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 10-31-2011, 06:11 PM
 
29,939 posts, read 39,379,267 times
Reputation: 4798

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by hotair2 View Post
"Republicans favor tax cuts for the wealthy and corporations, but these had no stimulative effect during the George W. Bush administration, and there is no reason to believe that more of them will have any today," writes Bruce Bartlett. He's an economist who worked for Republican congressmen and in the administrations of Presidents Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush.
As for the idea that cutting regulations will lead to significant job growth, Bartlett said in an interview, "It's just nonsense. It's just made up."

Most of us already knew this, but for those of you he believed the Republican candidates. Here is your sign.

Bruce Bartlett, Ex-Reagan Economist: Idea That Deregulation Leads To Jobs 'Just Made Up'
Okay. But then you're left with the rest of what he didn't say...

He didn't say raising taxes and adding more regulations will create jobs. See Stimulus (Obamanomics), Obamacare and Dodd-Frank.

The fact that Reagan cut approximately $760 billion in taxes and then added approximately $366 billion (in today's dollars) back in tax increases is often used and is true. That's approximately 1% of total GDP that was tax cuts.

You know what's being recommended to you today for you to get your fiscal house in order? $4 trillion over ten years. Don't do it and see what happens...

So let's tally up to this point where both leaders were at when they took office.

Quote:
Employment numbers - Total non-farm

Reagan -
Jan. 1981 -91,031,000
Sept. 1983 - 91,231,000

Obama -
Jan. 2009 - 133,563,000
Sept. 2011 - 131,334,000

(P : preliminary)
http://data.bls.gov/cgi-bin/surveymost?ce

Now, let's see what Obama will need to do up to Dec. 2012.

Quote:
Employment numbers - Total non-farm

Jan. 1981 - 91,031,000
Dec. 1984 - 96,087,000
Or 5,056,000 jobs added.

Obama will need to be at 138,619,000 "Employment numbers - Total non-farm" if you want to use the mantra of raising taxes and adding regulations is at least on par with "Reaganomics."

That means Obama will need 7,285,000 job in 13 months or 560,384 jobs per month. I'm sure that'll happen.

Feel free to check my math.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 10-31-2011, 06:14 PM
 
29,939 posts, read 39,379,267 times
Reputation: 4798
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lady's Man View Post
You're failing to acknowledge that the US was the most prosperous nation for a very long period of time. As such, more people were emigrating here than any other country. So capitalism isn't just good to the rich.

Also, there is socialism in every country. There is not true free market capitalism anywhere the world. The US is actually more socialist with regards to some aspects of society than those countries you listed.
Than some?

Nearly all of our current revenues would be taken up by our social safety net.

Obama?s 2011 Budget Proposal: How It?s Spent - Interactive Graphic - NYTimes.com
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-01-2011, 07:06 AM
 
12,436 posts, read 11,919,030 times
Reputation: 3159
Quote:
Originally Posted by box_of_zip_disks View Post
Haha at first I thought this was a half-clever joke. The self-identified conservatives on this forum prove Poe's Law true more and more every day.

I doubt that she knows what Poe's law is.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-01-2011, 07:12 AM
 
4,734 posts, read 4,314,766 times
Reputation: 3225
Quote:
Originally Posted by hotair2 View Post
"Republicans favor tax cuts for the wealthy and corporations, but these had no stimulative effect during the George W. Bush administration, and there is no reason to believe that more of them will have any today," writes Bruce Bartlett. He's an economist who worked for Republican congressmen and in the administrations of Presidents Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush.
As for the idea that cutting regulations will lead to significant job growth, Bartlett said in an interview, "It's just nonsense. It's just made up."

Most of us already knew this, but for those of you he believed the Republican candidates. Here is your sign.

Bruce Bartlett, Ex-Reagan Economist: Idea That Deregulation Leads To Jobs 'Just Made Up'
Most of Ronald Reagan's legacy is 'just made up.'

Unfortunately, like Kennedy, the Reagan legacy is often much grander than the reality of his reign. People still think this guy's some sort of economic genius when it was *he* and *his policies alone* who got us into our current public debt debacle.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-01-2011, 07:28 AM
 
12,436 posts, read 11,919,030 times
Reputation: 3159
Quote:
Originally Posted by chickenfriedbananas View Post
Most of Ronald Reagan's legacy is 'just made up.'

Unfortunately, like Kennedy, the Reagan legacy is often much grander than the reality of his reign. People still think this guy's some sort of economic genius when it was *he* and *his policies alone* who got us into our current public debt debacle.
Yes he help to start the great slide. Tax cuts drove up debt. He did not care about no stink in debt.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-01-2011, 08:01 AM
 
Location: Central Florida
1,329 posts, read 828,293 times
Reputation: 737
Quote:
Originally Posted by lifelongMOgal View Post
To heck with freedom and liberty, mediocrity for all because the state dictates it!

Keep your Marxist programming out of the schools please and take Bill Ayers with you.
Marx isn't the only economist that focused on economic planning, look up Keynes too. Laissez-faire capitalism has gross power inequalities, it is not an ethical economic position if one values the dignity of human beings.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-01-2011, 08:18 AM
 
Location: Unperson Everyman Land
38,617 posts, read 26,274,638 times
Reputation: 12634
Quote:
Originally Posted by chickenfriedbananas View Post
Most of Ronald Reagan's legacy is 'just made up.'

Unfortunately, like Kennedy, the Reagan legacy is often much grander than the reality of his reign. People still think this guy's some sort of economic genius when it was *he* and *his policies alone* who got us into our current public debt debacle.

Someone needs to Google TEFRA.


I'll take that 9.3% increase in GDP, the ten point drop in the inflation rate, the record US dollar, the inflation adjusted $2.60/gal gasoline and the twenty million new private sector jobs any day over our current mess.




RealClearPolitics - Electoral Map (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/maps/obama_vs_mccain/?map=18 - broken link)


RealClearPolitics - Electoral Map (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/maps/obama_vs_mccain/?map=17 - broken link)
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-01-2011, 08:20 AM
 
23,838 posts, read 23,065,845 times
Reputation: 9408
Why do liberals feel the need to qualify their talking points with references to Reagan? Is it because you, too, know that he was a million times better than Barack Obama?

Just curious.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-01-2011, 08:28 AM
 
12,436 posts, read 11,919,030 times
Reputation: 3159
Quote:
Originally Posted by AeroGuyDC View Post
Why do liberals feel the need to qualify their talking points with references to Reagan? Is it because you, too, know that he was a million times better than Barack Obama?

Just curious.
Have to Give Republicans a source that they believe in, if the source was Obama economists, how many Republicans would pay attention. Interestingly the Republican economist and most liberal economists probably agree on the point of this thread.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-01-2011, 08:30 AM
 
Location: Central Florida
1,329 posts, read 828,293 times
Reputation: 737
Quote:
Originally Posted by summers73 View Post
It is, however, Pavlovian to hear a socialist immediately deny that the USSR and Eastern Europe adopted such a system when one mentions it, usually with some sort of BS about how Marxism and socialism are very different philosophies.
Read about Trotsky... the revolution in Russia was corrupted by anti-democratic oligarchy. I think the failure of socialism in Russia has more to do with lack of democratic institutions than it has to do with the failure of Marx per se.

On the other hand, Capitalism as a system sees some people permanently unemployed as a good thing, because it creates a surplus army of workers to hold down wages. The moral implications of just letting people suffer aren't a problem , because all that matters is profit and efficiency.
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

All times are GMT -6.

© 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