Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 07-01-2013, 04:31 PM
 
Location: Long Island, NY
19,792 posts, read 13,943,485 times
Reputation: 5661

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by OhioRules View Post
If the stimulus had worked as advertised 5 years ago we wouldn't have to worry about this, now would we?

Democrats blaming Republicans for their failures. How predictable.
Actually not. Dr. Krugman has ALWAYS thought the stimulus was too light and said so at the time. This is what he wrote in Jan. 2009, and was absolutely correct, down to the Mitch McConnell comment.

Quote:
This really does look like a plan that falls well short of what advocates of strong stimulus were hoping for — and it seems as if that was done in order to win Republican votes. Yet even if the plan gets the hoped-for 80 votes in the Senate, which seems doubtful, responsibility for the plan’s perceived failure, if it’s spun that way, will be placed on Democrats.

I see the following scenario: a weak stimulus plan, perhaps even weaker than what we’re talking about now, is crafted to win those extra GOP votes. The plan limits the rise in unemployment, but things are still pretty bad, with the rate peaking at something like 9 percent and coming down only slowly. And then Mitch McConnell says “See, government spending doesn’t work.”
McConnell in 2011:
Quote:
“The President’s first stimulus was a legislative and economic catastrophe,”... There’s really only one thing you need to know about the first stimulus to oppose this second one, and it’s this: $825 billion later, there are 1.5 million fewer jobs in this country than there were when the first stimulus was signed. That’s the clearest proof it was a monstrous failure. And it’s the surest proof we have that those who support this second stimulus are not doing so to create jobs… Why on earth would you support an approach that we already know won’t work?”
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 07-01-2013, 04:55 PM
 
Location: Long Island, NY
19,792 posts, read 13,943,485 times
Reputation: 5661
Quote:
Originally Posted by petch751 View Post
This thread is so funny. The DEMS do things to hurt the economy and job creation and when there is fallout they blame everyone else. Sm businesses don't his armies of lobbyists and lawyers either. Do you remember big business and unions being invited to the White House but no voice for small business.

This war is against sm business who you voted to raise taxes on. Big business who can hire armies of lawyers to get around Obama's tax increase. So Dems bite the hand that feeds you and your family and then expect them to be able to hire.

Continue to believe the Obama administration and liberal media and continue to get what you are getting.
The fact that you do not address anything specific in the column isnt going unnoticed. It's not the Democrats, it's the Republicans. Notably, from the column:

Quote:
Consider, for example, the case of North Carolina. The state was hit hard by the Great Recession, and its unemployment rate, at 8.8 percent, is among the highest in the nation, higher than in long-suffering California or Michigan. As is the case everywhere, many of the jobless have been out of work for six months or more, thanks to a national environment in which there are three times as many people seeking work as there are job openings.

Nonetheless, the state’s government has just sharply cut aid to the unemployed. In fact, the Republicans controlling that government were so eager to cut off aid that they didn’t just reduce the duration of benefits; they also reduced the average weekly benefit, making the state ineligible for about $700 million in federal aid to the long-term unemployed.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-01-2013, 05:21 PM
 
41,110 posts, read 25,723,050 times
Reputation: 13868
Quote:
Originally Posted by MTAtech View Post
The fact that you do not address anything specific in the column isnt going unnoticed. It's not the Democrats, it's the Republicans. Notably, from the column:
Jobs lost here, jobs lost there, employers who won't hire due to higher taxes and Obamacare. It all matters.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-01-2013, 05:23 PM
 
41,110 posts, read 25,723,050 times
Reputation: 13868
Quote:
Originally Posted by MTAtech View Post
The fact that you do not address anything specific in the column isnt going unnoticed. It's not the Democrats, it's the Republicans. Notably, from the column:
It's Bush's fault, it's republicans fault, the left blames everyone but themselves. Ya, ya we heard the democratic blame game before. Just think, if Obama and the dems did a decent job then they wouldn't need to blame everyone.

Obama would be out enjoying the praise.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-01-2013, 05:33 PM
 
Location: NE Ohio
30,419 posts, read 20,297,842 times
Reputation: 8958
Quote:
Originally Posted by artisan4 View Post
Another great Krugman column on the Republicon war against decency.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/01/op...f=general&_r=0

'In fact, the Republicans controlling that government were so eager to cut off aid that they didn’t just reduce the duration of benefits; they also reduced the average weekly benefit, making the state ineligible for about $700 million in federal aid to the long-term unemployed'.

For people who claim to believe in God, they devote a lot of time, effort and money to evil. Sick.
Paul Krugman is an idiot. No one should pay him any mind (and most knowledgeable people don't). He knows practically zip, zero, nada about anything.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-01-2013, 05:39 PM
 
Location: Southeast, where else?
3,913 posts, read 5,227,653 times
Reputation: 5824
I don't know about any of that BUT, I do know that 17 trillion, nearly doubling the debt in 4.5 years as president is NOT good. At some point, even in the minds of the most liberal, one has to be downright scared of 17,000,000,000,000, and climbing, of debt?

Sooner or later, SOMEONE is going to have to stop and make some tough calls. God knows this guy hasn't and he is slightly in more than one half his terms. You do know that there is a limit. At some point, the wallets run dry and wheelbarrows of money won't buy a loaf of bread.

Give us a number. Tell us exactly how much we need to **** away before it gets better. Give us a number. What will it take for everyone to agree, enough spending is enough. How much should we spend to bail everyone out? How many. Goodies and subsidies do we need to give away to everyone to make sure they "get theirs"

Someone just give us a number. What would be the max liberals are willing to spend of everyone else's money before we are okay in your eyes? And if we spend that, and if it continues to fail, would you be willing to admit you were wrong, all along? Would you be willing to be held accountable? Give us a number.

When and what, is enough?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-01-2013, 05:41 PM
 
5,150 posts, read 7,761,033 times
Reputation: 1443
Quote:
Originally Posted by artisan4 View Post
Another great Krugman column on the Republicon war against decency.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/01/op...f=general&_r=0

'In fact, the Republicans controlling that government were so eager to cut off aid that they didn’t just reduce the duration of benefits; they also reduced the average weekly benefit, making the state ineligible for about $700 million in federal aid to the long-term unemployed'.

For people who claim to believe in God, they devote a lot of time, effort and money to evil. Sick.
I'm sure I missed it but where does he say North Carolina applied for an exemption to the rules in order to allow federal benefits to continue? Where does he say that other states were granted similar exemptions? Where does he say that the Obama administration ignored North Carolina and instead went ahead on to punish the unemployed?

All North Carolina did (and I do not support this) was lower benefits to be similar to surrounding states instead of being the highest. It is federal regulation that says if a state does this then in response the federal government will punish the state by denying extended benefits to the unemployed.

That's the fed's decision and Obama didn't even have the decency to even say "no" when he said "yes" to other states that did the exact same thing.

Obama wants his $2.5 BILLION dollars back from North Carolina. In response, North Carolina cut benefits AND RAISED TAXES to come up with the money to pay HIM BACK.

That's how bad this bill was. Republicans felt like they had to raise taxes to pay back the feds. But it was the feds and only the feds decision to cut of extended benefits.

So tell me, who did the feds punish?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-01-2013, 05:41 PM
 
Location: NE Ohio
30,419 posts, read 20,297,842 times
Reputation: 8958
Quote:
Originally Posted by petch751 View Post
The real war is on small businesses and employers. If Obama was just a fraction concerned about jobs as he with his green energy agenda unemployment wouldn't be an issue. People would have jobs and not need unemployment.

How would $100 million help? You know, the cost for Obama and family to go to Africa.

Obama Obama pledged $7 billion
Obama doesn't give a crap about America or Americans. He only cares about Muslims and our other enemies. If it weren't for Obama, the Muslim Brotherhood would not be in power everywhere. He has enabled the terrorists.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-01-2013, 05:54 PM
 
Location: NJ
23,537 posts, read 17,211,948 times
Reputation: 17562
War on the unemployed is a war we can win!

We will create more jobs and make them disappear.

Obama is totally focused on job creation. Spends about 11 mil a job for green energy and around 300k per job by the stimulus. What a math whiz Obama has shown himself to be.

Obama has declared war on the employed and has turned them magically into the unemployed because he likes them and wants lots of them. If they were working they'd have healthcare and wouldn't want obamacare. Just like the farm subsidies, the feds pay people to not perform work. Great job O!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-01-2013, 05:55 PM
 
11,768 posts, read 10,258,614 times
Reputation: 3444
Quote:
Originally Posted by Caleb Longstreet View Post
I don't know about any of that BUT, I do know that 17 trillion, nearly doubling the debt in 4.5 years as president is NOT good. At some point, even in the minds of the most liberal, one has to be downright scared of 17,000,000,000,000, and climbing, of debt?

Sooner or later, SOMEONE is going to have to stop and make some tough calls. God knows this guy hasn't and he is slightly in more than one half his terms. You do know that there is a limit. At some point, the wallets run dry and wheelbarrows of money won't buy a loaf of bread.

Give us a number. Tell us exactly how much we need to **** away before it gets better. Give us a number. What will it take for everyone to agree, enough spending is enough. How much should we spend to bail everyone out? How many. Goodies and subsidies do we need to give away to everyone to make sure they "get theirs"

Someone just give us a number. What would be the max liberals are willing to spend of everyone else's money before we are okay in your eyes? And if we spend that, and if it continues to fail, would you be willing to admit you were wrong, all along? Would you be willing to be held accountable? Give us a number.

When and what, is enough?
Medicare is driving our debt. Medicare, SS, and the military take up about 75%-80% of the budget so any cuts would have to start there. Unfortunately, no politician can win without boomer support and boomers won't agree to cutting medicare.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 10:02 AM.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top