Who's to blame for the slow recovery?

[mmi]

the left claim that conservatives want zero government and to throw all the poor out in the cold

Only some on the Right, basically the far Right, are pushing that view. The reminder are … confused in other ways.

Just so much nonsense to be dismissed out of hand.

Well, that's not the best counterargument I've ever heard.

2013 47.636
2014 46.664
2012 46.609
2015 45.767
2011 44.709
2010 40.302
2009 33.490
2008 28.223

Down to 44.3 million in May, and continuing to drop since then..

>>far higher the last few years than ever.

By the end of the year, down more than 3.5 million from the all-time high.

>>the unemployment rate is stated to be good

It's pretty good.

>>the vast majority of the jobs that have been created in recent years are low paying and part time. THe dept of labor statistics show that of course.

This claim is in fact NOT true, and the data make that clear.

Fifteen million private-sector jobs have been added since Dec 2009. Over that period, part-time employment is up by only 166K to a little less than 27.6 million, six million of whom say they want to work FT.

If you look at the details in the data, growth in low-paying jobs is not overrepresented in the expansion, especially in more recent years. Average hourly earnings have been increasing at more than 2.5% for a couple of years now.

>>We need more full time jobs.

Yes, a few million more.

Even you must be able to open the link I gave you.

I can't remember if I did or not. What's it say that you want me to respond to?

>>if you are totally uninterested in the subject to the point of not wanting to read any of the articles and studies on the first page of the Google search I proposed

Can't you tell me what they say that has led you to suggest I look at hem?

>>you must be able to understand the picture posted.

I scrolled through the last few pages, but didn't see a picture. Sorry, don't know which one you mean.

>>how can you argue your point, if you are not willing to check your numbers as I checked mine?

Which numbers are you saying I haven't checked?

I am confused here.

I figure it's the way DC operates that does that. I try not to expect too much. Moving at least slowly in good directions may be the best we're likely to do.

 

[DA60]

The Deficit Hawks who have kept federal spending far to low.

And exactly how much of a deficit do you think America should be running this fiscal year?

 

[BrettNortje]

The best way to have a recovery is to create jobs, as many of you know. if you want to create jobs in the first world, you need to observe that the best way to do this is to observe 'demands.' these demands i speak of are apparent to you all day and night, through the media proclaiming them demands, and the people saying they want this or that.

So, what do people want? they need bread and milk - maybe there is a way to satisfy this? if they were to observe semi needs, like toiletries, then they could supply this? then there are mere wants, where the most of the people spend their money.

There is so much money in any country. most of it is tied up at the banks. the people make a lot of money on the whole as they are the ones paying the taxes for the state to bail the banks out. if the banks fail, then there is no money storage and all credit is reduced to zero on a banking level. this is why they bailed the banks out.

So,maybe the average american cannot afford to spend? this means there needs to be a focus on satisfying the one percent, but how?

Pitching ideas to them, of course! if you were to take them plans for gold courses and airports, they might spend on a bit of that. this will create contracts for the middle class to leach off until they can afford to use them, and, then there will be more money coming from the rich to the middle class to be taxed and supply more service delivery, which means there will be more tax money for the state to invest in banks, to allow loans, for money to grow.

Basically, the lower classes need to get more money to spend, this is evident. if the poverty stricken were to get better paying jobs, then the gap between rich and poor would be better off. so, raise the minimum wage, this will take money directly from the rich to the poor and then there will be more demands met, which means the whole country will benefit.

 

[fmw]

"Who's to blame for the slow recovery?"

That is easy. The American people are to blame. We spent 40 years allowing our jobs and businesses to move abroad so we could have cheaper stuff. It worked for a while but we are now paying the proverbial piper. Things won't change until we reverse that direction.

 

[Moderate Right]

So, in your estimation, the correct amount of base money for a $15 trillion economy is $0?

Ha. That was funny. As you guys say, I never said zero. I never said there was a limit. Why impose artificial limits?

 

[JohnfrmClevelan]

Ha. That was funny. As you guys say, I never said zero. I never said there was a limit. Why impose artificial limits?

Do you know where base money comes from? Do you even know what it is? Why it exists?

You said that any federal deficit indicates "overspending," did you not? What else am I to think? Zero is a limit; you can't get below zero.

 

[Moderate Right]

Only some on the Right, basically the far Right, are pushing that view.

Even that is a partisan lie. The far right also do not favor zero government. Do you actually think that the far right want to be elected to positions just so that they have the power to eliminate their own jobs? They too believe in smaller, limited government and the states using whatever government they need for their states. As far as the poor go, that is also a lie. They do not want to throw the poor out in the cold. They just believe that the federal government should not be involved in social programs, as the individual states and organizations should be helping these people. Whether you agree with whether that would work or not is not another debate but the far right don't even think that the poor should be thrown out in the cold.

 

[Moderate Right]

The best way to have a recovery is to create jobs, as many of you know. if you want to create jobs in the first world, you need to observe that the best way to do this is to observe 'demands.' these demands i speak of are apparent to you all day and night, through the media proclaiming them demands, and the people saying they want this or that.

So, what do people want? they need bread and milk - maybe there is a way to satisfy this? if they were to observe semi needs, like toiletries, then they could supply this? then there are mere wants, where the most of the people spend their money.

There is so much money in any country. most of it is tied up at the banks. the people make a lot of money on the whole as they are the ones paying the taxes for the state to bail the banks out. if the banks fail, then there is no money storage and all credit is reduced to zero on a banking level. this is why they bailed the banks out.

So,maybe the average american cannot afford to spend? this means there needs to be a focus on satisfying the one percent, but how?

Pitching ideas to them, of course! if you were to take them plans for gold courses and airports, they might spend on a bit of that. this will create contracts for the middle class to leach off until they can afford to use them, and, then there will be more money coming from the rich to the middle class to be taxed and supply more service delivery, which means there will be more tax money for the state to invest in banks, to allow loans, for money to grow.

Basically, the lower classes need to get more money to spend, this is evident. if the poverty stricken were to get better paying jobs, then the gap between rich and poor would be better off. so, raise the minimum wage, this will take money directly from the rich to the poor and then there will be more demands met, which means the whole country will benefit.

I think one of the biggest differences between liberals and conservatives is that liberals want to create government jobs while conservatives want to create private sector jobs.

 

[JohnfrmClevelan]

I think one of the biggest differences between liberals and conservatives is that liberals want to create government jobs while conservatives want to create private sector jobs.

The problem is, conservatives go about this in all the wrong ways. Much of the deficit spending thread explains what is necessary for economic growth, but only the liberals on this board seem to understand.

 

[Moderate Right]

"Who's to blame for the slow recovery?"

That is easy. The American people are to blame. We spent 40 years allowing our jobs and businesses to move abroad so we could have cheaper stuff. It worked for a while but we are now paying the proverbial piper. Things won't change until we reverse that direction.

I agree. I also think it is funny how liberals demonize companies like Walmart and McDonalds while it is actually Americans' fault themselves for wanting cheap products and services.

 

[PIPEWRENCH]

It's because the Republocrats don't care about the People. When the economy tanked, government spent billions upon billions in tax payer bailouts to the banks and Wall Street, the very people who helped cause the collapse. Once the banks and Wall Street were taken care of, the government couldn't give two ****s about anyone else. The system was left to its own to "recover", i.e. just wait long enough and perhaps things will get back to "normal".

It's just another effect of Corporate capitalism and the natural results of what happens when the government isolates itself from the People.

Who was the president that signed all those bills into law instead of vetoing them?:thinking

We know Bush signed the first one:yes:.

All the rest happened after Bush left office.:3oops:

I didn't know Obama was a republican?:Oopsie:lamo

 

[Ikari]

Who was the president that signed all those bills into law instead of vetoing them?

We know Bush signed the first one

All the rest happened after Bush left office.

I didn't know Obama was a republican?:Oopsie:lamo

maybe you should read a little more carefully, yes?

:lamo:lamo:lamo

 

[ttwtt78640]

The best evidence in the world - even liberals acknowledge that we have a national debt of 20 trillion dollars and that we make interest payments on it and we got there by overspending. Budget deficits are the result of the government spending more dollars than the tax reciepts coming in, AKA overspending. If we didn't overspend our tax receipts then why do we make interest payments on the national debt?

Debt, in and of itself, is not necessarily a bad thing - what matters is what the debt is used for. Borrowing to start/grow a business is different than borrowing to take a vacation or to get drunk for a week.

 

[Moderate Right]

Do you know where base money comes from? Do you even know what it is? Why it exists?

You said that any federal deficit indicates "overspending," did you not? What else am I to think? Zero is a limit; you can't get below zero.

Again, I never said there was a limit. Why do you think we should impose artificial limits? You're trying to pin me down on a number when it is impossible to calculate a specific number. It depends on a bunch of variables that are constantly changing. Why should I come up with a random artificial number and a limit when you guys can't do that in the other direction? Typical liberal hypocrisy. During the Bill Clinton years we ran budget surpluses so ,yes, it is possible to pay our bills without "overspending" and have a strong economy at the same time. Where did the base money come from then, or are you now admitting that base money and deficits are two different things? How do things compare in those Clinton years to the last eight years of adding massive amounts of debt and apparently having so little to show for it that your prescription is adding even more debt?

 

[Moderate Right]

The problem is, conservatives go about this in all the wrong ways. Much of the deficit spending thread explains what is necessary for economic growth, but only the liberals on this board seem to understand.

So you are saying that we can't have economic growth through the private sector, that the only way to achieve economic growth is through deficit spending?

 

[PIPEWRENCH]

The problem is, conservatives go about this in all the wrong ways. Much of the deficit spending thread explains what is necessary for economic growth, but only the liberals on this board seem to understand.

We are well of the democratic plan.

More government workers to pay for with our hard earned money.
Government workers get raises and we get taxed.
Government workers get platinum health care and we pay for it by making cuts in our own health care.
Government workers get platinum retirement and we pay for it with the money we should have put in our retirement.
The middle class takes on second jobs to pay for those who refuse to work or have lost their jobs to slave labor entering this country illegally.
Government does not secure the border allowing millions of slave laborers to under cut jobs, not pay taxes and force US Citizens to work for lower wages and pay more taxes.
Government will reward people who break our laws and enter this country illegally.

I can go on but that is more than enough torpedoes to sink the USS America.

 

[Moderate Right]

Debt, in and of itself, is not necessarily a bad thing - what matters is what the debt is used for. Borrowing to start/grow a business is different than borrowing to take a vacation or to get drunk for a week.

I thought we couldn't compare private spending habits to government spending habits.

 

[MTAtech]

Exactly. Keynes figured this out a long time ago, and the idea of public spending in recession is even more important today, as technological innovation and trade agreements cause employment to atrophy.

At a time when Ten year Treasuries are fetch 0.9% interest, that's the time to borrow and spend on needed public investments.

 

[Ontologuy]

Both Parties are to blame, as is big business that has off-shored so many American jobs, as are the American People for not stepping up to the plate and saying enough is enough and demanding an end to the BS.

Very true to your first and second clauses. Between the Multi-Cultural Internationalists who run the Democrats and the Corporate Global Expansionists who run the Republicans, individual Americans have suffered economically while our corporate entities with international operations have continued to prosper on the back of wage-slave labor.

And, true to your third clause, mostly because American citizens couldn't find a bat strong enough to stand up to both left-wing and right-wing political parties' pitching.

But, now they have found that bat: Powerful American Political Alliance.

So, Americans, grab this bat and step up to the plate. Together, we can all hit a home run.

 

[JohnfrmClevelan]

Again, I never said there was a limit. Why do you think we should impose artificial limits? You're trying to pin me down on a number when it is impossible to calculate a specific number. It depends on a bunch of variables that are constantly changing. Why should I come up with a random artificial number and a limit when you guys can't do that in the other direction? Typical liberal hypocrisy. During the Bill Clinton years we ran budget surpluses so ,yes, it is possible to pay our bills without "overspending" and have a strong economy at the same time. Where did the base money come from then, or are you now admitting that base money and deficits are two different things? How do things compare in those Clinton years to the last eight years of adding massive amounts of debt and apparently having so little to show for it that your prescription is adding even more debt?

"Limits" are hardly the question. You indicated, whether you know it or not, that the proper amount of base money for a $15 trillion economy is zero. You said that any deficit indicated "overspending." And I think you said it without any comprehension whatsoever of the implications - you just see the words "deficit" and "debt" as negative, because the words themselves have negative connotations.

The only thing I'm trying to "pin you down" on is making sure you understand what you are talking about. There is a very good reason that governments are in debt, why many run regular deficits, and why some others don't. It is integral to how economies operate. And I have yet to see one speck of proof that you get it. Every time I bring it up, you answer back with a salad of unrelated defenses that never address the point.

 

[JohnfrmClevelan]

So you are saying that we can't have economic growth through the private sector, that the only way to achieve economic growth is through deficit spending?

As I said in the other thread - at length, and in great detail - economic growth takes growing demand, and in our economy, deficit spending is pretty much essential. And when I talk about demand, that is private sector growth.

 

[Moderate Right]

At a time when Ten year Treasuries are fetch 0.9% interest, that's the time to borrow and spend on needed public investments.

That's hogwash because, as you point out, those are ten year treasuries. The more debt you have means the more debt you constantly have to roll over at different interest rates. If these bonds carried lifetime interest rates that never had to be refinanced then I would agree with you. If we run the current debt up from 20 trillion to 50 trillion then at some point in the future those debts will be rolled over at the prevailing interest rates of the time and you could be rolling over current low rates of 50 trillion dollars in debt to 8% - 10% interest rates instead of where they currently are. The problem with liberals is they don't believe interest rates will ever rise again and can never reach the rates of the late 70's, early 80's.

 

[JohnfrmClevelan]

We are well of the democratic plan.

More government workers to pay for with our hard earned money.
Government workers get raises and we get taxed.
Government workers get platinum health care and we pay for it by making cuts in our own health care.
Government workers get platinum retirement and we pay for it with the money we should have put in our retirement.
The middle class takes on second jobs to pay for those who refuse to work or have lost their jobs to slave labor entering this country illegally.
Government does not secure the border allowing millions of slave laborers to under cut jobs, not pay taxes and force US Citizens to work for lower wages and pay more taxes.
Government will reward people who break our laws and enter this country illegally.

I can go on but that is more than enough torpedoes to sink the USS America.

Nobody is stopping the private sector from supplying plenty of jobs and solving all of our problems. But, hey, they don't seem to be doing that, despite making plenty of money. Wonder why that is?

 

[PIPEWRENCH]

maybe you should read a little more carefully, yes?

:lamo:lamo:lamo

It's because the Republocrats don't care about the People. When the economy tanked, government spent billions upon billions in tax payer bailouts to the banks and Wall Street, the very people who helped cause the collapse.

Bush approved QE1 bailing out the banks.

Who was in office during QE2 and QE3?

I know Obama has never taking responsibility during his 8 year term but to continue to blame Bush for those 8 years is beyond ridiculous.

 

[ttwtt78640]

I thought we couldn't compare private spending habits to government spending habits.

I can. )