Obama's big government

[ilia25]

Government employment grew under Bush -- not so much under Obama.

 

[Listening]

A crappy economy will do that to you.

 

[ilia25]

A crappy economy will do that to you.

That may be, but it definitely shows that the right-wing stories about Obama's big government are all lies.

It also shows why the jobs situation is so bad -- because Republicans blocked the aid to the states, so they can hire back the teachers they had to layoff.

 

[FA_Q2]

A crappy economy will do that to you.

That may be, but it definitely shows that the right-wing stories about Obama's big government are all lies.

It also shows why the jobs situation is so bad -- because Republicans blocked the aid to the states, so they can hire back the teachers they had to layoff.

So which is it?
The right wing lies about Obamas big government or the right wing blocked Obamas big government…

 

[ilia25]

A crappy economy will do that to you.

That may be, but it definitely shows that the right-wing stories about Obama's big government are all lies.

It also shows why the jobs situation is so bad -- because Republicans blocked the aid to the states, so they can hire back the teachers they had to layoff.

So which is it?
The right wing lies about Obamas big government or the right wing blocked Obamas big government…

There was no Obama's big government, or any plans for one. What Pubs achieved are cuts in existing public sector jobs, which made the economy and the unemployment much worse -- and now they are blaming Obama for those.

 

[Listening]

That may be, but it definitely shows that the right-wing stories about Obama's big government are all lies.

It also shows why the jobs situation is so bad -- because Republicans blocked the aid to the states, so they can hire back the teachers they had to layoff.

So which is it?
The right wing lies about Obamas big government or the right wing blocked Obamas big government…

There was no Obama's big government, or any plans for one. What Pubs achieved are cuts in existing public sector jobs, which made the economy and the unemployment much worse -- and now they are blaming Obama for those.

ROTFLMAO

A Paul Krugman follower....

I thought they only came out at night.

 

[ilia25]

So which is it?
The right wing lies about Obamas big government or the right wing blocked Obamas big government…

There was no Obama's big government, or any plans for one. What Pubs achieved are cuts in existing public sector jobs, which made the economy and the unemployment much worse -- and now they are blaming Obama for those.

ROTFLMAO

A Paul Krugman follower....

I thought they only came out at night.

In other words, putting labels on your opponent is all you have left -- because you can't argue the issue.

 

[Listening]

There was no Obama's big government, or any plans for one. What Pubs achieved are cuts in existing public sector jobs, which made the economy and the unemployment much worse -- and now they are blaming Obama for those.

ROTFLMAO

A Paul Krugman follower....

I thought they only came out at night.

In other words, putting labels on your opponent is all you have left -- because you can't argue the issue.

When you want to show me a model that describes your claim instead of just putting it upt there and expecting us to believe it, I'll have more to say.

 

[Luddly Neddite]

A crappy economy will do that to you.

That may be, but it definitely shows that the right-wing stories about Obama's big government are all lies.

It also shows why the jobs situation is so bad -- because Republicans blocked the aid to the states, so they can hire back the teachers they had to layoff.

So which is it?
The right wing lies about Obamas big government or the right wing blocked Obamas big government…

The right wing lies about EVERYTHING concerning the Obama presidency and their lies change daily. Don't like today's lie? Stick around cuz it will change shortly.

 

[ilia25]

ROTFLMAO

A Paul Krugman follower....

I thought they only came out at night.

In other words, putting labels on your opponent is all you have left -- because you can't argue the issue.

When you want to show me a model that describes your claim instead of just putting it upt there and expecting us to believe it, I'll have more to say.

Companies and banks have a lot of money, which, at the moment, are of no use to them -- meaning they are neither willing to spend them, nor invest them in expanding the production capacity (i.e. hiring more people). This is evident by the ultra-low rates they are willing to lend their money to the government at (despite the huge deficits and the alleged threat of default).

Private sector is basically telling the governmnt -- please borrow our money and put them to work, because we can't. What the government should do is to take that money and give it to the states, so they can hire back the teachers thy had to lay off. That on itself will reduce the unemployment. Indirectly, those newly employed teachers will start spending their salaries. So the companies will start selling more goods and services -- and start hiring even more people to satisfy an increased demand for their products.

So in the end we would have much better economy if Pubs were not blocking these measures.

How is that for a model?

 

[Wiseacre]

Government employment grew under Bush -- not so much under Obama.

This has more to do with losses of public sector jobs at the state and local levels,\; cities, towns, counties, and states cannot carry the burdens of pensions and benefits that were promised mainly by democrats when times were better. Their only choice is to cut services and jobs; not really Obama's fault, nor the repubs either.

 

[ilia25]

Government employment grew under Bush -- not so much under Obama.

This has more to do with losses of public sector jobs at the state and local levels,\; cities, towns, counties, and states cannot carry the burdens of pensions and benefits that were promised mainly by democrats when times were better. Their only choice is to cut services and jobs; not really Obama's fault, nor the repubs either.

Well, it is the Republicans fault, because they did not let Obama to address the problem.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

How was Obama suppose to address it? Another stimulus?

The states went broke from overzealous pension plans for public sector union workers and fat cats. So they were forced to trim back. But seriously, it's the republicans fault for not letting Obama address it? He addressed the shovel ready jobs with 800 billion dollars and it failed miserably.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

In fact, we've gone over this before here at USMB. The real truth is that state and local employment shrank, while federal jobs increased by about 250k.

sO, YOU CAN'T HAVE IT BOTH WAYS, lolBERAL.

 

[Wiseacre]

Government employment grew under Bush -- not so much under Obama.

This has more to do with losses of public sector jobs at the state and local levels,\; cities, towns, counties, and states cannot carry the burdens of pensions and benefits that were promised mainly by democrats when times were better. Their only choice is to cut services and jobs; not really Obama's fault, nor the repubs either.

Well, it is the Republicans fault, because they did not let Obama to address the problem.

Bullshit! Obama didn't address the problem, all he does is throw money at the unions. As though that solves the problem, the pensions are way underfunded and the costs for benefits are skyrocketing. Obama isn't doing anything to fix that, you are a fool to think otherwise.

 

[ilia25]

This has more to do with losses of public sector jobs at the state and local levels,\; cities, towns, counties, and states cannot carry the burdens of pensions and benefits that were promised mainly by democrats when times were better. Their only choice is to cut services and jobs; not really Obama's fault, nor the repubs either.

Well, it is the Republicans fault, because they did not let Obama to address the problem.

Bullshit! Obama didn't address the problem, all he does is throw money at the unions. As though that solves the problem, the pensions are way underfunded and the costs for benefits are skyrocketing. Obama isn't doing anything to fix that, you are a fool to think otherwise.

What unions? He proposed an aid to the states and local governments, so they can hire back the employees they had to lay off because of the crisis.

 

[auditor0007]

A crappy economy will do that to you.

Government grew substantially under Reagan even when unemployment was over 10%. You guys wanted smaller government and Obama is giving us that. You guys should be dancing in the streets.

 

[Wiseacre]

Well, it is the Republicans fault, because they did not let Obama to address the problem.

Bullshit! Obama didn't address the problem, all he does is throw money at the unions. As though that solves the problem, the pensions are way underfunded and the costs for benefits are skyrocketing. Obama isn't doing anything to fix that, you are a fool to think otherwise.

What unions? He proposed an aid to the states and local governments, so they can hire back the employees they had to lay off because of the crisis.

Those employees are union employees, you dolt! Understand this - all those cities and municipalities are in major trouble, whatever aid Obama might give 'em is only going to be temporary. The pensions and HC benefits are way too big a burden, they'll have to address it sooner or later, and sooner is better. And cheaper. For everybody.

 

[Listening]

In other words, putting labels on your opponent is all you have left -- because you can't argue the issue.

When you want to show me a model that describes your claim instead of just putting it upt there and expecting us to believe it, I'll have more to say.

Companies and banks have a lot of money, which, at the moment, are of no use to them -- meaning they are neither willing to spend them, nor invest them in expanding the production capacity (i.e. hiring more people). This is evident by the ultra-low rates they are willing to lend their money to the government at (despite the huge deficits and the alleged threat of default).

Private sector is basically telling the governmnt -- please borrow our money and put them to work, because we can't. What the government should do is to take that money and give it to the states, so they can hire back the teachers thy had to lay off. That on itself will reduce the unemployment. Indirectly, those newly employed teachers will start spending their salaries. So the companies will start selling more goods and services -- and start hiring even more people to satisfy an increased demand for their products.

So in the end we would have much better economy if Pubs were not blocking these measures.

How is that for a model?

It's a wet dream called "Stimulus" which didn't work before.

That kind of money infused into an economy has a short lived trajectory. It is an expansion of the economy that has long term benefits. And that requires demand. You get demand when people are not worried about their jobs. People are less concerned about their jobs when their business is growing.

The trick is to entice business back into the game. Right now the large corporation I work for is spending all it's money overseas.

 

[ilia25]

When you want to show me a model that describes your claim instead of just putting it upt there and expecting us to believe it, I'll have more to say.

Companies and banks have a lot of money, which, at the moment, are of no use to them -- meaning they are neither willing to spend them, nor invest them in expanding the production capacity (i.e. hiring more people). This is evident by the ultra-low rates they are willing to lend their money to the government at (despite the huge deficits and the alleged threat of default).

Private sector is basically telling the governmnt -- please borrow our money and put them to work, because we can't. What the government should do is to take that money and give it to the states, so they can hire back the teachers thy had to lay off. That on itself will reduce the unemployment. Indirectly, those newly employed teachers will start spending their salaries. So the companies will start selling more goods and services -- and start hiring even more people to satisfy an increased demand for their products.

So in the end we would have much better economy if Pubs were not blocking these measures.

How is that for a model?

It's a wet dream called "Stimulus" which didn't work before.

Simply repeating that stimulus does not work does not make it so. It works, but it has to be large enough.

It's like restarting a stalled engine -- you have to spin it fast enough and long enough, otherwise it won't start.

That kind of money infused into an economy has a short lived trajectory. It is an expansion of the economy that has long term benefits. And that requires demand. You get demand when people are not worried about their jobs. People are less concerned about their jobs when their business is growing.

And that is how stimulus works -- it creates jobs now, so people become less worried about unemployment and start spending, thus restarting the economic engine.

If you believe that the problem is in depressed demand, then there is no logical path for you to conclude that stimulus can't help.

The trick is to entice business back into the game.

Bigness is not coming back in the game until it sees more demand for its products. And that's were stimulus helps.