Obamanomics - "I'am Creating Jobs"

The capitalists will start investing and hiring when they have an understanding of what the federal regulatory environment will be, what the tax structure will be, what the debt load will be, what the limits of government inteference will be. Originally Posted by Whirlaway

No, they'll start hiring when they have a need to do so. And as long as they can continue to rake in massive multi billion dollar profits without hiring anyone, why not continue to do exactly that?

As to your point above, the "capitalists" have no less of a long term understanding of those items now than they ever do. The balance of power in Congress is prone to shifting every 2 years. The presidency, every 4. And with it, all of the factors you mention.

The Obama-Pelosi-Reid agenda scared the shit out of corporate America.

Speaking anecdotally, it seemed that hiring picked up pretty substantially - up until the talk around Washington started to center around the Republican willingness to destroy the economy come August 2nd. So unless it's just a coincidence, the agenda that's scared the shit out of corporate America is the Tea Party agenda.

The new paradigm is big business - big government. Corporate America fears the small government, low debt agenda of the Tea Party.

I think the whole world pretty much fears the agenda of the tea party.

I do find it ironic, however, that your "Obama-Pelosi-Reid agenda scared the shit out of corporate America" is a line you post as an insult, but your "the tea party agenda is scaring the shit out of corporate America" line you wear as a badge of honor. How does that work, exactly?

It's easy a softball pitch actually; corporate America likes status quo..they don't like big change, wether it comes from the left in the form of 6,000 pages of new regulations that nobody understands, or the Tea Party of small government, low debt, live-within-your-means philosphy.

I obviously favor the later.

I do find it ironic, however, that your "Obama-Pelosi-Reid agenda scared the shit out of corporate America" is a line you post as an insult, If you take it as an insult that your own BS; it was a statemen of fact....but your "the tea party agenda is scaring the shit out of corporate America" line you wear as a badge of honor. How does that work, exactly?

Originally Posted by Doove

BigTex:



We have tried it your way for the past 10 years and your way resulted in the Great Recession. We haven't tried it my way ! And we certainly haven't tried it the Tea Party way which advocates for smaller government, lower regulation, lower taxes and more state federalism!

The problem with reducing the size of government today is that it's the biggest employer in the country. As long as big business send all the jobs overseas these theories will not work. Don't get me wrong, I believe that Obama is to free with our money but if you look at the Tea Party way of thinking it is not the Tea Party way of thinking it is big business. Look at your history everything they are saying is what was said when Roosevelt introduced the "New Deal". The problem is that Tinkle down economic will not work if it is Tinkling down to China and India. Big business wants state federalism because they have more influence on local politics then federal.

Why not put the tax rates at the same level they were under Bill Clinton? During Clinton's final term, we not only had a robust economy but we had a healthy job creation rate! In fact, I would venture to say the final 4 years of Clinton's 8 years in office was far and away, the best economy of OUR lifetime. Was it not? I would go along with rolling the taxes to the Clinton era, if we also roll the debt, government budget, and size of government to the same levels we had in the Clinton era! And during the final Clinton term, didn't we have a Republican controlled Congress?[/quote] Originally Posted by Whirlaway

The debt problem came about because of an unjustified war with Iraq and a cut in taxes. I know in my household if I was barely breaking even and I took a job paying less and purchased a new car I would have debt problem. The problem with reducing the size of government is that those reduction would increase your unemployment rolls. I would guess that the federal government is now the biggest employer in the US. All the other jobs have gone to China and India. We did have a Republican controlled Congress in the Clinton final term and that was actually the worst part of his term. Until we start looking at everything rationally we will not fix this country but I guess Rome had to go so why not us. Do you realize that countries with the fasting growing economy today are Socialist and Communist, that is scary. As long as the Right thinks that the Left is always wrong and the Left think that the Right is always wrong we will never get anywhere. Big business is utilizing the party system to tell the American people to go to hell and they have wrapped it up so nicely that we are looking forward to the trip. We need to find a middle of the road here. It's like driving down a country road, too far to the left or right and you are in a ditch.

BigTex:

And during the final Clinton term, didn't we have a Republican controlled Congress?[/quote] Originally Posted by Whirlaway

As a matter of fact we did have a Republican controlled Congress during the final Clinton term. Therein lies the problem!

The Republican controlled Congress that you speak of knew they did not have the votes to override a Presidential veto on the tax cuts for the wealthy they would have liked to initiate while Clinton was in office. Once GW became POTUS, the Republican controlled Congress also knew the newly elected President would not veto their tax cuts for the wealthy initiative.

In summary, the Republican controlled Congress led GW down the path that eventually resulted in this country's financial collapse on September 15, 2008. And yes, those are the very same tax cuts for the wealthy that are still in place today!

Get my drift?

If you can read a chart, this tells you everything you need to know about this subject: chart

You can have your own opinion, you just can't have your own facts.

TTH: Nice try with the lawyering trick of calling me a liar for posting what others have said; which you disagree with. Please point to my lie in the thread, in bold, and I will retract if what I said was a lie. But be prepared to offer your own apology if you don't.

You are alittle too quick to call people liars and things.....TTH says.."You and the rest of the American Taliban to get the fuck out of this free country. If you want to live in theocracy, pack your shit, don't let the door hit you in the ass on the way out, hit the fuckin' road!! Leave America for those of us who really believe in freedom, liberty and the Constitution. I've had my belly full of poseurs...." Your the phony poseur in professing your democratic principals...

BTW; to keep it on topic, Obama's failing economy polciies, the Obama economy produced only 18,000 jobs last month and uemployment has increased to 9.2%. Originally Posted by Whirlaway

Not a problem at all. Here is what you posted that is a lie:

"Here is a link to the report by the WH Council of Economic Advisors; the members whom were all handpicked by Obama."

As has already been pointed out, the link is not to the CEA. The link is to some Rupert Murdoch right wing, bat-shit crazy think called The Weekly Standard. (Lie #1).

Furthermore, the quote below the link is not from the report of the CAE. It's from the bat-shit crazy right wing rag. (Lie #2).

Finally, had you bothered to click through to the actual CAE report (that you didn't like to, but at least the bat-shit crazy rag did) you would find that the bat-shit crazy rag lied like a rug and blatantly misrepresented what the report said. ("Surprise, surprise, surprise!" as Gomer Pyle used to say.) In point of fact, in direct contradiction to what you and the bat-shit crazies claim, the CAE report states, "As of the first quarter of 2011, the report estimates that the Recovery Act raised employment by 2.4 to 3.6 million jobs relative to what it otherwise would have been." (Lie #3).

http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/defa...rra_report.pdf at p. 16.

As to whether your lie was a deliberate attempt to mislead, or whether you were simply careless and took the bat-shit crazies at their work, I clearly think it's the prior, since you seem far too articulate to really believe that the non-sense pedaled by rags like The Weekly Standard could possibly be true. But I will concede that it is possible that your are just stupid, and not a knave. But I doubt it.

@ TTH:

You obvioulsy are unwilling to see though your bias. I will repost my responses which you seemed to ignore...

[quote=TexTushHog;1467889]Not a problem at all. Here is what you posted that is a lie:

"Here is a link to the report by the WH Council of Economic Advisors; the members whom were all handpicked by Obama."

As has already been pointed out, the link is not to the CEA. The link is to some Rupert Murdoch right wing, bat-shit crazy think called The Weekly Standard. (Lie #1). Wrong. The link to the WH CA report is in the 1st paragraph of the linked WS blog. No lie here. Obviously you have a hard on for the WS blog and don't like the fact that I used it to direct readers to the WH CA report referenced in the WS blog. But there is no lie in the statement you reference.



Furthermore, the quote below the link is not from the report of the CAE. It's from the bat-shit crazy right wing rag. (Lie #2). You are attempting to deceive in your own thread. I never said the quote was from the report. I said the last paragraph "sums the situation". You are attempting to deceive in your own thread here, an attempt at lying on your part.


Finally, had you bothered to click through to the actual CAE report (that you didn't like to, but at least the bat-shit crazy rag did) you would find that the bat-shit crazy rag lied like a rug and blatantly misrepresented what the report said. ("Surprise, surprise, surprise!" as Gomer Pyle used to say.) In point of fact, in direct contradiction to what you and the bat-shit crazies claim, the CAE report states, "As of the first quarter of 2011, the report estimates that the Recovery Act raised employment by 2.4 to 3.6 million jobs relative to what it otherwise would have been." (Lie #3). The numbers can be debated all day. But let me do the math for you. $700 billion stimulus / 3 milion jobs = $233,333 per job expense to the tax payer for the Obama job program known as Stimulus 1. And alot of these jobs are temporary assignments (like the census workers), so the actual cost per real job created is even higher !!!

The plan was a taxpayer funded boondoogle, mis-manged by Joe Biden (who thinks JOBS is a 3 letter word). Your defense of Obamanomics, and attempt to smear me by calling me a liar shows how desperate Obama zombies are right now.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/defa...rra_report.pdf at p. 16.

As to whether your lie was a deliberate attempt to mislead, or whether you were simply careless and took the bat-shit crazies at their work, I clearly think it's the prior, since you seem far too articulate to really believe that the non-sense pedaled by rags like The Weekly Standard could possibly be true. But I will concede that it is possible that your are just stupid, and not a knave. But I doubt it. It would serve your purpose better if you relied on facts to undermine my arguements rather than phony, unsubstantiated claims of liar ![/quote]

Well, genius-boy, I guess creating ONE job is way ahead of losing thousands like your boy Georgie.