Is the GOP intentionally preventing a recovery?

[kaz]

Jobs created during U.S. presidential terms - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Look at the chart in the article

I've seen this tired chart plenty of times and I knew what you were referring to. Some obvious issues.

1) Presidents don't propose budgets and can't pass them
2) When Reagan was President the congress was Democrat and when Clinton was President the congress was Republican
3) JFK, a Democrat, had a large tax cut.

Actually if you look at the chart, many of the best periods were actually correlated to Coolege, JFK and Reagan's tax cuts and not who's in office. Which is what we are proposing. Oops...

 

[Wry Catcher]

Some people are saying no, see the 'argument' against, here:

Schumer's conspiracy theory: GOP sabotaging recovery | David Freddoso | Beltway Confidential | Washington Examiner

The evidence suggests Schumer's on to something. The House of Representatives has offered no debate on the issue of unemployment and has passed only 18 bills since taking control in January. 15 of those bills were passed to name federal buildings after someone. This do-nothing congress sees no urgency as millions of Americans are out of work, work one or two or three part time jobs simply to pay rent or the morgage on a home underwater.

The GOP leadership in both houses of congress has opposed all efforts by the president, and even turned down an offer by President Obama to reduce the payroll tax for businees. It seems ideology is only an excuse, the real reason is their lust for power.

Well coming from a known tyrant, I'm sure you didn't do any checking on these supposed facts.

Like, what was attached to the payroll cuts.
Or the vast affect of obamas failed spending
The fact that obama put none of that money into shovel ready jobs
Or the fact that he's been to 3 times as many fund raisers instead of doing his own job.


OR FOR THE FUCKING CHEEP SEATS THE FACT THAT THE GOP CONTROLS 1/2 OF 1/3 OF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT.

Who's killing America? The DNC

You really need to put your emotions away, if you disagree offer an opinon not a hysterical rant.

Any conditions attached to payroll tax cuts could have been debated and negoitiated; there have been postive benefits from spending, both in terms of long term projects and paychecks to those who needed them; some jobs were shovel ready, others delayed and sometimes only because of foolish regulaitions. Over a third of the funds autorized were tax cuts, and raising funds is part of the job. Suggesting Obama does and evey pol in America doesn't is disingenuous.

 

[DontBeStupid]

Economic growth is the aggregate of what all the participants in the economy create.

Aggregate Spending is Y = C+I+G+X-M

Perhaps you don't know what the G stands for in that formula. Why don't you look it up, and then we can talk about how the Government takes away from the economy.

Considering the Government creates nothing and only functions because of its ability to take money from the private sector, it stands to reason that the larger "G" is, the smaller the other will be and that means less available to feed "G" and ultimately, the smaller "Y" is... please note present conditions.

Got it??

heh heh So, your assertion is if we take 1 from C and add it to G then Y goes down.

Is there a 1st Grade Math teacher here who can explain to NoLa why he's wrong?

 

[DontBeStupid]

Well, it's true in that the budget cuts themselves don't create jobs.

Thank you for at least acknowledging this reality.

But budget cuts means the government is confiscating fewer resources from the private sector and the private sector spends the money to create wealth and that creates jobs.

False assumption. As we can see right now, businesses are sitting on $2T in cash, and that number is growing. They are not spending it on investment and they are not spending it on job creation. Giving them more money now serves as no guarantee that they will suddenly start hiring.

This is the flaw of supply-side theory, this idea that a company will always make a good and expand because that good will always be consumed. Consumers cannot buy goods if they don't have money to do it. Right now, we have a demand side problem and that is what needs to be addressed. Millions of people are out of work and their only income is government support, which you all hate in theory, and we all hate because it's not as good as a real job.

GET THOSE PEOPLE JOBS!

Fix the job problem and govt spending naturally goes down, tax revenue goes up, business inventory goes down and production must go up. That is how you get a sustainable recovery.

The GOP has done nothing, NOTHING, to try and create jobs.

Good God.. really?

Yup. Welcome to reality.

 

[Mustang]

Well, it's true in that the budget cuts themselves don't create jobs.

Thank you for at least acknowledging this reality.

But budget cuts means the government is confiscating fewer resources from the private sector and the private sector spends the money to create wealth and that creates jobs.

False assumption. As we can see right now, businesses are sitting on $2T in cash, and that number is growing. They are not spending it on investment and they are not spending it on job creation. Giving them more money now serves as no guarantee that they will suddenly start hiring.

This is the flaw of supply-side theory, this idea that a company will always make a good and expand because that good will always be consumed. Consumers cannot buy goods if they don't have money to do it. Right now, we have a demand side problem and that is what needs to be addressed. Millions of people are out of work and their only income is government support, which you all hate in theory, and we all hate because it's not as good as a real job.

GET THOSE PEOPLE JOBS!

Fix the job problem and govt spending naturally goes down, tax revenue goes up, business inventory goes down and production must go up. That is how you get a sustainable recovery.

The GOP has done nothing, NOTHING, to try and create jobs.

I wonder how many people remember what happened in the 1980s when the Reagan Administration argued for massive tax cuts to corporations as an incentive for businesses to create jobs.

What did many companies do with that new windfall? They used it to buy up other companies. The 1980s was the decade that saw the start of companies (sometimes smaller companies) gobbling up other companies in a buying spree. It led to the massive conglomerates which proliferate today.

 

[WillowTree]

I remember when all the demonRats in Wisconsin shut down the state and scurried like the rats they were across the borders and you fellow demonRats their actions. Cryusafuckinriverwhydonchya?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Dems are American spending crack ho's, jonesing for their next hit of Taxpayer money

 

[DontBeStupid]

I wonder how many people remember what happened in the 1980s when the Reagan Administration argued for massive tax cuts to corporations as an incentive for businesses to create jobs.

What did many companies do with that new windfall? They used it to buy up other companies. The 1980s was the decade that saw the start of companies (sometimes smaller companies) gobbling up other companies in a buying spree. It led to the massive conglomerates which proliferate today.

Shit I wonder if the remember the first half of TARP. Bush gave hundreds of billions to banks with no strings attached and what did they do? Did they start lending? Nope. The big banks bought up the smaller banks.

But don't worry! It won't happen again!

 

[LordBrownTrout]

Here's an oldy from ol Chucky talking about the "chattering class". I guess that's some of that "tough love".

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JEfICUoWKBw]YouTube - ‪Schumer: The American People Don't Care About Pork Projects In Stimulus‬‏[/ame]

 

[DontBeStupid]

Here's an oldy from ol Chucky talking about the "chattering class". I guess that's some of that "tough love".

argumentum ad hominem

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

Aggregate Spending is Y = C+I+G+X-M

Perhaps you don't know what the G stands for in that formula. Why don't you look it up, and then we can talk about how the Government takes away from the economy.

Considering the Government creates nothing and only functions because of its ability to take money from the private sector, it stands to reason that the larger "G" is, the smaller the other will be and that means less available to feed "G" and ultimately, the smaller "Y" is... please note present conditions.

Got it??

heh heh So, your assertion is if we take 1 from C and add it to G then Y goes down.

Is there a 1st Grade Math teacher here who can explain to NoLa why he's wrong?

Hey, genius.... did you read the part where I mention that GOVERNMENT CREATES NOTHING?

Sounds like you need a kindergarten teacher bub.

 

[LordBrownTrout]

Here's an oldy from ol Chucky talking about the "chattering class". I guess that's some of that "tough love".

argumentum ad hominem

That's funny! However, WC finds great character in Schumer.....the one that relegates the rest of us to the chattering class.....or serfs.

 

[Avorysuds]

Again, not relevant to what the GOP is doing, or not doing. What has the GOP done to help the economy along?

It is 100% relevant. The OP claims the Reps are out to sabotage the economy that is still in collapse mode after Obama and the Dems spent Trillions to literally fail at meeting any of their own benchmarks.

Again, irrelevant. Or are you trying to claim it is impossible to sabotage a weak economy, because that economy is already weak?

Cause that's weak.

I'm saying you're an obvious hack on these boards so far. I'm saying your bullshit of pawning off Obama and his Dem congress's failures to get the economy rolling when they spent trillions while also having an inability to pass a budget goes to the Dems, not the Reps.

Bush and his Rep congress did their fair share to screw stuff up. Bush and his Dem congress did their fair share to screw things up. Suck it up, drop the partisan act and call your own party out for what it did and didn't do, then I'll take you seriously.

Right now your fan base on these boards are the partisan "why do you hate America" fucktards on these boards. Get some standards before you lose any and all credibility here and no one but the left wing hacks will hear you out.

The Republican party fell apart right before 2008, they are getting their shit together and look to come out strong if they get any leadership that is half way decent. The Democrat party is hemorrhaging atm and looks to be splitting for the 2012 election… You better find a better position than “But Bush did it too!” or you’re gona find yourself having to pick a side in your own party… You’re either a war loving “progressive” or a fiscal responsible, anti war “liberal.” It’s coming, get ready for it.

 

[DontBeStupid]

Considering the Government creates nothing and only functions because of its ability to take money from the private sector, it stands to reason that the larger "G" is, the smaller the other will be and that means less available to feed "G" and ultimately, the smaller "Y" is... please note present conditions.

Got it??

heh heh So, your assertion is if we take 1 from C and add it to G then Y goes down.

Is there a 1st Grade Math teacher here who can explain to NoLa why he's wrong?

Hey, genius.... did you read the part where I mention that GOVERNMENT CREATES NOTHING?

Sounds like you need a kindergarten teacher bub.

So, your assertion is that G takes 1 from C and then .... it just goes away? What?

 

[Avorysuds]

I wonder how many people remember what happened in the 1980s when the Reagan Administration argued for massive tax cuts to corporations as an incentive for businesses to create jobs.

What did many companies do with that new windfall? They used it to buy up other companies. The 1980s was the decade that saw the start of companies (sometimes smaller companies) gobbling up other companies in a buying spree. It led to the massive conglomerates which proliferate today.

Shit I wonder if the remember the first half of TARP. Bush gave hundreds of billions to banks with no strings attached and what did they do? Did they start lending? Nope. The big banks bought up the smaller banks.

But don't worry! It won't happen again!

And then when Obama did it did they start lending.... Omg like no lolz... I wonder if it will happen again with QE3!!!

 

[Rambunctious]

If the Republicans were being led by Pelosi and Reid I would say yes. They are the only two evil enough to wreck the economy for political purposes.

 

[Dot Com]

Some people are saying no, see the 'argument' against, here:

Schumer's conspiracy theory: GOP sabotaging recovery | David Freddoso | Beltway Confidential | Washington Examiner

The evidence suggests Schumer's on to something. The House of Representatives has offered no debate on the issue of unemployment and has passed only 18 bills since taking control in January. 15 of those bills were passed to name federal buildings after someone. This do-nothing congress sees no urgency as millions of Americans are out of work, work one or two or three part time jobs simply to pay rent or the morgage on a home underwater.

The GOP leadership in both houses of congress has opposed all efforts by the president, and even turned down an offer by President Obama to reduce the payroll tax for businees. It seems ideology is only an excuse, the real reason is their lust for power.

They're hoping the voters won't realize that the Repubs have done nothing since taking office.

 

[Avorysuds]

heh heh So, your assertion is if we take 1 from C and add it to G then Y goes down.

Is there a 1st Grade Math teacher here who can explain to NoLa why he's wrong?

Hey, genius.... did you read the part where I mention that GOVERNMENT CREATES NOTHING?

Sounds like you need a kindergarten teacher bub.

So, your assertion is that G takes 1 from C and then .... it just goes away? What?

That is mostly correct. When you take money from people that are productive and give it to Government to spend the issue is that Government is highly wasteful and un-productive. It’s incredibly easy to understand and also a vastly proven scenario… If Government spent money in a productive and wise way, well then a 100% Government based society would best… But it always fails and usually ending with millions dead.

 

[Avorysuds]

Some people are saying no, see the 'argument' against, here:

Schumer's conspiracy theory: GOP sabotaging recovery | David Freddoso | Beltway Confidential | Washington Examiner

The evidence suggests Schumer's on to something. The House of Representatives has offered no debate on the issue of unemployment and has passed only 18 bills since taking control in January. 15 of those bills were passed to name federal buildings after someone. This do-nothing congress sees no urgency as millions of Americans are out of work, work one or two or three part time jobs simply to pay rent or the morgage on a home underwater.

The GOP leadership in both houses of congress has opposed all efforts by the president, and even turned down an offer by President Obama to reduce the payroll tax for businees. It seems ideology is only an excuse, the real reason is their lust for power.

They're hoping the voters won't realize that the Repubs have done nothing since taking office.

And Dems are hoping that they can blame the economy still going to the shitter on the HOUSE for "not doing much." What were they supposed to do, pass bills that Obama already passed and failed with?? Who the fuck knows lol.

Oh, and when they pass something they get vetoed... Nice... I guess the Dems are the new Party of no!

 

[DontBeStupid]

I'm saying you're an obvious hack on these boards so far.

The only reason you think I'm a hack is because you refuse to read and think about my posts. I have blamed the Dems before for not getting the economy rolling again. The Recovery Act was much too small and had way too much in tax cuts in it. I know that Obama did that to try to get GOP support, and I blame him for even trying. The GOP was going to vote no on anything Obama presented, even if it were a bill to stop all taxes forever, and the fact Obama did not see that and address that, I think, was a huge mistake, and it cost his party in the 2010 elections.

Of course, whatever blame I lay at the feet of the Dems has nothing to do with what the GOP has done, or not done, in the past couple of years. Notwithstanding the fact that many of the Republicans screaming over debt reduction now, are the same ones who doubled the debt under Bush's Administration, I see nothing they have done, or are even presenting as a party, to help get the economy growing again. They set a record for filibusters by any Congress in history and proclaimed proudly their #1 priority it to unseat Obama. Not create jobs. Not end wars. Not cut taxes. But to get their party in the White House. Period. Full stop.

So again, the Dems are not perfect, and I will never say they are. Their Recovery Act did not work as well as they wanted but at least they did something! They're trying! The GOP is doing nothing, and I haven't seen anyone even attempt to show otherwise.