Don't we EVER get a break in this country?

[rdean]

The last thing we need to do is return to the same failed Bush Era policies that resulted in only war, deficits, and recession.

with obama we got more wars, more debt, more deficits and more recession, we need to get his azz gone.

More wars? Can you name them? More recession? When did it start? More deficits? Republicans put is in a 10 trillion dollar hole. Democrats aren't magic. Compared to Republicans, it only seems like they are.

 

[rdean]

If I were unemployed and on unemployment for 2 years and it about to run out, I don't think I would be thinking that clearly.

You do know that your daughter was one of the millions of Americans Republicans held hostage until the tax cuts for the wealthy were extended? Don't believe me. Believe the right wing "Christian Science Monitor". You can thank Obama your daughter has had unemployment benefits for this long. There is no way you can come back with an "angry retort". This is the truth.

Unemployment benefits: not until Bush tax cuts pass, Senate GOP says - CSMonitor.com

Senate Republicans pledge not to take up any issues, including extending unemployment benefits, until the Bush tax cuts and federal spending bills are sorted out.

I'm waiting to see what "SUNSHINE" has to say about Obama when it is he she should thanking for making sure her daughter isn't destitute". Which is where Republicans want to leave her. Has she heard what Republicans say about the unemployed? That they need drug testing? That they are hobos? Lazy? They don't mean everyone but "white" unemployed. I'm pretty sure they mean all unemployed.

Sunshine, I'm still waiting.

 

[LoneLaugher]

Obama is only a big spender if you consider tax cuts to be spending.

Spending is part of the solution to a recession. You've lots to learn.

No, private sector growth is the entire solution to a recession. Increased government spending is a band aid that is sometimes needed to staunch the bleeding during a recession. The problem with Obama is that he has nothing but band aids to offer.

Private sector growth can be (and is ) spurred by government spending. When nobody else is spending.....then it is certainly part of the solution. Cutting spending at a time of recession is fucking stoooooooopid.

Simple question: Has the American private sector grown or shrunk in the past 24 months?

 

[Caroljo]

If Obama were not black, if the GObP/Repubs had not sworn to make him a one-term prez and then paid enormous money to perpetrate lies about him, he would be the very same hero in the US as he is to the rest of the world.

Okay, this is absurd. I've come to appreciate Obama's Presidency alot more than I ever thought I would during the last election. But on what basis can you claim that the "rest of the world" sees him as a hero? On what basis can you claim that the US should see him as a hero? I get that there are good things that he's done, and certainly bringing down bin Laden ranks among the top. But I can't call a President a hero for taking down bin Laden. It's just not enough, in and of itself.

I guess you'd have to (actually) be there.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hmJZ2CmBVL0]Bill Clinton addresses the crowd in Kosovo as his statue is unveiled - YouTube[/ame]

*

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1d9SpRj38HE]Obama's Victory - World Reaction & More - YouTube[/ame]
*
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DLzTeUhUji8]Barack Obama celebration in Toronto, Canada - YouTube[/ame]
*
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1lEYEucXD44]Global Reaction to Obama Becoming President Elect (Crowds, N - YouTube[/ame]
*
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VIo6EJ1sAIU]Worldwide Reactions to the U.S. Election - NYTimes.com/video - YouTube[/ame]

I don't recall this much enthusiasm for Daddy's LIL' DUMBYA!!!!!!​

Only because obama's so good at lying alot of idiots were sucked in!

 

[Sunshine]

You do know that your daughter was one of the millions of Americans Republicans held hostage until the tax cuts for the wealthy were extended? Don't believe me. Believe the right wing "Christian Science Monitor". You can thank Obama your daughter has had unemployment benefits for this long. There is no way you can come back with an "angry retort". This is the truth.

Unemployment benefits: not until Bush tax cuts pass, Senate GOP says - CSMonitor.com

Senate Republicans pledge not to take up any issues, including extending unemployment benefits, until the Bush tax cuts and federal spending bills are sorted out.

I'm waiting to see what "SUNSHINE" has to say about Obama when it is he she should thanking for making sure her daughter isn't destitute". Which is where Republicans want to leave her. Has she heard what Republicans say about the unemployed? That they need drug testing? That they are hobos? Lazy? They don't mean everyone but "white" unemployed. I'm pretty sure they mean all unemployed.

Sunshine, I'm still waiting.

You have made some really big assumptions about my family there. My daughter wouldn't have been 'destitute' as you put it even if there wasn't a penny of unemployment to be had. Her brother and I both make six figure salaries, her husband has a good job, and his family is wealthy. My son has earned 6 figures since he was 23. He and I have no intention of letting her EVER be destitute as you call it. He and I had enough sense to get into fields of study that paid a good living. She did too and now she is working she is doing quite well in a male dominated field. She is in construction working for a company that caters to young urban well to do people and is expanding in to other countries. None of us majored in the stupid window dressing shit that secondary education peddles so nicely, but which eventually leads to financial hardship for the person who got sucked in. And I wasn't too proud to major in a traditionaly female course of study because I could see the future of it. If she had run out of unemployment or lacked for anything her brother and I stand ready to supply that need.

OH and BTW, as to you 'waiting': I do other things besides sit on a discussion forum.

 

[Full-Auto]

Good point rdean. Al Qaeda brought the Twin Towers down. The bigger, stronger terrorists are the ones who almost brought the entire country down financially..... the Tea Party. Obama will beat them as well.

Stupidity at its finest.

Congrats................

Put down the mirror and step-away, slowly.......​

Thanks I was tiring of holding it for you.

If you need help again, just ask.

 

[Shuban]

That is the reality of the situation. You could have been a staunch republican your whole life. When bad luck comes a knockin' you ain't too proud to accept the government help no matter how briefly. If you need it you need it. This is how people become Democrats. This does not apply to criminals.

Actually, there is very little difference between the Democrat and criminal mind set.

Both want to take money that doesn't belong to them away from other people.

And have no remorse about doing so.

Don't think your allegations are right.

 

[toomuchtime_]

Obama is only a big spender if you consider tax cuts to be spending.

Spending is part of the solution to a recession. You've lots to learn.

No, private sector growth is the entire solution to a recession. Increased government spending is a band aid that is sometimes needed to staunch the bleeding during a recession. The problem with Obama is that he has nothing but band aids to offer.

Private sector growth can be (and is ) spurred by government spending. When nobody else is spending.....then it is certainly part of the solution. Cutting spending at a time of recession is fucking stoooooooopid.

Simple question: Has the American private sector grown or shrunk in the past 24 months?

Increased government spending during a recession may save or even create some temporary jobs, but these will disappear when the government spending ends, so while it may ease the pain for a time, it does not spur private sector growth.

Here is an illustration to make it clear. Suppose you owned a diner near a bridge and the government decided to paint and repair the bridge. The workers on the bridge may eat at your diner, and you might hire some more servers and cooks to accommodate this new business, and as these new workers spent their earnings it might generate some new jobs for other businesses, but when the work on the bridge is completed, the new business it generated for your diner will disappear and you will be forced to lay off the new servers and cooks and the jobs their earnings had created will then disappear also.

Now suppose an office building or a factory were constructed near your diner. While the building was going up some of the construction workers might eat at your diner causing you to hire new workers and as they spent their earnings other new jobs might be created, but when the building is complete, office or factory workers will continue to eat at your diner so the new jobs that were created will not disappear.

This illustrates how increased government spending may ease the pain of the recession for a time, it does not spur private sector growth, but private investment does. Moreover, increased government spending may actually slow down the rate of recovery, since the money that is spent must come from either increased taxes or increased government debt. If the money comes from increased taxes, then money that may have been invested in businesses that would provide long term jobs will have been taxed away to pay for the government's temporary jobs. If the money comes from increased government borrowing, then the government will be competing with private businesses for available capital meaning that private businesses that might have created long term jobs will not get the financing they need and those long term jobs will have been sacrificed to pay for the government's temporary jobs.

 

[Sunshine]

No, private sector growth is the entire solution to a recession. Increased government spending is a band aid that is sometimes needed to staunch the bleeding during a recession. The problem with Obama is that he has nothing but band aids to offer.

Private sector growth can be (and is ) spurred by government spending. When nobody else is spending.....then it is certainly part of the solution. Cutting spending at a time of recession is fucking stoooooooopid.

Simple question: Has the American private sector grown or shrunk in the past 24 months?

Increased government spending during a recession may save or even create some temporary jobs, but these will disappear when the government spending ends, so while it may ease the pain for a time, it does not spur private sector growth.

Here is an illustration to make it clear. Suppose you owned a diner near a bridge and the government decided to paint and repair the bridge. The workers on the bridge may eat at your diner, and you might hire some more servers and cooks to accommodate this new business, and as these new workers spent their earnings it might generate some new jobs for other businesses, but when the work on the bridge is completed, the new business it generated for your diner will disappear and you will be forced to lay off the new servers and cooks and the jobs their earnings had created will then disappear also.

Now suppose an office building or a factory were constructed near your diner. While the building was going up some of the construction workers might eat at your diner causing you to hire new workers and as they spent their earnings other new jobs might be created, but when the building is complete, office or factory workers will continue to eat at your diner so the new jobs that were created will not disappear.

This illustrates how increased government spending may ease the pain of the recession for a time, it does not spur private sector growth, but private investment does. Moreover, increased government spending may actually slow down the rate of recovery, since the money that is spent must come from either increased taxes or increased government debt. If the money comes from increased taxes, then money that may have been invested in businesses that would provide long term jobs will have been taxed away to pay for the government's temporary jobs. If the money comes from increased government borrowing, then the government will be competing with private businesses for available capital meaning that private businesses that might have created long term jobs will not get the financing they need and those long term jobs will have been sacrificed to pay for the government's temporary jobs.

Your first illustration fails. Public works projects helped to bring this country out of the Great Depression. My area of the country was particularly hard hit. Kentucky Dam, started in 1938 and completed in 1944 helped pull this part of the country out of some pretty dire economic times. I live on beautiful KY Lake. We have beautiful recreation areas which bring visitors to this area each year and that helps maintain the economy. Kentucky Dam was a TVA project. Barkley Lodge is a state run facility which is beautiful, and draws business from surrounding areas. The prices of homes on the lake have continued to rise throughout this last recession.

Granted, some public works projects would not support long term growth. But some do. The above is a prime example.

 

[LoneLaugher]

No, private sector growth is the entire solution to a recession. Increased government spending is a band aid that is sometimes needed to staunch the bleeding during a recession. The problem with Obama is that he has nothing but band aids to offer.

Private sector growth can be (and is ) spurred by government spending. When nobody else is spending.....then it is certainly part of the solution. Cutting spending at a time of recession is fucking stoooooooopid.

Simple question: Has the American private sector grown or shrunk in the past 24 months?

Increased government spending during a recession may save or even create some temporary jobs, but these will disappear when the government spending ends, so while it may ease the pain for a time, it does not spur private sector growth.

Here is an illustration to make it clear. Suppose you owned a diner near a bridge and the government decided to paint and repair the bridge. The workers on the bridge may eat at your diner, and you might hire some more servers and cooks to accommodate this new business, and as these new workers spent their earnings it might generate some new jobs for other businesses, but when the work on the bridge is completed, the new business it generated for your diner will disappear and you will be forced to lay off the new servers and cooks and the jobs their earnings had created will then disappear also.

Now suppose an office building or a factory were constructed near your diner. While the building was going up some of the construction workers might eat at your diner causing you to hire new workers and as they spent their earnings other new jobs might be created, but when the building is complete, office or factory workers will continue to eat at your diner so the new jobs that were created will not disappear.

This illustrates how increased government spending may ease the pain of the recession for a time, it does not spur private sector growth, but private investment does. Moreover, increased government spending may actually slow down the rate of recovery, since the money that is spent must come from either increased taxes or increased government debt. If the money comes from increased taxes, then money that may have been invested in businesses that would provide long term jobs will have been taxed away to pay for the government's temporary jobs. If the money comes from increased government borrowing, then the government will be competing with private businesses for available capital meaning that private businesses that might have created long term jobs will not get the financing they need and those long term jobs will have been sacrificed to pay for the government's temporary jobs.

Well written.....which is appreciated. However, the examples given are, as Sunshine stated, poorly developed.

Without the government spending the recession becomes a depression. Does it not?

 

[toomuchtime_]

Private sector growth can be (and is ) spurred by government spending. When nobody else is spending.....then it is certainly part of the solution. Cutting spending at a time of recession is fucking stoooooooopid.

Simple question: Has the American private sector grown or shrunk in the past 24 months?

Increased government spending during a recession may save or even create some temporary jobs, but these will disappear when the government spending ends, so while it may ease the pain for a time, it does not spur private sector growth.

Here is an illustration to make it clear. Suppose you owned a diner near a bridge and the government decided to paint and repair the bridge. The workers on the bridge may eat at your diner, and you might hire some more servers and cooks to accommodate this new business, and as these new workers spent their earnings it might generate some new jobs for other businesses, but when the work on the bridge is completed, the new business it generated for your diner will disappear and you will be forced to lay off the new servers and cooks and the jobs their earnings had created will then disappear also.

Now suppose an office building or a factory were constructed near your diner. While the building was going up some of the construction workers might eat at your diner causing you to hire new workers and as they spent their earnings other new jobs might be created, but when the building is complete, office or factory workers will continue to eat at your diner so the new jobs that were created will not disappear.

This illustrates how increased government spending may ease the pain of the recession for a time, it does not spur private sector growth, but private investment does. Moreover, increased government spending may actually slow down the rate of recovery, since the money that is spent must come from either increased taxes or increased government debt. If the money comes from increased taxes, then money that may have been invested in businesses that would provide long term jobs will have been taxed away to pay for the government's temporary jobs. If the money comes from increased government borrowing, then the government will be competing with private businesses for available capital meaning that private businesses that might have created long term jobs will not get the financing they need and those long term jobs will have been sacrificed to pay for the government's temporary jobs.

Your first illustration fails. Public works projects helped to bring this country out of the Great Depression. My area of the country was particularly hard hit. Kentucky Dam, started in 1938 and completed in 1944 helped pull this part of the country out of some pretty dire economic times. I live on beautiful KY Lake. We have beautiful recreation areas which bring visitors to this area each year and that helps maintain the economy. Kentucky Dam was a TVA project. Barkley Lodge is a state run facility which is beautiful, and draws business from surrounding areas. The prices of homes on the lake have continued to rise throughout this last recession.

Granted, some public works projects would not support long term growth. But some do. The above is a prime example.

It is a myth that FDR's public works projects pulled us out of the Great Depression. With rare exceptions, they provided only temporary jobs that depended entirely on deficit spending without providing any real impetus to the private sector economy.

The entire developed world began to recover from the Depression in 1933, and if FDR had done nothing, it is likely we would have recovered at about the same rate we did, however his increased government spending did ease the pain for some people. FDR, who hated the idea of deficit spending, decreased spending after unemployment fell from 25% in 1933 to 14.3% in 1937 and unemployment jumped to 19% by 1938 and was still at 15% by 1940. Some economists believe that FDR's National Industrial Recovery Act, which in part authorized public works projects, slowed the recovery by preventing flexibility in wages and prices that would have spurred new private investment.

Although there are monetary factors that influence the economic environment, the "fix" for a recession is always entirely increased private investment based on increased real demand, not stimulus spending. Increased government spending that does not create long term jobs or facilitate commerce, such as the trans continental railroad or the interstate highway system, does nothing to aid the recovery, although it may ease the pain for a time.

 

[toomuchtime_]

Private sector growth can be (and is ) spurred by government spending. When nobody else is spending.....then it is certainly part of the solution. Cutting spending at a time of recession is fucking stoooooooopid.

Simple question: Has the American private sector grown or shrunk in the past 24 months?

Increased government spending during a recession may save or even create some temporary jobs, but these will disappear when the government spending ends, so while it may ease the pain for a time, it does not spur private sector growth.

Here is an illustration to make it clear. Suppose you owned a diner near a bridge and the government decided to paint and repair the bridge. The workers on the bridge may eat at your diner, and you might hire some more servers and cooks to accommodate this new business, and as these new workers spent their earnings it might generate some new jobs for other businesses, but when the work on the bridge is completed, the new business it generated for your diner will disappear and you will be forced to lay off the new servers and cooks and the jobs their earnings had created will then disappear also.

Now suppose an office building or a factory were constructed near your diner. While the building was going up some of the construction workers might eat at your diner causing you to hire new workers and as they spent their earnings other new jobs might be created, but when the building is complete, office or factory workers will continue to eat at your diner so the new jobs that were created will not disappear.

This illustrates how increased government spending may ease the pain of the recession for a time, it does not spur private sector growth, but private investment does. Moreover, increased government spending may actually slow down the rate of recovery, since the money that is spent must come from either increased taxes or increased government debt. If the money comes from increased taxes, then money that may have been invested in businesses that would provide long term jobs will have been taxed away to pay for the government's temporary jobs. If the money comes from increased government borrowing, then the government will be competing with private businesses for available capital meaning that private businesses that might have created long term jobs will not get the financing they need and those long term jobs will have been sacrificed to pay for the government's temporary jobs.

Well written.....which is appreciated. However, the examples given are, as Sunshine stated, poorly developed.

Without the government spending the recession becomes a depression. Does it not?

No. Government spending that is aggressive enough to prevent a depression if that is where the private sector economy is heading in not sustainable for long because of the huge deficits that would be needed to sustain the program, and when the depression finally arrived, the recovery would be more difficult because so much investment capital had been sucked up to finance government spending.

Neither you nor Sunshine has specified any flaw in my illustration or in my arguments. Aside from telling us that she likes her house and considers it a good investment, Sunshine has merely stated that she believes FDR's deficit spending helped pull us out of the Depression without providing any arguments or evidence in support of that belief.

 

[eflatminor]

...and one who thinks the child labor laws should be revoked.

I worked as a child. Honest hard work at that time of my life was an invaluable and positive character building experience, and of course, I was paid!

At 13, I got a job as a busboy, usually three nights a week. Two weekend nights, which could go late (midnight+) and one or two afternoon shifts right after school. By 16, I was prepping in the kitchen. I worked my way through college and graduate school as a chef.

If anything about my experience would be considered illegal under today's child labor laws, then yes, it's a bad law.

Lastly, there are LOTS of laws related to child labor. Nobody's calling for an all out revocation of every law out there. Can you honestly say though that you know all these laws and can attest to their virtue and necessity? Of course not. And certainly you'd agree there are always unintended consequences to even the most well-intentioned laws. If so, certainly it's reasonable to question some of those laws from time to time, yes?