% of gdp...just not large enough to do the job.

If the world listened to you we would be even worse off than we are now. It is a shame that time travel does not exist so as to compare the alternative worse future you would have caused.

LOLOLOLOLOLOL And if you believe that load of crap, I have some land down South to sell you that's JUST a bit moist, but otherwise, primo.

As for comparing the spending offsets we're talking about to tax cuts -- apples to Cadillacs, my friend.

For you to take that position, means you are assuming all money belongs to the government. Not just what is withdrawn from your paycheck, but every, fucking cent.

Otherwise, you can't possibly argue that money THAT IS MINE ORIGINALLY and is given back to me is somehow a "revenue offset" for lack of a better phrase.

Government allowing people to keep more of their hard-earned money does not cause deficits. Over spending does.

Writerbuckeye;886512 wrote:LOLOLOLOLOLOL And if you believe that load of crap, I have some land down South to sell you that's JUST a bit moist, but otherwise, primo.

As for comparing the spending offsets we're talking about to tax cuts -- apples to Cadillacs, my friend.

For you to take that position, means you are assuming all money belongs to the government. Not just what is withdrawn from your paycheck, but every, fucking cent.

Otherwise, you can't possibly argue that money THAT IS MINE ORIGINALLY and is given back to me is somehow a "revenue offset" for lack of a better phrase.

Government allowing people to keep more of their hard-earned money does not cause deficits. Over spending does.

No...that is a common talking point retort..."liberals by saying tax cuts cost money think the money belongs to the government"...that is not what I'm suggesting at all...I'm merely suggesting that if you're going to cut revenue because you want more people to keep in their pockets what is justly theirs and yet you just borrow more money to use to spend on the programs you didn't cut when you cut taxes it is just as irresponsible. Milton Friedman argued that deficit spending is just like taxation because it's going to call for taxes in the future. I am not saying that "tax cuts cost money"....spending causes deficits...and if you cut revenue but keep spending you're just as bad as someone who increases new spending without any new revenue.

Sure it is your money originally...that is clearly not in dispute, but if you relinquish your contract with the people for them to use it on government programs so that you might freely spend it as an individual but to not in conjunction call for the people not to create the federal outlays they were going to use your money on...you're just as irresponsible.

BoatShoes;886497 wrote:That is not true. The stimulus prevented things from being even worse. The CBO just came out with a report that read that as many as 2.9 million more people are working because of the recovery act and people who had jobs worked more hours...amounting to an impact of as much as 4 million jobs.

Unemployment would be The original stimulus was not large enough to stave off the economic contraction. The sudden increase in consumer savings and the huge plunge in residential housing construction amounted to a shock of 6% of GDP. The ARRA only contained $500 in direct spending spread over 2 years amounting to about 1.5% of gdp...just not large enough to do the job.

If the world listened to you we would be even worse off than we are now. It is a shame that time travel does not exist so as to compare the alternative worse future you would have caused.

If the world listened to me, we would have never gotten into most of the messes that merged into the disaster we ended up with.

Are some of those jobs the ones that Mr. Obama claimed to have "saved"?

BoatShoes;886510 wrote:See...it's like I'm trying to have a debate with a record here...I'm trying to talk about specific policy responses in a very specific economic situation reminiscent of the Japanese problem in the 1990's that requires very specific policy responses that we know work and you're giving me a manifesto. It is totally erroneous to claim I'm forever married to "big government" when I'm calling for a specific policy action we know works in a specific scenario...this binary world you live in is not meshed with reality...because I don't believe people out to suffer as the long-run market corrections play out over decades does not equal "married to big government." When entrepreneurs lose skills and can't get access to credit and capital as banks horde cash in a liquidity trap and interest rates are at the zero bound all of what you say sounds good but doesn't play out.

And either way...my point was that Republicans are the ones who do not understand that both raises in marginal rates and cuts in federal government spending outlays contract aggregate demand and contract economic growth...and yet you are the one erroneously claiming that you understand "growth economics." So your dissertation does nothing to dispel the inherently contradictory policy actions being undertaken by those who favor the right side of the political spectrum.

I can turn a turd into gold with a can of spray paint.. want some?

BoatShoes;886368 wrote:Well perhaps considering they did not demand spending cuts to offset the loss of revenue from the extension of the bush tax cuts that is not that out of line.

Hopefully for the last time, the Bush tax cuts did not cause a loss of tax revenue. The Bush tax cuts are actually cuts in marginal tax RATES, which ultimately resulted in more tax revenue to the treasury - data I have previously provided. The refusal by some on here to acknowledge that revenues are over 20% higher today than 7 yeras ago is becoming comical.

Beyond that however, the real issue is joblessness which can only be solved by economic growth. And true economic growth is NOT government spending; that is simply a reallocation of resources in the most INefficient manner possible. What is needed are true pro-growth policies that will ultimtately result in growth and demand. After all, it is only demand that can create a job.

Now, we have a radical leftist trying to thrust upon a capitalist economy his agenda of redistribution of wealth, and the result is stagnation, retrenchment, lack of confidence in the future, slack demand. This tune is getting old, and that is perhaps why a group of CEO's again this week simply asked the president to get the hell out of the way.

The sooner he does so, the better, for all. Until then, the damage being inflicted is becoming historic.

BoatShoes;886497 wrote:That is not true. The stimulus prevented things from being even worse. The CBO just came out with a report that read that as many as 2.9 million more people are working because of the recovery act and people who had jobs worked more hours...amounting to an impact of as much as 4 million jobs.

I'm starting to think Jay Carney opened an OC account.

Tell us the one about how extending unemployment benefits creates jobs again .....

BoatShoes;886510 wrote:See...it's like I'm trying to have a debate with a record here...I'm trying to talk about specific policy responses in a very specific economic situation reminiscent of the Japanese problem in the 1990's that requires very specific policy responses that we know work and you're giving me a manifesto.

I hardly write manifestos compared to your prose. Not even close. You make my point about your belief in government solutions by pointing out there is a "policy response" for economic conditions. The economy works best when it's left alone. Government can't tweak and make tactical changes when it doesn't know what they're doing. Each and every time the government attempts to control economic problems and provide government-mandated solutions, they fail. Sometimes horribly such as the 1930's.

The major problem socialists and communists have with capitalism is that there must be failure. It is not a perfect system. THERE IS NO PERFECT SYSTEM, even as though they believe they can craft it, manipulate enough tax codes, tacitly change whom gets "stimulus" and whom pays more, tweak interest rates in response to uncontrollable events, and try to save everyone from failure with welfare, bailouts, payoffs, cronyism, and out-and-out corruption.

This country is starving for growth.
It is starved from expansion as thousands of new regulations are being crafted nearly daily through ObamaKare, the financial reform act, the EPA run-amok, and Obama literally creating legislation and signing it without a bill (DREAM Act and Defense of Marriage Act to name a couple). Business (shhhh-they actually create jobs due to demand...don't let your leftist buddies know) will continue to live off their fat until the spectre of uncertainty is eliminated. If Obama should happen to win, 10% unemployment will be seen as the "good old days".
It is starving for leadership.
It is starving for someone to get government out of the way instead of creating more obstacles to success.
America is starving and the current elitists don't have a clue, are completely inexperienced, and want to rely on their omniprescent "intelligence" to craft, tweak, twist, and run new tactics to "fix the economy". How's that working out so far?

Amazingly, the best solution is the easiest solution, but they don't have the ideology to implement it. Because letting people decide what's best for them and getting government back to its original intentions, is against every bone in their bodies. You want to try to tinker, tweak, fix, implement, change, twist, and amend tax laws and regulations to jump start our nation's economy. These ideas rarely work and the best solution is let Americans be Americans. You should be happy to know that my solutions (along with Oats, Writer, believer, MB, guts, tk, and all the other conservatives) won't be tried anytime soon. So you have about a year and a half to continue trying to fix what ails us and inadvertently hurt us more. Carry on.

QuakerOats;886572 wrote:Hopefully for the last time, the Bush tax cuts did not cause a loss of tax revenue. The Bush tax cuts are actually cuts in marginal tax RATES, which ultimately resulted in more tax revenue to the treasury - data I have previously provided. The refusal by some on here to acknowledge that revenues are over 20% higher today than 7 yeras ago is becoming comical.

Unsurprisingly you are incorrect again. I am sure you must work for the Republican party at this point as it's the only thing that can explain your party line rigidity.

Your view that the Bush Tax Cuts did NOT cause a loss in revenue is not the view shared by either Republican economists nor empirical evidence.

This is from the heritage foundation.



Your claim that we bring in more revenue as a percentage GDP in 2011 as opposed to 2004...is patently and utterly false...and we never brought in as much revenue as we did in 2000 and we barely screeched above the historical average in 2006.

The Office of Managment and Budget erroneously predicted tax revenue would rise thinking we'd be out of the recession and growing robustly again but we're still hovering around 14.5% of GDP.

Perhaps you weren't accounting for percentages of GDP and not taking into account economic growth and thought that meant the tax cuts brought in more revenue would not surprise me and is false.

Here's more for you to chew on:

Alan Viard, senior economist at W's Council of Economic Adviser's during his first term said this to the washington post in 2006:

"Federal revenue is lower today than it would have been without the tax cuts. There's really no dispute among economists about that" you can read that here: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/10/16/AR2006101601121.html

The Deputy Assistant for Tax Analysis at the Treasury during W's 2nd term, Robert Carrol, said this to the Post: "As a matter of principle, we do not think tax cuts pay for themselves."

Ed Lazear, Chairman of the CEA during Bush's second term said this in testimony before the Senate Budget Committee:

"Will the tax cuts pay for themselves? AS a general rule, we do not think tax cuts pay for themselves. Certainly, the data do not support this claim. Tax revenues in 2006 appear to have recovered to the level seen at this poin in previous business cycles, but this does not make up for the lost revenue during 2003, 2004, and 2005."


And finally, as Bruce Bartlett wrote for the Financial Times, "no serious Republican economist has ever said that a reduction in marginal rates would recoup more than a third of the static revenue loss"

You're right...the jury is indeed out but not in the way you claim. The CBO concluded here: http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/121xx/doc12187/ChangesBaselineProjections.pdf

that the Bush tax cuts reduced federal revenue by 2.8 trillion between 2002 and 2011. As Alan Greenspan said on "Meet the Press" when asked whether tax cuts pay for themselves, "They do not."


So hopefully that is enough for you to stop believing incorrect things but I have my doubts.

QuakerOats;886579 wrote:I'm starting to think Jay Carney opened an OC account.

Tell us the one about how extending unemployment benefits creates jobs again .....

The lack of a response to my question appears to be my answer - some number of the 2.9 million jobs were those claimed to have been "saved" by this administration. Not new jobs, but jobs "saved". The reality to that claim is that the number of jobs that can be conclusively proven to have been "saved" by the stimulus is zero. Not a small number, not a number approaching zero, but exactly zero.

queencitybuckeye;886697 wrote:The lack of a response to my question appears to be my answer - some number of the 2.9 million jobs were those claimed to have been "saved" by this administration. Not new jobs, but jobs "saved". The reality to that claim is that the number of jobs that can be conclusively proven to have been "saved" by the stimulus is zero. Not a small number, not a number approaching zero, but exactly zero.

Agree. How they get away with this type of "accounting" is ridiculous -- but you can bet your bottom dollar the media will play it as if it were fact and never question it.

BoatShoes;886368 wrote:Well perhaps considering they did not demand spending cuts to offset the loss of revenue from the extension of the bush tax cuts that is not that out of line. If you cut taxes or extend tax cuts without offsetting spending cuts it is the same as direct spending without offsetting cuts. However, in this instance, direct spending borrowed at 2% interest will improve aggregate demand moreso than extensions in marginal tax rates that run a deficit. I think both should be done because raising tax rates or cutting spending hurt aggregate demand in the short run but republicans incoherently only believe in one...the least effective one mind you. For them, the deficit is the greatest evil until they are given the opportunity to increase it by cutting taxes without offsetting spending cut. Nevermind that offsetting spending cuts would nullify the stimulative effective of either tax cuts of direct spending.

Explain to me how you can adhere to both positions and have a coherent philosophical worldview? Republicans do not hold themselves to the same standard they hold democrats and that is obstruction my friend.

Probably the shortest post you have ever put up and you still ramble an incoherent response filled with big words to try to make yourself look smart.

Please tell me something, the last stimulus that was a huge amount, that was supposed to create these same type of jobs that Obama will be saying that the new one will create. How did well this stimulus work? The Keynesian economic plans you so desperately cling to BoatShoes was a piece of crap the last time Obama put through a stimulus. How is the American people to believe the exact same philosophy will work this time?

You know, the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.

jmog;886888 wrote:Probably the shortest post you have ever put up and you still ramble an incoherent response filled with big words to try to make yourself look smart.

Please tell me something, the last stimulus that was a huge amount, that was supposed to create these same type of jobs that Obama will be saying that the new one will create. How did well this stimulus work? The Keynesian economic plans you so desperately cling to BoatShoes was a piece of crap the last time Obama put through a stimulus. How is the American people to believe the exact same philosophy will work this time?

You know, the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.

Didn't someone say that liberalism is a mental disorder?

Oh yeah...this guy: http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=56494

QuakerOats;886572 wrote:Hopefully for the last time, the Bush tax cuts did not cause a loss of tax revenue.

Come on Oats,,,even the CATO Institute recognizes that this premise is totally and completely false. Goohle Cato Inst. and the Laffer corve. We are way to the left on the apex...which meansd the Bush tax cuts have hurt revenues.

In case you don't know who the CATO Institute is...they are just about the most "reduce taxes at all costs" think tank there is.

BoatShoes;886652 wrote:Unsurprisingly you are incorrect again. I am sure you must work for the Republican party at this point as it's the only thing that can explain your party line rigidity.

Your view that the Bush Tax Cuts did NOT cause a loss in revenue is not the view shared by either Republican economists nor empirical evidence.

This is from the heritage foundation.



Your claim that we bring in more revenue as a percentage GDP in 2011 as opposed to 2004...is patently and utterly false...and we never brought in as much revenue as we did in 2000 and we barely screeched above the historical average in 2006.

The Office of Managment and Budget erroneously predicted tax revenue would rise thinking we'd be out of the recession and growing robustly again but we're still hovering around 14.5% of GDP.

Perhaps you weren't accounting for percentages of GDP and not taking into account economic growth and thought that meant the tax cuts brought in more revenue would not surprise me and is false.

Here's more for you to chew on:

Alan Viard, senior economist at W's Council of Economic Adviser's during his first term said this to the washington post in 2006:

"Federal revenue is lower today than it would have been without the tax cuts. There's really no dispute among economists about that" you can read that here: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/10/16/AR2006101601121.html

The Deputy Assistant for Tax Analysis at the Treasury during W's 2nd term, Robert Carrol, said this to the Post: "As a matter of principle, we do not think tax cuts pay for themselves."

Ed Lazear, Chairman of the CEA during Bush's second term said this in testimony before the Senate Budget Committee:

"Will the tax cuts pay for themselves? AS a general rule, we do not think tax cuts pay for themselves. Certainly, the data do not support this claim. Tax revenues in 2006 appear to have recovered to the level seen at this poin in previous business cycles, but this does not make up for the lost revenue during 2003, 2004, and 2005."


And finally, as Bruce Bartlett wrote for the Financial Times, "no serious Republican economist has ever said that a reduction in marginal rates would recoup more than a third of the static revenue loss"

You're right...the jury is indeed out but not in the way you claim. The CBO concluded here: http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/121xx/doc12187/ChangesBaselineProjections.pdf

that the Bush tax cuts reduced federal revenue by 2.8 trillion between 2002 and 2011. As Alan Greenspan said on "Meet the Press" when asked whether tax cuts pay for themselves, "They do not."


So hopefully that is enough for you to stop believing incorrect things but I have my doubts.

There is no way that Oats can possibly believe that Bush's tax cuts somehow increased revenues. There is no effin way. I would like to see one lousy stinking link....anywhere...in the whole wide internet...that substantiates such a ludicrous claim.

queencitybuckeye;886546 wrote:If the world listened to me, we would have never gotten into most of the messes that merged into the disaster we ended up with.

Are some of those jobs the ones that Mr. Obama claimed to have "saved"?

"If the world listened to you"...let me guess, if there were no social safety net, no banking regulation, no federal reserve, "currency" that people hold as a speculative investment etc., etc.,

queencitybuckeye;886697 wrote:The lack of a response to my question appears to be my answer - some number of the 2.9 million jobs were those claimed to have been "saved" by this administration. Not new jobs, but jobs "saved". The reality to that claim is that the number of jobs that can be conclusively proven to have been "saved" by the stimulus is zero. Not a small number, not a number approaching zero, but exactly zero.

Look you're a big boy, this is the conclusion of economists using conventional macro-economic models. Using mainstream economic tools they've determine the recovery act kept they unemployment rate down by as high as 1.6% points. You can read their evidence and methodology here. It's only a 9 page report. I imagine I'll rely on credible economists to formulate what opinions I'm inclined to sympathize toward. http://cbo.gov/ftpdocs/123xx/doc12385/08-24-ARRA.pdf

Writerbuckeye;886931 wrote:Didn't someone say that liberalism is a mental disorder?

Oh yeah...this guy: http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=56494

Welp, that's it...I guess I'm mentally incompetent and ought to turn in my law license.