- Joined
- May 28, 2011
- Messages
- 13,813
- Reaction score
- 2,233
- Location
- Huntsville, AL
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Conservative
I looked back to see if I missed a post, and no I didn't. The only numbers you gave me: "The highest unemployment rate during President Bush’s entire eight years in office was his last month at 7.8%, compared to President Obama’s low of 7.6%. Of course it really helps to have the state-run media on your side." which doesn't address private sector jobs (which was the topic). I gave you charts that showed public sector jobs vs. public. If you don't like my charts, perhaps, you don't like the facts.
I looked back to see if I missed a post, and no I didn't. The only numbers you gave me: "The highest unemployment rate during President Bush’s entire eight years in office was his last month at 7.8%, compared to President Obama’s low of 7.6%. Of course it really helps to have the state-run media on your side." which doesn't address private sector jobs (which was the topic). I gave you charts that showed public sector jobs vs. public. If you don't like my charts, perhaps, you don't like the facts.
He bailed out public sector unions long enough to get reelected. This was not a loan. It was the theft of property from those who created it to give to those who consumed it. And it did exactly what the Marxist wanted. It provided him support from "Paul" at the expense of "Peter" who has the good sense not to vote for a Marxist in the first place. It also dried up capital. Radical Karl wanted only the state to have the capital. Radical Barrack saw to it.
No, your comment is a typical red herring. Part of the stimulus for states was designed to keep the states and local governments from laying off millions of more people or having big tax increases with the aid to education and health.
I'm not addressing anything to do with shovel ready project nor does it correlate with my point. Moving along...
Also, you keep mentioning GM/Chrysler bondholders which have nothing at all to do with topic. Another typical red herring. Moving along....
Giving more tax breaks to private industry won't do a thing when many corporations are sitting on massive profits and are not hiring. Perhaps, tax incentives do give an incentive for small business to hire but I'm guessing that they will only hire if they have a need (as in customer base) if not, no amount of tax break will help. I say allow that incentive because it won't hurt. I would only attach that incentive with full time jobs.
I summarized for your benefit. You gave me a data dump. Maybe you just don't know how to play well with others. You made the claim that jobs were dying long before Obama. I showed you that Bush had one month with a high unemployment rate. And Obama's entire regime has been nothing but high unemployment.
No, no bailout was needed and I faulted Bush for this. In a private sector economy businesses fail and other businesses buy them out and succeed. Not all banks wanted TARP. I was against the bailout then and am against it anytime now. The problem with liberalism is that there are no consequences for poor choices and failure as bailouts reward bad behavior. Nothing has changed after the bailout. Many banks didn't even want the bailout but were forced to take it under govt. threats. Bush was wrong as was Paulson.
By the way have you figured out yet that 60% of all of the jobs from $29-44K were not lost?
Do you not understand that discouraged workers are people who have stopped looking for jobs with most of them having dropped off the roles of the unemployed so tell me are discouraged workers who were once unemployed now not unemployed because they stopped looking for a job? Suggest you check out the Bush and Obama numbers adding in the discouraged workers. You aren't going to like the results.
And yet you agreed with it up above. You concur that the government took nearly a trillion dollars of property and gave it to the states so they would not (correctly) lay off the public sector union members.Red scare alert with not a single real point being made:roll:
"Part of the stimulus for states was designed to keep the states and local governments from laying off millions of more people..."
You still have not figured it out?You're kidding. I can't take your post serious.
Voodoo economics -- DANGER of long term unemployment ahead.Without a bailout, you would have much higher unemployment and resulting poverty.
Sorry but it never has been the responsibility of the Federal Taxpayer to bail out states nor is it the role of the govt. to take from those that produce and redistribute to those who don't.
Yes, I specifically stated private----Check back on post #174. Here is the exchange:
My quote: Overall, during the Bush era, private growth in jobs were at their worst since the Great Depression.
Your response: Really? So that roughly 4-6% unemployment for 7.5 years out of his eight was pretty bad? And the roughly 8% unemployment throughout all of the Marxist's regime is no doubt much better, right?
The highest unemployment rate during President Bush’s entire eight years in office was his last month at 7.8%, compared to President Obama’s low of 7.6%. Of course it really helps to have the state-run media on your side."
Now my response to you: Anyone with half a brain knows that's misleading because that combines private and public sector jobs and proves that you did not address my response in any shape or form.
Well then make the case that private jobs were dying before Obama. And if Obama is good for the nation why haven't those private jobs returned?
Without a bailout, you would have much higher unemployment and resulting poverty.
Oh, like schools, police, firefighters, EMTs etc......because lord knows they don't produce money? They just stuck away money, right:shock:
Your opinion noted, now prove it
please learn what your taxes fund. Those items listed aren't federal expenses.
Your opinion noted, now prove it
They lowered the unemployment rate by between
0.1 percentage points and 0.8 percentage points
This played out when Chile hit a financial crisis in 1982:
The social policies of all three governments were formed by a
particularly difficult beginning. The Chilean economy went through a deep financial crisis in 1982,
similar in severity to Argentina’s crisis of 2001. In 1982 and 1983, Chile’s GDP fell by 16 percent.
The collapse of the financial sector cost Chilean taxpayers between 30 and 40 percent of GDP.
Unemployment shot up to 30 percent. Around 50 percent of the population fell below the poverty
line. Extreme poverty affected 30 percent of the population.
Starting in 1985, the focus of economic policies shifted toward financial solvency and
economic growth. Exports grew rapidly and unemployment went down. On the poverty front,
however, results were less successful. People living below the poverty line still represented 45
percent of the population in 1987. Additionally, a key decision by the Pinochet government to
reduce taxes and government expenditures in 1988 had a further negative impact in social policies.
The decrease in social expenditures was equivalent to 3 percent of GDP, resulting in severe
deterioration in the coverage and quality of public health services, lower wages for teachers, and
lower pensions for the elderly. http://info.worldbank.org/etools/docs/reducingpoverty/case/24/summary/Chile Summary.pdf
Please learn comprehension, since I made it clear that it was the federal government's job to provide stimulus to states and localities for this very reason.
No, your comment is a typical red herring. Part of the stimulus for states was designed to keep the states and local governments from laying off millions of more people or having big tax increases with the aid to education and health.
I'm not addressing anything to do with shovel ready project nor does it correlate with my point. Moving along...
Also, you keep mentioning GM/Chrysler bondholders which have nothing at all to do with topic. Another typical red herring. Moving along....
Giving more tax breaks to private industry won't do a thing when many corporations are sitting on massive profits and are not hiring. Perhaps, tax incentives do give an incentive for small business to hire but I'm guessing that they will only hire if they have a need (as in customer base) if not, no amount of tax break will help. I say allow that incentive because it won't hurt. I would only attach that incentive with full time jobs.
Really? So BLS shows that? What verifiable site shows the results of Stimulus and measures saved jobs?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?