Oops Looks like that cartoon got blocked.

Oops Looks like that cartoon got blocked.

I don't know about that--the site was down for awhile last night. I lost a fairly detailed comment when I tried to post it, and then I got the "maintenance" screen.

Just curious....How did US government spending of private sector tax revenue make the country economically prosperous in the last century? Wouldnt the economy have to be "successful"(profit-generating) first to supply the government with money to spend? What came first the egg or the chicken?


Secondly, could you define "sucky" healthcare?

I don't actually care to give you a history lesson (at least without getting paid by someone--perhaps the government?). The information is widely available. Suffice to say, what makes you think that it came from tax revenue initially? Your assertion that it would have to be successful is false. How do you think we've recovered from previous economic disasters? It wasn't because we tightened our budgets and used all that non-existent surplus.

As to our craptastic health system, it depends on what ranking system you're looking at. Most notably and recently, we could look at the Commonwealth Fund that put the U.S. in 7th place out of 7 industrialized nations based on: quality, efficiency, access, equity, and healthy lives. I bet more specific information can be found on their site if you care to dispute it.

We didn't recover from the deep recession of the late 1970's with government stimulus. It was done primarily through deregulation (smaller government), the lowering of income taxes and capital gains taxes and inflation reduction by controlling the monetary supply. Reagan experienced unemployment rates as high as 10.8% in his first term yet by the end of his first term unemployment had dropped to 7.2%. We have had over 40 months of 8.0% unemployment or higher since Obama has taken office and this number is not a true indication of the real unemployment in this country. The U-6 unemployment rate which includes individuals "looking for and not looking for" employment hasn't been below 14.2% anytime during Obama's first term. Your assertions that US government spending is what made this country prosperous couldn't be more wrong. The current administrations failed attempts of spending us back into prosperity is a clear example of this. "Your view of economics is laughably myopic at best."

And yet government spending through war efforts and government contracts did end the Great Depression. I never said anything about intended stimulus as such. You did. Government spending is government spending, after all. I wouldn't suggest we start a world war to boost the economy; it isn't doing much for us these days. But taking care of our infrastructure might be a nice start. Works Project Commission, anyone? Private industry isn't about to do that, though. There's no profit in it, unless the government pays them.


Laugh on, skippy. You're not convincing anyone. You vote your way, and I'll vote mine

EDIT: and as a fun side note, don't you think it's a tad ironic to call Obama out for unemployment numbers that are being driven by a shrinking public sector?

Funny you say that you're not suggesting starting a war yet you use the example of WWII as a way government can reverse an economic downturn. How then do we recover from cyclical dowturns without causing WWIII? You merely state the obvious result of WWII yet you fail to explain how that can be translated to tangible economic policy. If you agree with the notion of government spending as the answer then you must agree with the current administration's stimulus(government spending) policies in trying to stoke our economy. Unfortunately it has, time an again, proven to be failed policy. I agree infrastructure should have been front and center, yet again, politics trumps sound reasoning and the stimulus was primarily used to prop up public sector(union) jobs, temporarily. If the stimulus was used for infrastructure, private industry would have been involved as subcontractors. This would have had a much more profound effect on the economy compared to handing the money over to public sector workers who are takers and not producers.

Oh and as for your shrinking public sector. The stimulus that was used primarily for public sector jobs in the form of payments to states to cover budget shortfalls, was only 2/3 spent by 10/10 and yet the unemployment rate was still climbing. Where do you think those jobs were coming from? It wasn't from the public sector, genius.

You might not be listening but I know you hear me. I look forward to your response.:drinker:

Yes the WWII example was used as an example of stimulus spending, although perhaps not the best example, given the extreme circumstances.

And, yes, stimulus spending still does work, if applied appropriately. The ARRA worked almost exactly as predicted when it was passed. It can only be considered a "failure" by someone who believes in the "Obama had a magic wand" theory of economics or the "Waaaah! I didn't get a pony" theory of economics.

The ARRA was never intended to be the "magic bullet" solution. It's effect was constrained by a number of factors--some economic, some political--but it never intended to be more than a "first step" to deal with the severe economic crisis that existed in January 2009. (A crisis that turned out to be much, much worse than anyone realized at that time. The initial estimates of GDP shrinkage in Q4/2008 turned out to be an underestimate by about 150%).

The maintenance of public sector jobs was a key component of the ARRA--it didn't just happen by accident. Our economy is driven by consumers--they are the real "job creators" --not some d!ck in a $2000 suit. After the funds from the ARRA ran out, states across the country began slashing public sector jobs--and the effects have been obvious. Since Obama took office, the economy has generated 4.3 million private sector (actually that's an older number, and that's just since February 2010). That exceeds the private sector jobs generated in GWB's first term. The difference is that, while public-sector jobs increased under bush by 3.7 percent in his first term, under Obama, public-sector jobs have declined by 2.7%, or over 600,000 jobs.

Just repeating talking points is not going to get you very far. I am not an economist, but it is fairly simple to find those who are much smarter than any of us and they have lots of facts n' stuff that make for interesting reading.

Just curious....How did US government spending of private sector tax revenue make the country economically prosperous in the last century? Wouldnt the economy have to be "successful"(profit-generating) first to supply the government with money to spend? What came first the egg or the chicken?


Secondly, could you define "sucky" healthcare?

I don't actually care to give you a history lesson (at least without getting paid by someone--perhaps the government?). The information is widely available. Suffice to say, what makes you think that it came from tax revenue initially? Your assertion that it would have to be successful is false. How do you think we've recovered from previous economic disasters? It wasn't because we tightened our budgets and used all that non-existent surplus.

As to our craptastic health system, it depends on what ranking system you're looking at. Most notably and recently, we could look at the Commonwealth Fund that put the U.S. in 7th place out of 7 industrialized nations based on: quality, efficiency, access, equity, and healthy lives. I bet more specific information can be found on their site if you care to dispute it.

We didn't recover from the deep recession of the late 1970's with government stimulus. It was done primarily through deregulation (smaller government), the lowering of income taxes and capital gains taxes and inflation reduction by controlling the monetary supply. Reagan experienced unemployment rates as high as 10.8% in his first term yet by the end of his first term unemployment had dropped to 7.2%. We have had over 40 months of 8.0% unemployment or higher since Obama has taken office and this number is not a true indication of the real unemployment in this country. The U-6 unemployment rate which includes individuals "looking for and not looking for" employment hasn't been below 14.2% anytime during Obama's first term. Your assertions that US government spending is what made this country prosperous couldn't be more wrong. The current administrations failed attempts of spending us back into prosperity is a clear example of this. "Your view of economics is laughably myopic at best."

And yet government spending through war efforts and government contracts did end the Great Depression. I never said anything about intended stimulus as such. You did. Government spending is government spending, after all. I wouldn't suggest we start a world war to boost the economy; it isn't doing much for us these days. But taking care of our infrastructure might be a nice start. Works Project Commission, anyone? Private industry isn't about to do that, though. There's no profit in it, unless the government pays them.


Laugh on, skippy. You're not convincing anyone. You vote your way, and I'll vote mine

EDIT: and as a fun side note, don't you think it's a tad ironic to call Obama out for unemployment numbers that are being driven by a shrinking public sector?

Funny you say that you're not suggesting starting a war yet you use the example of WWII as a way government can reverse an economic downturn. How then do we recover from cyclical dowturns without causing WWIII? You merely state the obvious result of WWII yet you fail to explain how that can be translated to tangible economic policy. If you agree with the notion of government spending as the answer then you must agree with the current administration's stimulus(government spending) policies in trying to stoke our economy. Unfortunately it has, time an again, proven to be failed policy. I agree infrastructure should have been front and center, yet again, politics trumps sound reasoning and the stimulus was primarily used to prop up public sector(union) jobs, temporarily. If the stimulus was used for infrastructure, private industry would have been involved as subcontractors. This would have had a much more profound effect on the economy compared to handing the money over to public sector workers who are takers and not producers.

Oh and as for your shrinking public sector. The stimulus that was used primarily for public sector jobs in the form of payments to states to cover budget shortfalls, was only 2/3 spent by 10/10 and yet the unemployment rate was still climbing. Where do you think those jobs were coming from? It wasn't from the public sector, genius.

You might not be listening but I know you hear me. I look forward to your response.:drinker:

Yes the WWII example was used as an example of stimulus spending, although perhaps not the best example, given the extreme circumstances.

And, yes, stimulus spending still does work, if applied appropriately. The ARRA worked almost exactly as predicted when it was passed. It can only be considered a "failure" by someone who believes in the "Obama had a magic wand" theory of economics or the "Waaaah! I didn't get a pony" theory of economics.

The ARRA was never intended to be the "magic bullet" solution. It's effect was constrained by a number of factors--some economic, some political--but it never intended to be more than a "first step" to deal with the severe economic crisis that existed in January 2009. (A crisis that turned out to be much, much worse than anyone realized at that time. The initial estimates of GDP shrinkage in Q4/2008 turned out to be an underestimate by about 150%).

The maintenance of public sector jobs was a key component of the ARRA--it didn't just happen by accident. Our economy is driven by consumers--they are the real "job creators" --not some d!ck in a $2000 suit. After the funds from the ARRA ran out, states across the country began slashing public sector jobs--and the effects have been obvious. Since Obama took office, the economy has generated 4.3 million private sector (actually that's an older number, and that's just since February 2010). That exceeds the private sector jobs generated in GWB's first term. The difference is that, while public-sector jobs increased under bush by 3.7 percent in his first term, under Obama, public-sector jobs have declined by 2.7%, or over 600,000 jobs.

Just repeating talking points is not going to get you very far. I am not an economist, but it is fairly simple to find those who are much smarter than any of us and they have lots of facts n' stuff that make for interesting reading.

Obama's administration projected unemployment rates would not top 8% IF stimulus was passed. It has not been below 8% since the stimulus as passed. It is a failure based solely on Obama's projections. How much more objective can it be.

This stimulus that you speak of has increased our yearly budget deficit by more than $1 trillion/year which has added in excess of $5 trillion dollars to the country's debt. This led to a downgrade of the United States' credit rating by S&P and yet this is only the "first step"?


Obama was either politically motivated or incredibly incompetent when he decided to bail out the states. If his purpose was to stimulate the economy how is that done by funding jobs that inherently do not produce or stimulate production in the private sector. It is well known that the majority of the funding went to his largest donors; unions. It was merely a political move to appease his base which is unfortunate because he sacrificed the greater good of the economy. If he would have spent the money on "shovel ready" jobs, this would have had a much more stimulating affect to the private sector which is where job creation occurs in this country. By bailing out the unions, it clearly shows it was no more than a political move.

You are correct. You are not an economist although you may play one on T.V. It should be quite apparent that this country is heading in the wrong direction. Not only are we heading into a financial calamity, SCOTUS just rewrote the Constitution and expanded the governments power to shape its citizen's behavior with the threat of taxation. UNPRECEDENTED.

Obama's administration projected unemployment rates would not top 8% IF stimulus was passed. It has not been below 8% since the stimulus as passed. It is a failure based solely on Obama's projections. How much more objective can it be.

This stimulus that you speak of has increased our yearly budget deficit by more than $1 trillion/year which has added in excess of $5 trillion dollars to the country's debt. This led to a downgrade of the United States' credit rating by S&P and yet this is only the "first step"?

Obama was either politically motivated or incredibly incompetent when he decided to bail out the states. If his purpose was to stimulate the economy how is that done by funding jobs that inherently do not produce or stimulate production in the private sector. It is well known that the majority of the funding went to his largest donors; unions. It was merely a political move to appease his base which is unfortunate because he sacrificed the greater good of the economy. If he would have spent the money on "shovel ready" jobs, this would have had a much more stimulating affect to the private sector which is where job creation occurs in this country. By bailing out the unions, it clearly shows it was no more than a political move.

You are correct. You are not an economist although you may play one on T.V. It should be quite apparent that this country is heading in the wrong direction. Not only are we heading into a financial calamity, SCOTUS just rewrote the Constitution and expanded the governments power to shape its citizen's behavior with the threat of taxation. UNPRECEDENTED.

1. There is no way to stimulate production in the private sector other than creating incentives for people to actually spend money. For people to spend money, they have to have money, so that turns into a vicious circle very quickly.

2. It is not the purpose of the private sector to create jobs or lower unemployment. It is the purpose of the private sector to make a profit. If they could do this without a single human being on payroll, they wouldn't hesitate - human capital is usually the biggest cost of a company, and that cost brings down profits.

3. It is the purpose of governments - both federal and state - to take care of the people for which it is responsible. Does that include finding ways to help them pay the rent and buy food? Yes. Does it include trying to ensure they have healthcare? Yes. Does it include stimulating the economy so that, through public spending, they can buy things that will *hopefully* lead to increased sales in the private sector that will *hopefully* lead to private sector companies hiring more people that will *hopefully* lead to more money being in circulation and more spending that creates a positive feedback loop? Yes - because if it didn't, the unemployment rates would be up closer to 10-11% instead of 8%. If the private sector got off its *kitten* and actually started hiring with some of the record profits they've been making, unemployment would already be below 7%. But, back to my original point, that's not their purpose. No private sector company cares at all about who's employed and who isn't. It's not their functional role in the economy. Private sector hiring is a beneficial side effect of companies doing what companies do. But, and I know I'm repeating myself, companies will gladly shed as much of their staff as possible, if they have a way to do the same work with fewer people. Depending on private sector companies to create jobs is like hiding under a dragon to stay out of the rain. It might work from time to time, but the dragon really doesn't care about your well being.

4. I am a raging capitalist. I am a consultant who has worked across almost every industry sector, all over the world. I'm paid pretty well to do it, and I work the system to my own benefit. But that doesn't mean it's a good system.

Obama's administration projected unemployment rates would not top 8% IF stimulus was passed. It has not been below 8% since the stimulus as passed. It is a failure based solely on Obama's projections. How much more objective can it be.

This stimulus that you speak of has increased our yearly budget deficit by more than $1 trillion/year which has added in excess of $5 trillion dollars to the country's debt. This led to a downgrade of the United States' credit rating by S&P and yet this is only the "first step"?

Obama was either politically motivated or incredibly incompetent when he decided to bail out the states. If his purpose was to stimulate the economy how is that done by funding jobs that inherently do not produce or stimulate production in the private sector. It is well known that the majority of the funding went to his largest donors; unions. It was merely a political move to appease his base which is unfortunate because he sacrificed the greater good of the economy. If he would have spent the money on "shovel ready" jobs, this would have had a much more stimulating affect to the private sector which is where job creation occurs in this country. By bailing out the unions, it clearly shows it was no more than a political move.

You are correct. You are not an economist although you may play one on T.V. It should be quite apparent that this country is heading in the wrong direction. Not only are we heading into a financial calamity, SCOTUS just rewrote the Constitution and expanded the governments power to shape its citizen's behavior with the threat of taxation. UNPRECEDENTED.

1. There is no way to stimulate production in the private sector other than creating incentives for people to actually spend money. For people to spend money, they have to have money, so that turns into a vicious circle very quickly.

2. It is not the purpose of the private sector to create jobs or lower unemployment. It is the purpose of the private sector to make a profit. If they could do this without a single human being on payroll, they wouldn't hesitate - human capital is usually the biggest cost of a company, and that cost brings down profits.

In theory you are right, however, the reality is that private industry is made up of primarily small business which do not have the capital nor the technology to "automate" there operations to the point where human labor would be made obsolete. This primarily relates to the manufacturing sector. The Service, Food, Technology and Entertainment sector, to name a few, are all extremely labor dependent so your point is moot when put into context. As an aside, the private sector employs 5x's the number of people in the public sector which means 80% of the working population is employed by private business.

[/quote]

3. It is the purpose of governments - both federal and state - to take care of the people for which it is responsible. Does that include finding ways to help them pay the rent and buy food? Yes. Does it include trying to ensure they have healthcare? Yes. Does it include stimulating the economy so that, through public spending, they can buy things that will *hopefully* lead to increased sales in the private sector that will *hopefully* lead to private sector companies hiring more people that will *hopefully* lead to more money being in circulation and more spending that creates a positive feedback loop? Yes - because if it didn't, the unemployment rates would be up closer to 10-11% instead of 8%. If the private sector got off its *kitten* and actually started hiring with some of the record profits they've been making, unemployment would already be below 7%. But, back to my original point, that's not their purpose. No private sector company cares at all about who's employed and who isn't. It's not their functional role in the economy. Private sector hiring is a beneficial side effect of companies doing what companies do. But, and I know I'm repeating myself, companies will gladly shed as much of their staff as possible, if they have a way to do the same work with fewer people. Depending on private sector companies to create jobs is like hiding under a dragon to stay out of the rain. It might work from time to time, but the dragon really doesn't care about your well being.
[/quote]

You may be a Capitalist but an economist you are not. It is called Supply and Demand. The marketplace(private industry) creates products which are in demand by the public. This results in demand for workers who are in turn compensated by a wage. This individual then has the means to procure food, shelter, and healthcare if they so decide, however, none of these are guarantees provided to us by the Constitution. It is called personal responsibility and that is accompanied by personal liberty. Where in the Constitution does is say the government is responsible for the care of its citizens? Your assertions that the government must provide, in essence, a cradle to grave or a nanny state is what is wrong with America. Healthcare is not a right. It is a privelege. A privelege that I did not have growing up yet have worked extremely hard to provide for my family. It is not the governments job to stimulate the economy. Government interference hinders economic growth. From 1800 to the early 1900's, the US experience extraordinary growth and innovation. The birth of the automobile, aviation, the steel industry and numerous other amazing innovations occurred during a very deregulated time in America. Do you think this is coincidence? Of course not. Many innovations that occurred during that time period could never occur now. Why? Because government restrictions/regulations/taxes would smother it. The private sector is not hiring because of financial uncertainty. This administration wants to raise taxes on the same individuals who do the majority of the hiring in this country. It makes no financial sense to hire in this hostile climate if a business wants to survive and make a PROFIT.

[/quote]

4. I am a raging capitalist. I am a consultant who has worked across almost every industry sector, all over the world. I'm paid pretty well to do it, and I work the system to my own benefit. But that doesn't mean it's a good system.
[/quote]

May I suggest a new line of work?

Yes, this administration discussed raising the top marginal tax rate from 36% to 39.5%. Clearly this is the reason companies are not hiring. If I make a million dollars next year, I don't know if my after-tax profit will be $640,000 or if it will be a mere $605,000. Clearly the only prudent thing to do is stuff my capital in a mattress and support myself as an assistant manager at Sizzler 'til there's more "certainty". That makes total sense. :huh:


1.)Unfortunately, your assistant manager at Sizzler's isn't a small business owner so he doesn't have to make payroll or worry about cash flow issues. This example is irrelevant to the discussion.



Businesses are not hiring 'cause demand for their products is soft, and because they (we) have again learned how to do more with less people. If Ford Motor can sell 25,000 mustangs a month, they need maybe 1,000 people to build them. If they make tons of money, they might have the cash on hand to put on a second shift and make 50,000 mustangs a month. BUT they're not going to do that because they can't sell the cars. "Job creation" isn't stalled because of uncertainty,,, it's stalled because demand is soft because unemployment is high. A lot of people are un/under-employed, and have no money, and a lot more are scared they might soon be un/under-employed, so they're not going to spend any money.

2.)Demand being soft has nothing to do with (we) having learned to do more with less people. It is soft because of the policies put in place by this administration. Ronald Reagan inherited, arguably, a worse situation than Obama did yet by his 3 year in office, the economy had added over 3 million jobs in 1983 alone with the same amount being added in 1984. In 1984 the economy grew 7.3% and all of this was done with no goverment stimulus. It was done through the cutting of taxes, deregulation(shrinking government) cutting government spending(budgetary spending) and control of the monetary supply to strengthen the dollar. The unemployment rate was 7.2%, by the end of his first term, from a high of 10.8% and dropping. Reagan left office with a 5.3% unemployment rate and had added over 15 MILLION jobs in his 8 years in office. The blueprint already existed. Obama is doing the exact opposite. He is growing government when shrinking government is what is needed and what has worked in the past.


Something/somebody has got to get off of the swing and push. That's what stimulus (1/2 tax cuts BTW) did, and didn' do enough of. Doing something smarter with health care so small businesses can be more 'certain' they won't lose half their staff to an epidemic of untreated hangnails would be a plus also. Part of the plan maybe?

3.)Someone/somebody(government) has got to get out of the way. It has already been proven to work. Stimulus didnt work and will never work with the current administrations policies in place. If the small business could afford private healthcare more power to him/her, but who is the government to dictate what he/she must do with his/her own business.


"Where does the constitution....?" General clause.

4.)No where does it state Healthcare in the general clause.

Corporations are not immoral, they are amoral. Big difference. I too have worked for them all my life and know and understand them well. Great tool for what they do (make money, create wealth, drive industry), lousy for what they don't (give a damn about human beings). We need a strong private segment AND a strong public segment. The dragon analogy is dead on.

5.)I'm not sure how long you've been around but the disloyalty goes both ways. Loyalty can and has been bought for many years. Employees leave to the highest bidder as well so it goes both ways. I'm not saying thats a bad thing since it means people are being justly compensated for their skillset. Capitalism at its best. As long as a strong public segment means lean and not unionized, I'm all for it.

In the first piece - my point was that nobody really has a great idea to run a successful business and holds off because of "Uncertainty" about the tax code in the future. That doesn't even make sense. If you were raring to go with AlphaOmega.com and you thought you could do well, would you really hold off because you suspect that next year's tax rate might be 3% Higher than this year's? Of course you wouldn't. Sorry if I was unclear.


1. Your point is taken. Unfortunately we are not just talking about a difference of 3% in the marginal tax. There is uncertainty with Obamacare which will not ony usher in a slew of new taxes but will mandate businesses to provide healthcare to its employees, a potential business killing proposition.


Reagan grew government through defense. I know, I was on one of his "600 ships".

2. I'm all for a strong defense!


Tax cuts and government out of the way? http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-07-22/democrats-recall-reagan-s-tax-increases.html

3. You fail to mention one key point. The top marginal rate was dropped from 70% to 28%. Yes, he did raise taxes, yet even with the tax increases it was a net decrease, overall. When Obama drops the top rate to 28% we can talk.

Thinking 1981 and 2009 were about the same is just delusional. Ciao,,,


4. Obama has run trillion dollar budget deficits on what? He has spent trillions of dollars on stimulus and has absolutely nothing to show for it.

Question(seriously): Would you consider Obama's first term a success? If so, how so?

Back to the topic at hand. Anybody read this?:

http://www.reddit.com/tb/vbkfm

Obama has run trillion dollar deficits because of unfunded wars, vastly reduced revenues due to a tanked economy and slashed tax rates, and huge mandatory outlays to keep people from starving to death. There was also the stimulus and TARP, initiated by GWB, that kept unemployment out of the 20's it was heading for.

Bush initiated the wars, passed the tax cuts early in his administration and still never had more than a $500B deficit, aside from 2008 with the passage of TARP. Unemployment now is effectively 15% according to the U-6 unemployment rate.



Obama's first term a success? Well, we held off cannibalism, which is where we were headed. The Senate majority leader declared "making Barack Obama a one term president" to be his #1 priority and used the filibuster more than any delegation in history - and the house majority leader couldn't stop crying long enough to get his caucus to do anything remotely reasonable.


The Democrats had a super majority in Congress from 2008 to 2010 and they held the presidency so Republicans in Congress had absolutely no say in policy. The current economic "recovery" can be attributed all to this President.

SO - given the unreasonable intransigence from the other side, I'd say that Jesus H. Christ himself could not have had a truly "successful" term, and all in all BHO has done Ok.

The Gulf shore oil moratorium, rejecting the construction of the Canadian oil pipeline, increasing the national debt by over $5 Trillion dollars in 3 and half years, more debt than Bush 43 accumulated in 8 years, the subsequent lowering of US credit rating due to out of control spending, Unemployment rates exceeding(officially) 8% for the last 40 months, circumvented congress and gave amnesty to over a million illegal immigrants, mandates religious institutions to provide contraception eventhough in doing so goes contrary to everything they stand for, and to top it off, the passage of a Universal Health Care bill(through shady practices, no less. Reconciliation ring a bell?) that will end up bankrupting the country. Yea... he did OK...for a Socialist.

Just so you don't think I'm too hard on him. I'll give him props for giving the go head to take out OBL.

It appears you don't have too many expectations from our elected leaders. Ironic since you once served. I will agree to disagree.

Thanks for playin. It's been fun.