Debt Limit Bottom Line

#127
#127
BigPapaVol said:
but the net jobs silliness is a farce. Bush was the first to really have to live with NAFTA and burgeoning China's outsourced free labor. The analysis absolutely ignored the recession Bush 2 started with and the enormous boon that his policies and our greater financial policies were to job creation. Housing bubble bursting and worldwide recession make that net number useless as a comparative. Clinton took over in the midst of a recession and off the heels of some of the tightest capital markets ever. He was also the beneficiary of an opposing congress and was rewarded for oodles of investment capital put to work through the late 80s.

Tax policy certainly impacts the labor markets, but the post implies that increasing rates increases employment, which is utterly stupid. Hence, taking raw stats in a vacuum is crazy.
Click to expand...

You must have not read my original post. I was impling no such thing. You need to go read the original post.
 
#128
#128
Gramps said:
During this debt ceiling debate the GOP is being very hypocritical. Several of the same congressman/women and senators that are now saying they will not vote to raise the debt ceiling if any revenue increases are involved are the same people that spent like a bunch of drunk sailors during the Bush 2 presidency and voted to increase the debt ceiling in 2002,2003,2004,2005,2006 and 2207.
The Dems are no better. Both sides are doing no more than trying to appease certain groups. IMO both side are equally blame for the financial mess we are in.

Reagan increased taxes several times, Bush 1 increased taxes, Clinton increased taxes and it did not kill job creation, that'a fact. Bush 2 cut taxes and has the worse track record on job creation since the labor department started keeping records in 1939.
Jimmy Carter is considered the worse president in recent history and he created 4 times the jobs created under Bush 2 in half the time.

Bill Clinton ... 8 years ... 23.1 million net jobs created
Ronald Reagan ---8 years ...16 million net jobs created
Bush 1 --------4 years -----3 million net jobs created
Bush 2 --------8 years -----2.5 million net jobs created

Carter ........... 4 years -----10.5 million net jobs created

Flame away
Click to expand...
Perhaps this points to the vastly overestimated effect on the economy that the office of POTUS truly has.

volinbham said:
watched the whole thing - he had some good points then fell back into the partisan crap.

worst was when he talked about how some Dems were against some of the deal because their core values are to help poor people (etc. etc.). Apparently Reps hate them since these are not what drives their decision making. Later he said Reps shouldn't demonize Dems or question their motives. More classic double speak from the Prez - question the motives of your opponent then chastise your opponent for questioning your motives. Awesome.
Click to expand...
Every time he opens his mouth in front of a mic from here on is an attempt to get votes. Time to start separating talk from action.
 
#129
#129
milohimself said:
Perhaps this points to the vastly overestimated effect on the economy that the office of POTUS truly has.


Every time he opens his mouth in front of a mic from here on is an attempt to get votes. Time to start separating talk from action.
Click to expand...


He's a politician.

The theory is that if he wants to get reelected, he will do that combination of things that represents a mix of what the public wants and what the advisers are telling him are his range of workable options.

If you don't like him trying to get votes, then either make the presidency a one term proposition or make it an appointed position. Either way, don't gripe when a politician makes speeches designed to garner votes.
 
#130
#130
lawgator1 said:
He's a politician.

The theory is that if he wants to get reelected, he will do that combination of things that represents a mix of what the public wants and what the advisers are telling him are his range of workable options.

If you don't like him trying to get votes, then either make the presidency a one term proposition or make it an appointed position. Either way, don't gripe when a politician makes speeches designed to garner votes.
Click to expand...

saving this for future reference...
 
#131
#131
utvolpj said:
and where did that bubble get us?



do you believe the largest tax increase in US history would have helped the economy? Simple question

and trying to cut entitlements over a span of 50yrs is absolutely ridiculous. It's as bad as trying to sell the American people on spending cuts on top of raised taxes like Obama just tried.
Click to expand...

I have a simple question for you: When you go into a store and see an item on sale for a limited time, then upon returning you see that it has returned to it's original price, do you see this as a price increase?
 
#132
#132
CSVol said:
I have a simple question for you: When you go into a store and see an item on sale for a limited time, then upon returning you see that it has returned to it's original price, do you see this as a price increase?
Click to expand...

When the sale is 10 years long?
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
#134
#134
CSVol said:
When you try something and it doesn't work, do you keep doing it because that's the way you've been doing it for 10 years?
Click to expand...
I assume you're talking about something other than the tax cuts.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
#135
#135
droski said:
rather misleading statistics. carters job creation were during his first 2 years. reagan's job losses were during his first 2 years. it's the second half of a presidency where a presidents economic policy can be judged. that is unless said president spends $1 trillion to "save jobs." and let's not forget the economy was turning rather significantly at the end of bush 1's tenure. something bill
y definetely benefited from.
Click to expand...

The statistics are not misleading they are correct..
 
#136
#136
Weezy said:
I don't think slicing gov't funding is going to be all that great either. There's going to be a lot of gov't jobs lost when the slicing begins. This also includes a lot of gov't contracts to private companies. Which I agree is right for the future, but I don't see how that helps the economy in the recovery. It's a crap situation that's for sure.
Click to expand...

All jobs are not equally valuable to wealth production and the state of the economy. MOST gov't jobs do not produce wealth. MOST gov't programs are designed to either consume or redistribute wealth.

If you think of the US economy as one large company that is in the red.... where do you cut? Do you cut corporate purchases of things like art and landscaping? Do you make modest cuts in things like health care and retirement?.... OR do you cut things that directly contribute to the production of your product, your income, your wealth production?

Your post is the logic or lack thereof for the Keynesian model. It doesn't work. The supply side model has worked each time it has been tried to increase economic growth, jobs, and net revenues to the gov't.
 
#137
#137
The budget compromise last year is really all that is needed to show Republicans that Obama cannot be trusted.... nor can the GOP's "leaders". Boehner and his gang know that their caucus and the voters they represent won't tolerate another "compromise" where nothing really gets cut.

Obama's proposal here is plain disingenuous. The tax increases AND cuts would come no sooner than 2013... conveniently after the next Prez election. He's done nothing but try to kick the can down the road while claiming to be "reasonable".
 
#138
#138
BigPapaVol said:
I assume you're talking about something other than the tax cuts.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
Click to expand...

I'll make it a simple yes or no question for you. Do you believe the Bush tax cuts helped the economy and created jobs?
 
#141
#141
CSVol said:
I'd hate to see a bad economy.
Click to expand...

Again you seem lost on the timing. Repealing the cuts in 05 or 06 might have made sense, but dont today. Were you around for the tech bubble collapse and 9/11 hit to the economy? Overcoming those was the intent. We did-in spades.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
#142
#142
CSVol said:
I'd hate to see a bad economy.
Click to expand...

Go back and look at the history of those tax cuts. The economy after Y2K hit a shallow recession. It double dipped when 9/11 occurred. Taxes were cut and job creation followed WITH net revenue increases to the Federal gov't.

This late recession was caused by the housing bubble primarily. The bail outs didn't bring us out. The stimulus packages didn't help at all. Had those expenditures been dedicated to tax cuts instead without Obamacare then we would be in a solid, private sector led recovery right now.
 
#143
#143
BigPapaVol said:
Again you seem lost on the timing. Repealing the cuts in 05 or 06 might have made sense, but dont today. Were you around for the tech bubble collapse and 9/11 hit to the economy? Overcoming those was the intent. We did-in spades.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
Click to expand...

If they helped so much, why are we where we are today? Granted, policies like Obamacare didn't help but the decline began before the POTUS and his agenda arrived in Washington.
 
#144
#144
CSVol said:
If they helped so much, why are we where we are today? Granted, policies like Obamacare didn't help but the decline began before the POTUS and his agenda arrived in Washington.
Click to expand...

You do realize not one single thing is going to cure it. As you have already asked, and Papa answered, the tax cuts helped the economy and created jobs. Did you think just tax cuts would prevent the mess we were in?
 
#145
#145
CSVol said:
If they helped so much, why are we where we are today? Granted, policies like Obamacare didn't help but the decline began before the POTUS and his agenda arrived in Washington.
Click to expand...
Congress and Pres were of like party and acted irresponsibly for 8 freaking years. Obama took it to a level of retarded unprecedented in our history. The housing bubble explosion was the catalyst for much of the problems as it soaked out all capital from lenders and dried up a huge source of spending cash fro pocketbooks. Tight capital has remained a nasty spot in our economy, despite enormous efforts to help that situation. Confidence, from lenders and borrowers, cant be bought.

Obviously, I've simplified the problems and domino effect, but that's the simple story. You can check all of the high tax nations around the world and see if the capital crunch hammered them.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
#146
#146
BigPapaVol said:
Congress and Pres were of like party and acted irresponsibly for 8 freaking years. Obama took it to a level of retarded unprecedented in our history. The housing bubble explosion was the catalyst for much of the problems as it soaked out all capital from lenders and dried up a huge source of spending cash fro pocketbooks. Tight capital has remained a nasty spot in our economy, despite enormous efforts to help that situation. Confidence, from lenders and borrowers, cant be bought.

Obviously, I've simplified the problems and domino effect, but that's the simple story. You can check all of the high tax nations around the world and see if the capital crunch hammered them.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
Click to expand...

This was the type of answer I've been looking for. The bolded is my concern as this was the justification for the breaks, ie the loosening of capital.
 
#148
#148
droski said:
They can be both misleading and correct.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
Click to expand...

They are totally misleading because hiring is a long term decision. Nobody said "hey Bush is outta office, let's hire 5 people".

My prediction is by next summer people will see that Obama wont win and people will start to hire
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
#149
#149
VolsNSkinsFan said:
They are totally misleading because hiring is a long term decision. Nobody said "hey Bush is outta office, let's hire 5 people".

My prediction is by next summer people will see that Obama wont win and people will start to hire
Posted via VolNation Mobile[/


If there is money to be made, any businessman is going to take advantage of the situation and hire and it doesn't matter who is in the WH.
I have been in business since the mid 70's and not once have I turned an opportunity to make money down because of who is in the WH , nor have I turned a deal down because the tax rate may go up 3-5% in a couple of years. Anyone working on that tight a margin is in trouble to begin with.
No one on this board is not growing their business because taxes may go up. If anyone has a good opportunity to make some money on a deal and scared to act because Obama is in office or the tax rate may increase is not a very smart businessman.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
Click to expand...
 
#150
#150
You're excluding the whole investor class in the realm of business decisions. I promise they matter.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top