• Please read the Announcement concerning missing posts from 10/8/25-10/15/25.
  • 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!

Another groaner from our econmic genius President.

"Potential."
 
"Potential."

Potential - Real = output gap.

Output gap requires expansionary monetary and fiscal policy. Expansionary monetary policy is achieved by lowering of interest rates, and balance sheet expansion. Fiscal policy expansion is achieved by a negative change in the government savings rate. Government savings = tax receipts - expenditures. Preferably the appropriations flow into infrastructure, health, and education.

The end.

Your answer was incorrect.
 
Potential = guess.

A most sophisticated guess. If your argument is based on the credibility of the econometritions, you fail.
 

What do I propose? What about what they, the unemployed propose for themselves. 46 to 99 weeks of unemployment benefits. What do you do?

A lot of people will hire, give a hand up usually. Its happened to me in the past and I've done it too hiring Ex-Cons. We had a homeless kid too. Everyone pitched in for food and helped with transportation etc. There are so many organizations: shelters, hand up programs, programs, and did I say programs? Available etc.

Oh yes, and there is Obama, the leader that should be inspiring people but all we've been subjected to is, you didn't build that, class warfare, and his circle jerk ass hat administration wasting so much time with redistribution BS.

Sorry for the rant, need to crash, long day tomorrow, but of course we need to help people, just not enable them is all....
 
Why allocate so much toward extensions and not create a jobs bill that addresses the nations infrastructure deficit?

Sounds good, I would be all for something like that but it would have to incentives provided to the private sector and not a bunch of government jobs etc.
 
Your answer. http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/10/ 15/the-gop-tax/?_r=0

Krugman spreading his poison is not a legitimate answer to anything.

40 jpbs bills from the House sitting in the Senate waiting for a vote that will bever come.

Please remind us of the specifics of Obama's last jobs iniative.
 
Krugman spreading his poison is not a legitimate answer to anything.

40 jpbs bills from the House sitting in the Senate waiting for a vote that will bever come.

Please remind us of the specifics of Obama's last jobs iniative.
In other words you have nothing specific to counter what krugman said about potential GDP, so you marginalize in general.
 
In other words you have nothing specific to counter what krugman said about potential GDP, so you marginalize in general.

Blog.
 
In other words you have nothing specific to counter what krugman said about potential GDP, so you marginalize in general.

To add to what I said, the House listed 27 bills, not 40, that they claimed were 'jobs' bills. They weren't and the House has taken down the site.

One of those bills, HR 3630 - "The Middle Class Tax Relief & Job Creation Act of 2011," freezes federal workers' pay for three years, and requires issuance of a permit for the Keystone XL Pipeline in advance of the proposed routing by Nebraska; suspends mercury regulations and extends 100% expensing of business equipment (including private jets). Some jobs bill.

Crooks and Liars has many more examples of House "jobs bills" that aren't jobs bills. Republicans think the public is stupid enough to think just by putting "jobs" in the title that makes it a jobs bill.
 
Last edited:

That bill would literally create real private jobs, and you agree.
 
That bill would literally create real private jobs, and you agree.
Don't tell me what I agree. I don't -- and that bill specifically would do more harm than good. Freezing federal worker's pay for three years, after they already had them frozen for three years will cost jobs.
 
Don't tell me what I agree.

You do not think a bill that would literally allow a company to construct a pipeline, which requires people to do, would create jobs?
 
You do not think a bill that would literally allow a company to construct a pipeline, which requires people to do, would create jobs?
There has been extensive analysis of the Keystone XL pipeline and the conclusion is that the jobs effect is minimal. This one, from Cornell University, concludes Keystone kills more jobs than it creates. The other parts of that bill are jobs losers. In total, the bill reduces more jobs than it creates.
 
There has been extensive analysis of the Keystone XL pipeline and the conclusion is that the jobs effect is minimal.

So the pipeline, which would require human labor to build, would not create any jobs?
 
So the pipeline, which would require human labor to build, would not create any jobs?
As I said in the previous post, according to Cornell University's Global Labor Institute, "the project may kill more jobs than it creates." They also conclude that the proponents of the project can't substantiate their jobs claims.

So yes, according to smart people who have done the research, it would not create any net jobs.

But you are focusing on one small piece. The claim on a previous page was that the House passed 40 jobs bills. No, they haven't.

As Crooks and Liars said about two other so-called "jobs bills:"

 
Last edited:
As I said in the previous post, according to Cornell University's Global Labor Institute, "the project may kill more jobs than it creates." They also conclude that the proponents of the project can't substantiate their jobs claims.

People will lose jobs because fuel prices may go up if it is built?

People will lose jobs because there may be an oil spill from it?

People will lose jobs because it will cause pollution?

People will lose jobs because it is not "green energy?

Is this a joke?
 
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more…