Obama Has Delivered On His Promise!

[bigrebnc1775]

Geex where to start? There are taxes on health care devices. There is an entire new financial services agency headed by Elizabeth Warren but accountable to no one. There are czars for this and that. Higher taxes on tobacco.
And of course inflation, which is a tax on everyone.

The Medical device tax doesn't start until 2013.

Elizabeth Warren's agency (Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection) is part of the Federal Reserve, and reports to them, the Senate Banking Committee, and the House Financial Services Committee, not "no one".

90% of the "czars" that Obama has appointed are positions created by predecessors, not by Obama.

And no, "inflation" is not a tax.

Anything else?

Perhaps you can explain exactly which of the "czars" is interfering with your business? Are you a manufacturer of medical devices? What new "taxes and regulations" are threatening your business?

The Medical device tax doesn't start until 2013.

Does it matter when it takes affect?
Is it a tax? Did obama sign it into law?

 

[Immanuel]

Mud

It's not the media's version. There was no media. It is what the companies were saying - the CEOs, the CFOs, the COOs - on their quarterly conference calls.

Quarterly conference calls. lol

I suppose every business in America is tied into the same network.

No, I think you're over-simplifying the total job market.

I and many small business owners couldn't afford to pay our help so we had to lay them off. Many had to change from employers to simply being self-employed. It all depended on our local economies.

Banks going under made it next to impossible to borrow and expand so jobs were lost. Fear of higher taxes and more government regulations cost even more job losses. Talk in the media and from Democrats like Obama of this being the Worst Economy Since The Great Depression curbed consumption thus cut into profits....more jobs were lost.

Most of the jobs that Obama claimed he created or saved were public-sector union jobs. The private sector took the biggest hit

.

The recession happened because banks made idiotic loans to fuel one of the biggest asset bubbles of all time, which was followed by a massive deflationary implosion of trillions of dollars of private credit, following the script of a balance sheet recession and massive asset bubble collapse that has occurred over and over and over again throughout history. It wasn't because the Democrats "talked bad about the economy."

Although I agree with your root causes of the recession, I do believe that the Democrats incessant screaming about how terrible the economy was, helped to frighten the people into a panic. Hell, I would guess they are thinking right now, that it was better that it came about in 2008 than in 2011.

It was bound to happen, but I'm not convinced it was bound to happen in '08.

Immie

 

[theDoctorisIn]

You do know that a low inflation (as opposed to 0 or negative) is a good thing, right? An inflation rate of 2.75% is pretty much ideal.

Wrong. Inflation is just a way for the government to rob you. It's theft, pure and simple.

The vast majority of economists disagree with you. But you are welcome to whatever opinion you like.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

Do I really need to post a link citing the increase in regulations, and the ones that will need to be implemented for Obamacare? Or would you just cede this one to me?

yes you do because TheDoctorIsIn is a major imbecile. Anyone who doesn't think Obama imposed any new regulations on America is too stupid to continue breathing.

Gotta say, I'm impressed.

You're my first message board stalker!

I'll take it as a compliment.

 

[The Rabbi]

You do know that a low inflation (as opposed to 0 or negative) is a good thing, right? An inflation rate of 2.75% is pretty much ideal.

Wrong. Inflation is just a way for the government to rob you. It's theft, pure and simple.

The vast majority of economists disagree with you. But you are welcome to whatever opinion you like.

Care to name any in your "majority"?

He is right. Inflation is theft.
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iizDNGOEdkc]YouTube - Power of the Market - How to Cure Inflation 1[/ame]

Check at the end, 8 minutes.

 

[JFK_USA]

Obama campaigned in 2008 promising hope and change. And he has delivered.

I HOPE all the new taxes, regulation, government agencies etc he has created will not put me out of business. Or worse.

When he was running we had relatively low unemployment, low inflation, low taxes, and a deficit that was moderate. Wow, what a CHANGE!
Go Obama. Run on that record, ya putz!

Want some cheese with that WHINE.

 

[The Rabbi]

Obama campaigned in 2008 promising hope and change. And he has delivered.

I HOPE all the new taxes, regulation, government agencies etc he has created will not put me out of business. Or worse.

When he was running we had relatively low unemployment, low inflation, low taxes, and a deficit that was moderate. Wow, what a CHANGE!
Go Obama. Run on that record, ya putz!

Want some cheese with that WHINE.

No whining, butcher boy. Just the facts.

Obama will have to win many of the states he won in '08. Like VA and FL. Think that's going to happen?
Nope.

 

[8537]

Cut out government jobs and the figure shrinks to about 5. I mean 5 jobs.

Government jobs have been a net drain over the past year. In other words, cut out government jobs and the figure increases.

Lemme see: You're saying that hiring by the government was actually negative, as in for every worker hired in a government job unemployment would have increased.

Do you make this stuff up when you've been smoking dope?

No, I'm saying net government employment declined during the period.

To anyone with a brain, that was obvious.

 

[Toro]

Although I agree with your root causes of the recession, I do believe that the Democrats incessant screaming about how terrible the economy was, helped to frighten the people into a panic. Hell, I would guess they are thinking right now, that it was better that it came about in 2008 than in 2011.

It was bound to happen, but I'm not convinced it was bound to happen in '08.

Immie

If that were true, then one would think the economy would not have begun expanding again in the third quarter of 2009 as it did, right in the middle of the health care debate, when they were proposing real policies as opposed to hypothetical ones. The Democrats did the same thing in the 1992 election - "It's the economy stupid" - yet the economy didn't fall off a cliff then.

I think it is fair to criticize the Democrats for creating uncertainty which has impeded the recovery. Their rhetoric may have made the recovery worse but it didn't make the recession worse.

 

[Immanuel]

Although I agree with your root causes of the recession, I do believe that the Democrats incessant screaming about how terrible the economy was, helped to frighten the people into a panic. Hell, I would guess they are thinking right now, that it was better that it came about in 2008 than in 2011.

It was bound to happen, but I'm not convinced it was bound to happen in '08.

Immie

If that were true, then one would think the economy would not have begun expanding again in the third quarter of 2009 as it did, right in the middle of the health care debate, when they were proposing real policies as opposed to hypothetical ones. The Democrats did the same thing in the 1992 election - "It's the economy stupid" - yet the economy didn't fall off a cliff then.

I think it is fair to criticize the Democrats for creating uncertainty which has impeded the recovery. Their rhetoric may have made the recovery worse but it didn't make the recession worse.

Well, I did not say that they made it any better or worse. What I said was that they chose the time it came about. It was bound to happen, but if they didn't hurry it along they could be confident that it was likely to happen during one of Obama's terms and then there would be no, "Bush!!!!!!!!!!! It is Bush's Recession". They would have a hell of a hard time blaming someone else.

Immie

 

[The Rabbi]

Government jobs have been a net drain over the past year. In other words, cut out government jobs and the figure increases.

Lemme see: You're saying that hiring by the government was actually negative, as in for every worker hired in a government job unemployment would have increased.

Do you make this stuff up when you've been smoking dope?

No, I'm saying net government employment declined during the period.

To anyone with a brain, that was obvious.

You're counting state and local government,not federal. Federal employment increased.

At least I think that's what you're doing. You are incapable of making a statement and then supporting it so I can't tell really what the hell you have in mind. If anything.

 

[Toro]

Although I agree with your root causes of the recession, I do believe that the Democrats incessant screaming about how terrible the economy was, helped to frighten the people into a panic. Hell, I would guess they are thinking right now, that it was better that it came about in 2008 than in 2011.

It was bound to happen, but I'm not convinced it was bound to happen in '08.

Immie

If that were true, then one would think the economy would not have begun expanding again in the third quarter of 2009 as it did, right in the middle of the health care debate, when they were proposing real policies as opposed to hypothetical ones. The Democrats did the same thing in the 1992 election - "It's the economy stupid" - yet the economy didn't fall off a cliff then.

I think it is fair to criticize the Democrats for creating uncertainty which has impeded the recovery. Their rhetoric may have made the recovery worse but it didn't make the recession worse.

Well, I did not say that they made it any better or worse. What I said was that they chose the time it came about. It was bound to happen, but if they didn't hurry it along they could be confident that it was likely to happen during one of Obama's terms and then there would be no, "Bush!!!!!!!!!!! It is Bush's Recession". They would have a hell of a hard time blaming someone else.

Immie

I don't think its Bush's recession either.

Political and ideological people want to view things through political prisms, and want to ascribe blame or credit to events that often have little to do with politics. This was a massive bubble that may have been effected by politics but in reality was primarily outside of the political arena.

 

[Immanuel]

If that were true, then one would think the economy would not have begun expanding again in the third quarter of 2009 as it did, right in the middle of the health care debate, when they were proposing real policies as opposed to hypothetical ones. The Democrats did the same thing in the 1992 election - "It's the economy stupid" - yet the economy didn't fall off a cliff then.

I think it is fair to criticize the Democrats for creating uncertainty which has impeded the recovery. Their rhetoric may have made the recovery worse but it didn't make the recession worse.

Well, I did not say that they made it any better or worse. What I said was that they chose the time it came about. It was bound to happen, but if they didn't hurry it along they could be confident that it was likely to happen during one of Obama's terms and then there would be no, "Bush!!!!!!!!!!! It is Bush's Recession". They would have a hell of a hard time blaming someone else.

Immie

I don't think its Bush's recession either.

Political and ideological people want to view things through political prisms, and want to ascribe blame or credit to events that often have little to do with politics. This was a massive bubble that may have been effected by politics but in reality was primarily outside of the political arena.

You know I respect your economic knowledge. I'm definitely not going to try and argue with you, but at least I did get a little acknowledgment in there:

This was a massive bubble that may have been effected by politics

Immie

 

[MarcATL]

Obama campaigned in 2008 promising hope and change. And he has delivered.

I HOPE all the new taxes, regulation, government agencies etc he has created will not put me out of business. Or worse.

When he was running we had relatively low unemployment, low inflation, low taxes, and a deficit that was moderate. Wow, what a CHANGE!
Go Obama. Run on that record, ya putz!

Pull yourself up by your bootstraps you lazy, whining so and so.

 

[8537]

Lemme see: You're saying that hiring by the government was actually negative, as in for every worker hired in a government job unemployment would have increased.

Do you make this stuff up when you've been smoking dope?

No, I'm saying net government employment declined during the period.

To anyone with a brain, that was obvious.

You're counting state and local government,not federal.

So, you agree that government jobs declined and private sector jobs expanded by more than the five you previously claimed?

Another post, another Rabbi picking up the goals and moving them.

 

[The Rabbi]

No, I'm saying net government employment declined during the period.

To anyone with a brain, that was obvious.

You're counting state and local government,not federal.

So, you agree that government jobs declined and private sector jobs expanded by more than the five you previously claimed?

Another post, another Rabbi picking up the goals and moving them.

No I agree to no sucj thing. You'll have to post evidence first.
Oh yeah. You can't do that.

 

[8537]

You're counting state and local government,not federal.

So, you agree that government jobs declined and private sector jobs expanded by more than the five you previously claimed?

Another post, another Rabbi picking up the goals and moving them.

No I agree to no sucj thing. You'll have to post evidence first.
Oh yeah. You can't do that.

Lol...you agree, then you disagree, then you claim the private sector has created five jobs, then you claim that the government was responsible for all but those five.....

How about your read the establishment survey data for government here:
http://www.bls.gov/news.release/pdf/empsit.pdf

and quit making yourself look dumber with every post.

 

[The Rabbi]

So, you agree that government jobs declined and private sector jobs expanded by more than the five you previously claimed?

Another post, another Rabbi picking up the goals and moving them.

No I agree to no sucj thing. You'll have to post evidence first.
Oh yeah. You can't do that.

Lol...you agree, then you disagree, then you claim the private sector has created five jobs, then you claim that the government was responsible for all but those five.....

How about your read the establishment survey data for government here:
http://www.bls.gov/news.release/pdf/empsit.pdf

and quit making yourself look dumber with every post.

As I said, you cannot provide proof. You throw something that looks like it might be responsive, without actually understanding it.
Let me make it easy for you.

The BLS data also shows the long-term trend line: government employment has been growing for decades, no matter which political party controls the Congress, the White House or the majority of state legislatures.

First Read - Government employment declines, but long-term growth is clear

 

[8537]

No I agree to no sucj thing. You'll have to post evidence first.
Oh yeah. You can't do that.

Lol...you agree, then you disagree, then you claim the private sector has created five jobs, then you claim that the government was responsible for all but those five.....

How about your read the establishment survey data for government here:
http://www.bls.gov/news.release/pdf/empsit.pdf

and quit making yourself look dumber with every post.

As I said, you cannot provide proof. You throw something that looks like it might be responsive, without actually understanding it.
Let me make it easy for you.

The BLS data also shows the long-term trend line: government employment has been growing for decades, no matter which political party controls the Congress, the White House or the majority of state legislatures.

First Read - Government employment declines, but long-term growth is clear

The data provided in the report shows a direct decline. Of course, you're completely full of shit so you link to a completely unrelated MSNBC First Read - which actually confirms my point that government employment had declined.

 

[Toro]

Rabbi is wrong about a lot of things, but he does get one thing right when he says that federal government employees have not declined.

2009-01-01 2772
2009-02-01 2772
2009-03-01 2779
2009-04-01 2919
2009-05-01 2858
2009-06-01 2832
2009-07-01 2860
2009-08-01 2841
2009-09-01 2831
2009-10-01 2856
2009-11-01 2835
2009-12-01 2828
2010-01-01 2845
2010-02-01 2848
2010-03-01 2905
2010-04-01 2983
2010-05-01 3410
2010-06-01 3204
2010-07-01 3077
2010-08-01 2949
2010-09-01 2863
2010-10-01 2850
2010-11-01 2839
2010-12-01 2846
2011-01-01 2828
2011-02-01 2827
2011-03-01 2832

http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/data/CEU9091000001.txt

But it is true that total government employees have declined, primarily because of decreases in local government employees.

Total government
2009-01-01 22582
2009-02-01 22577
2009-03-01 22568
2009-04-01 22681
2009-05-01 22621
2009-06-01 22557
2009-07-01 22544
2009-08-01 22528
2009-09-01 22505
2009-10-01 22534
2009-11-01 22513
2009-12-01 22485
2010-01-01 22488
2010-02-01 22474
2010-03-01 22522
2010-04-01 22570
2010-05-01 22980
2010-06-01 22723
2010-07-01 22581
2010-08-01 22412
2010-09-01 22274
2010-10-01 22302
2010-11-01 22267
2010-12-01 22252
2011-01-01 22226
2011-02-01 22180
2011-03-01 22166

http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/data/USGOVT.txt

Local government
2009-01-01 14586
2009-02-01 14596
2009-03-01 14588
2009-04-01 14580
2009-05-01 14572
2009-06-01 14572
2009-07-01 14581
2009-08-01 14542
2009-09-01 14520
2009-10-01 14533
2009-11-01 14524
2009-12-01 14498
2010-01-01 14482
2010-02-01 14459
2010-03-01 14454
2010-04-01 14447
2010-05-01 14432
2010-06-01 14405
2010-07-01 14386
2010-08-01 14353
2010-09-01 14286
2010-10-01 14309
2010-11-01 14279
2010-12-01 14259
2011-01-01 14240
2011-02-01 14210
2011-03-01 14195

http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/data/CES9093000001.txt