• 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!

How many times can you take credit for the same 500,000 jobs?

I'm quite well aware of the multiplier effect. Again, that's the point of the article. There is none in this case.:cool:

This answer indicates you don't understand the multiplier effect.
 
I guess that's the problem. There is no multiplication. It's the same 500,000
jobs.:cool:

500,000 x 1.

Repeated over and over and over...
 
Au contraire. It's clear you're the one who does not understand.:cool:

No, what's clear is that even with the Stimulus and the velocity of money it involved, the economy still only grew moderately, which tells us that the Bush Meltdown and the failed conservative policies that engendered it, had a huge deflationary impact on the economy.

But I agree with Krugman: the stimulus needed to be 3 times as large to really work well. As it is, it only prevented a total meltdown. Is that what you're arguing?
 
No, what's clear is that even with the Stimulus and the velocity of money it involved, the economy still only grew moderately, which tells us that the Bush Meltdown and the failed conservative policies that engendered it, had a huge deflationary impact on the economy.

But I agree with Krugman: the stimulus needed to be 3 times as large to really work well. As it is, it only prevented a total meltdown. Is that what you're arguing?

In the run-up to the election in 2008, the Democrats were claiming an expert knowledge of the economy, and that they AND THEY ALONE had the answer to the problem. With the Congress totally in Democrat hands with an effective supermajority, and lock-step behind a Democrat Executive, they got whatever they wanted....

...and it wasn't enough.

So, did the Democrats fail in their estimation of how bad the economic disaster was, or did they fail in fixing the problem? Either way, you are looking at a scenario where they promised the moon and still failed to deliver. Neither scenario says "expert knowledge" to me.

The fact that this is ALSO somehow Bush's fault is laughable. How is that cognitive dissonance working out?
 
No, what's clear is that even with the Stimulus and the velocity of money it involved, the economy still only grew moderately, which tells us that the Bush Meltdown and the failed conservative policies that engendered it, had a huge deflationary impact on the economy.

But I agree with Krugman: the stimulus needed to be 3 times as large to really work well. As it is, it only prevented a total meltdown. Is that what you're arguing?

Off topic.:cool:
 
The President has indeed been accurate, Time after time, talking about the same 500,000 jobs.:cool:
I'm still waiting for the part where Presidents are not allowed to refer to job growth during their term.
 
Fixed it for you.

Since you decided to distort my quote rather than state your own position Ill quote you for it.

One of you is arguing that we are doing next to nothing on fiscal stimulation for an economy of this size

With Continued QE, the Fed Moves Farther Off the Map - US News and World Report

As the Fed gets deeper into its stimulus program, it's increasingly going off the map. The Fed's latest stimulus policy of choice, quantitative easing, was virtually untested when the bank undertook it, Those massive asset purchases have led to a balance sheet whose size is skyrocketing, from less than $1 trillion in 2008 to over $3 trillion now. The question facing the Fed is how much is too much: $4 trillion? $5 trillion? $10 trillion?

The answer: No one has a clue.

The Fed balance sheet is currently around 20 percent of GDP.

I dont think you are looking hard enough.
 
I'm still waiting for the part where Presidents are not allowed to refer to job growth during their term.

Oh they are, but it's BHO's unique choice to take credit over and over for the same jobs instead of creating new ones for which he could take additional credit.:cool:
 
Oh they are, but it's BHO's unique choice to take credit over and over for the same jobs instead of creating new ones for which he could take additional credit.:cool:
Unique? Seriously? Every POTUS describes "his" accomplishments multiple times. I know you need a replacement for the teleprompter meme, and I understand that it bothers cons and neocons to hear job gain data during this POTUS...but really, this is getting silly.

Oh, and if you do expect the President to "create jobs", but you don't want debt increases via spending....like tripling the debt during Reagan, what do you think the GOP should propose to increase demand?
 
Since you decided to distort my quote rather than state your own position Ill quote you for it.
No, I changed your quote to accurately reflect what I said, if you are going to put words in my mouth, you ought to get it correct, Mr "dishonestypatrol".



I understand you are confused about fiscal vs monetary stimulation....which was the point of correcting the words you put in my mouth.

Dishonesty, indeed.
 
No, I changed your quote to accurately reflect what I said, if you are going to put words in my mouth, you ought to get it correct, Mr "dishonestypatrol".



I understand you are confused about fiscal vs monetary stimulation....which was the point of correcting the words you put in my mouth.

Dishonesty, indeed.

So you missed the stimulus, TARP, increased federal budget, cash for clunkers, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac cash measures....you missed all that eh?

We have done and are doing quite a bit, but there are structural economic costs to each avenue the government uses to collect the money it spends. Those structural costs have a tendency to slow down the economy or take resources away from the market.
 
So you missed the stimulus, TARP, increased federal budget, cash for clunkers, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac cash measures....you missed all that eh?
Since when did bailouts become fiscal/demand stimulation?

We have done and are doing quite a bit, but there are structural economic costs to each avenue the government uses to collect the money it spends. Those structural costs have a tendency to slow down the economy or take resources away from the market.
No, we have not done much on fiscal demand stimulation as compared to the size of this economy, and the costs have been below zero since bond costs were below the rate of inflation. We have had this same conversation time and again and you never remember the critical points.....but I suppose if you did it would cause much internal conflict....which is why you just repeat the old outdated memes applicable to other times.
 
Unique? Seriously? Every POTUS describes "his" accomplishments multiple times. I know you need a replacement for the teleprompter meme, and I understand that it bothers cons and neocons to hear job gain data during this POTUS...but really, this is getting silly.

Oh, and if you do expect the President to "create jobs", but you don't want debt increases via spending....like tripling the debt during Reagan, what do you think the GOP should propose to increase demand?

Yes. Unique. No other POTUS has presented old news so often as if it were new news.

As for jobs, try stimulating growth with low taxes and incentives to repatriate profits.:cool:
 
Yes. Unique. No other POTUS has presented old news so often as if it were new news.
A negative you cannot prove! How convenient!

As for jobs, try stimulating growth with low taxes and incentives to repatriate profits.:cool:
I see, you believe business hires without demand!
 
A negative you cannot prove! How convenient!

I see, you believe business hires without demand!

Lower taxes stimulate demand. As for the negative, I've actually left you the opportunity to find another POTUS who has done something similar, as you claimed. Hop to it.:mrgreen:
 
Lower taxes stimulate demand.
We did lower taxes on individuals who spend a greater amount of their incomes, it helped....but that is demand stimulation, not the corporate tax/supply side fiscal policy you were referring to.




As for the negative, I've actually left you the opportunity to find another POTUS who has done something similar, as you claimed. Hop to it.:mrgreen:
I know, that is always the next dance step you take after setting up a negative claim you made....... you expect the other person to prove your point.

If you, someone who claims to have worked in the govt for decades, really believes that POTUS's of the past have not repeated talking points....it shows you just don't have a clue.
I mean...I knew that already.
 
Unique? Seriously? Every POTUS describes "his" accomplishments
multiple times. I know you need a replacement for the teleprompter meme, and I understand that it bothers cons and neocons to hear job gain data during this POTUS...but really, this is getting silly.

Oh, and if you do expect the President to "create jobs", but you don't want debt increases via spending....like tripling the debt during Reagan, what do you think the GOP should propose to increase demand?


If only we had the jobs to represent BO's massive spending.

You talk about confidence, Reagans economic policies reinstilled it.

So a bunch a left wing fringe morons are jaded because they didn't get rich.

Some one needs to explain to them, life's not fair.
 
Since when did bailouts become fiscal/demand stimulation?

No, we have not done much on fiscal demand stimulation as compared to the size of this economy, and the costs have been below zero since bond costs were below the rate of inflation. We have had this same conversation time and again and you never remember the critical points.....but I suppose if you did it would cause much internal conflict....which is why you just repeat the old outdated memes applicable to other times.

If you think the bailout wasnt fiscal stimulation you are fooling yourself. It was gigantic cash outlays to buy out bad assets and keep credit liquid to allow financial markets to keep lending. It may have been more important than the stimulus. And its been getting paid back....

Like most liberals you want more spending, but you ignore the cost. The cost is a structural weakness to the market. The government has to steal the money from somewhere, whether they borrow it, print it or tax it---it costs the economy one way or another.
 
Back
Top Bottom