Dave_In_Norfolk Posted July 14, 2011 Author Posted July 14, 2011 I'm trying to be reasonable with you. Have I not said that no matter who would be president that we would have a structurally impaired job market/economy? I did not say that these examples were the main reasons for why the job market is what it is. What I said was that Obama's policies are holding back the economy more so than what it should be doing. You asked me what policies, and I answered some for you. If lets say a Mit Romney was in there right now, we probably would be seeing somewhere in between an 8.3-8.8% unemployment rate. It still would be high, but we wouldnt have these pieces of legislation that are impeding job growth and in many instances eliminating jobs. I'm a perfect example, Dodd Frank Bill is gonna cost a few brokers their jobs over here and in the clearing house I deal with many more. I honestly am not sure which direction I'm going, and it 100% has to do with the Dodd Frank Bill. Dave, it's time to open your eyes and admit that Obama up to now has been a failure in regards to handling the economy. And it still needs to go down further, and not just at the federal but at the state and local level. And if Romney came in with a Republican Congress and started slashing government jobs left and right, thus cutting consumer demand even more we would add at least 5% more to the unemployment rate. You do realize that, right? That would be a disaster!
IDBillzFan Posted July 14, 2011 Posted July 14, 2011 (edited) And if Romney came in with a Republican Congress and started slashing government jobs left and right, thus cutting consumer demand even more we would add at least 5% more to the unemployment rate. You do realize that, right? That would be a disaster! I have bad news for you, Dave. If we're lucky enough to get a fiscal conservative in the WH in 2012, especially one who plans to give every state an Obamacare waiver while cutting costs and easing up regulations, it will unleash a hiring spree the likes of which you'll never see in your lifetime again because the race will be on to fortify businesses to get ahead of the massive economic upswing. Repeat after me, Dave: Most companies are not hiring because of Obama's policies. Just ask them. In fact, if a fiscal conservative wins election in 2012, the first thing I'm going to do after Obama concedes is put new employees in training to prepare for the onslaught of capital that will be released. Edited July 14, 2011 by LABillzFan
Dave_In_Norfolk Posted July 14, 2011 Author Posted July 14, 2011 I have bad news for you, Dave. If we're lucky enough to get a fiscal conservative in the WH in 2012, especially one who plans to give every state an Obamacare waiver while cutting costs and easing up regulations, it will unleash a hiring spree the likes of which you'll never see in your lifetime again because the race will be on to fortify businesses to get ahead of the massive economic upswing. Repeat after me, Dave: Most companies are not hiring because of Obama's policies. Just ask them. In fact, if a fiscal conservative wins election in 2012, the first thing I'm going to do after Obama concedes is put new employees in training to prepare for the onslaught of capital that will be released. Yes! It will be just like Bush's presidency! Those tax cuts created a great economy, didn't they! And a new business friendly president will fire millions of government workers. All those unemployed government workers will simply jump right in to the magical free market recovery that firing them will create! You are one smart feller! And grandma can start paying for her own medication, lazy dead beat grandma!
Magox Posted July 14, 2011 Posted July 14, 2011 And if Romney came in with a Republican Congress and started slashing government jobs left and right, thus cutting consumer demand even more we would add at least 5% more to the unemployment rate. You do realize that, right? That would be a disaster! The sad part is that you believe that. He would of lowered corporate tax rates, not put in place Obamacare, EPA regulations, Dodd Frank Bill. ALl this "uncertainty" that you hear time and time again from small business owners, CEO's etc. you wouldnt of heard it. ALso he would of had his own stimulus bill, and it would of included a ton of temporary tax cuts. You do know that those funds that were given to the state to avoid layoffs has run out and now those jobs are being lost? Meaning that all that money did that was given to the states for these purposes is delay the inevitable. So you are absolutely incorrect, the unemployment rate would of been lower than what it is today. ANd the fact that you believe Obama (an ex community organizer) would have the ability and wherewithal to run the economy better than Romney who was a highly touted CEO and was also tremendously successful in how he organized the Olympics in Utah says pretty much what I need to know in regards to how big of a lemming you are.
erynthered Posted July 14, 2011 Posted July 14, 2011 Just a little bit of info for you folks. The president is planning an extravagant fundraising bash Aug. 3 at the Aragon Ballroom in Chicago, including a birthday concert teeming with celebrities and – for couples contributing $35,800 – a private dinner with the president. All this just one day after the government is scheduled to run out of cash! Undoubtably, the sight of so much money getting thrown around and dissolute stars crooning to Obama will make a stirring contrast with a federal government bankruptcy featuring unpaid government workers, seniors and soldiers wondering how they’ll afford the groceries, shuttered national parks, and angry investors trying to cash out their Treasury Bills.
Dave_In_Norfolk Posted July 14, 2011 Author Posted July 14, 2011 The sad part is that you believe that. He would of lowered corporate tax rates, not put in place Obamacare, EPA regulations, Dodd Frank Bill. ALl this "uncertainty" that you hear time and time again from small business owners, CEO's etc. you wouldnt of heard it. ALso he would of had his own stimulus bill, and it would of included a ton of temporary tax cuts. You do know that those funds that were given to the state to avoid layoffs has run out and now those jobs are being lost? Meaning that all that money did that was given to the states for these purposes is delay the inevitable. So you are absolutely incorrect, the unemployment rate would of been lower than what it is today. ANd the fact that you believe Obama (an ex community organizer) would have the ability and wherewithal to run the economy better than Romney who was a highly touted CEO and was also tremendously successful in how he organized the Olympics in Utah says pretty much what I need to know in regards to how big of a lemming you are. You are getting more acrimonous the more facts I put on you. So basically this guy will just be Bush all over again. You liked Bush's economic policies, correct? Or you just want more government job cuts? You don't think a Republican President wouldn't have slashed spending Paul Ryan style?? I mean come on, the crazy GOP will vomit up whatever candidate it is and demand massive job cutting measures. Have you been paying attention? I mean hello! Balanaced budget amendment the GOP is demanding now is a massive jobs crushing idea. Cutting a trillion in spending is one hell of a lot of jobs. The GOP are there to cut spending and taxes and that's it. Jobs are a talking point and a talking point only for them Please, leave the name calling aside, I have not called you a lemming
DC Tom Posted July 14, 2011 Posted July 14, 2011 You are getting more acrimonous the more facts I put on you. So basically this guy will just be Bush all over again. You liked Bush's economic policies, correct? Or you just want more government job cuts? You don't think a Republican President wouldn't have slashed spending Paul Ryan style?? I mean come on, the crazy GOP will vomit up whatever candidate it is and demand massive job cutting measures. Have you been paying attention? I mean hello! Balanaced budget amendment the GOP is demanding now is a massive jobs crushing idea. Cutting a trillion in spending is one hell of a lot of jobs. The GOP are there to cut spending and taxes and that's it. Jobs are a talking point and a talking point only for them Please, leave the name calling aside, I have not called you a lemming You are such a clueless little worm.
Dave_In_Norfolk Posted July 14, 2011 Author Posted July 14, 2011 You are such a clueless little worm. That's it! We have reached the very bottom of the rabbit hole! You guys cannot argue the point that a Republican slash and slash policy will be anything but a disaster. Therefore we get the usual Tom nonsense. The GOP plan would only make things worse, period!
Magox Posted July 14, 2011 Posted July 14, 2011 It wasn't Bush's economic policies that led to the downfall of the economy, and anyone who makes that claim is a partisan or just plain ignorant when it comes to economics. I don't care who was in office when the economic catastrophe took place, it would of happened. Let's make this easy, which economic policy from Bush led us to where we are today? Name just one, just one. Before I have to correct you in the following post, I said policy.
Rob's House Posted July 14, 2011 Posted July 14, 2011 That's it! We have reached the very bottom of the rabbit hole! You guys cannot argue the point that a Republican slash and slash policy will be anything but a disaster. Therefore we get the usual Tom nonsense. The GOP plan would only make things worse, period! You might get a serious reply if anything in your incoherent ramblings so much as hinted at even a vague understanding of the underlying principles of employment and economics in general.
GG Posted July 14, 2011 Posted July 14, 2011 That's it! We have reached the very bottom of the rabbit hole! You guys cannot argue the point that a Republican slash and slash policy will be anything but a disaster. Therefore we get the usual Tom nonsense. The GOP plan would only make things worse, period! You do not need mass layoffs to fix the fiscal hole, you imbecile. Most of the financial concerns involve accruals of entitlements & benefits, so you can accomplish a lot by improving public sector productivity, amending arcane labor rules and slowing the entitlement growth by delaying retirements and having longer periods to get full benefits (which also need to be reduced)
DC Tom Posted July 14, 2011 Posted July 14, 2011 That's it! We have reached the very bottom of the rabbit hole! You guys cannot argue the point that a Republican slash and slash policy will be anything but a disaster. Therefore we get the usual Tom nonsense. The GOP plan would only make things worse, period! Thus demonstrating how clueless a little worm you really are: you don't even know what others are arguing. I've certainly never argued that.
Dave_In_Norfolk Posted July 14, 2011 Author Posted July 14, 2011 You do not need mass layoffs to fix the fiscal hole, you imbecile. Most of the financial concerns involve accruals of entitlements & benefits, so you can accomplish a lot by improving public sector productivity, amending arcane labor rules and slowing the entitlement growth by delaying retirements and having longer periods to get full benefits (which also need to be reduced) You are not paying attention either, are you? The GOP is pusing a Balanced Budget amendment. That would be a massive amount of government spending cut and that would ratchet up unemployment dramatically. You are ignorantly bashing Obama yet your party is Dr. Destroyo to this economy. And for your information, we are already seeing massive government layoffs and the GOP only wants much more of the same. I have no idea why I'm wasting time telling you because you are so incredibly stupid you cannot process this simple information because of your idiological blinders
Rob's House Posted July 14, 2011 Posted July 14, 2011 You are not paying attention either, are you? The GOP is pusing a Balanced Budget amendment. That would be a massive amount of government spending cut and that would ratchet up unemployment dramatically. You are ignorantly bashing Obama yet your party is Dr. Destroyo to this economy. And for your information, we are already seeing massive government layoffs and the GOP only wants much more of the same. I have no idea why I'm wasting time telling you because you are so incredibly stupid you cannot process this simple information because of your idiological blinders And he's black. Sincerely, The Pot
DC Tom Posted July 14, 2011 Posted July 14, 2011 You are not paying attention either, are you? The GOP is pusing a Balanced Budget amendment. That would be a massive amount of government spending cut and that would ratchet up unemployment dramatically. You are ignorantly bashing Obama yet your party is Dr. Destroyo to this economy. And for your information, we are already seeing massive government layoffs and the GOP only wants much more of the same. I have no idea why I'm wasting time telling you because you are so incredibly stupid you cannot process this simple information because of your idiological blinders "Balanced Budget Amendment?" "Massive government layoffs?" Stop making **** up, worm. Or if you do, make **** up that's not so obviously made up.
GG Posted July 14, 2011 Posted July 14, 2011 You are not paying attention either, are you? The GOP is pusing a Balanced Budget amendment. That would be a massive amount of government spending cut and that would ratchet up unemployment dramatically. You are ignorantly bashing Obama yet your party is Dr. Destroyo to this economy. And for your information, we are already seeing massive government layoffs and the GOP only wants much more of the same. I have no idea why I'm wasting time telling you because you are so incredibly stupid you cannot process this simple information because of your idiological blinders Yup, Republicans who are the majority of one chamber are the ones solely responsible. How in the world did this country ever survive, let alone turn into the most prosperous nation in the world without the nanny state? Quick, run for shelter. Kids will starve & grandma will die.
Dave_In_Norfolk Posted July 14, 2011 Author Posted July 14, 2011 "Our problem is we made a big deal about this for three months," said Graham of the debt limit debate, according to Politico. "How many Republicans have been on TV saying, 'I'm not going to raise the debt limit'? You know, Mitch [McConnell] says, 'I'm not going to raise the debt limit unless we talk about Medicare.' And I've said I'm not going to raise the debt limit until we do something about spending and entitlements.'" "We shouldn't have said that if we didn't mean it... We've got nobody to blame but ourselves," Graham told reporters. http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20079442-503544.html That's right Lindsey. And the stupid people of America want these incompetent boobs back in power? The new polls that just came out are showing America is sticking with the smart guy instead of the tea party filth http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/171425-quinnipiac-poll-finds-more-voters-would-blame-gop-on-debt "Forty-eight percent of those polled said Republicans would be mainly responsible if the debt ceiling is not raised, compared to 34 percent who said the Obama administration. But the Quinnipiac poll shows respondents blame former President George W. Bush much more than the current president for the problems. Fifty-four percent blame Bush more for the economy, compared to 27 percent who say Obama is more to blame. More than twice as many independents blame Bush than Obama." Oh ya, let's go back to the Bush tax cut, free market agenda! Idiots, pure and simple idiots! . How in the world did this country ever survive, let alone turn into the most prosperous nation in the world without the nanny state? By being able to borrow money there skippy! "Balanced Budget Amendment?" "Massive government layoffs?" Stop making **** up, worm. Or if you do, make **** up that's not so obviously made up. Hi stupid http://news.yahoo.com/gop-adds-constitutional-amendment-budget-fight-190757159.html Try paying attention, it might help, but then again with you, what's the point?
DC Tom Posted July 14, 2011 Posted July 14, 2011 "Our problem is we made a big deal about this for three months," said Graham of the debt limit debate, according to Politico. "How many Republicans have been on TV saying, 'I'm not going to raise the debt limit'? You know, Mitch [McConnell] says, 'I'm not going to raise the debt limit unless we talk about Medicare.' And I've said I'm not going to raise the debt limit until we do something about spending and entitlements.'" "We shouldn't have said that if we didn't mean it... We've got nobody to blame but ourselves," Graham told reporters. http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20079442-503544.html That's right Lindsey. And the stupid people of America want these incompetent boobs back in power? The new polls that just came out are showing America is sticking with the smart guy instead of the tea party filth http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/171425-quinnipiac-poll-finds-more-voters-would-blame-gop-on-debt "Forty-eight percent of those polled said Republicans would be mainly responsible if the debt ceiling is not raised, compared to 34 percent who said the Obama administration. But the Quinnipiac poll shows respondents blame former President George W. Bush much more than the current president for the problems. Fifty-four percent blame Bush more for the economy, compared to 27 percent who say Obama is more to blame. More than twice as many independents blame Bush than Obama." Oh ya, let's go back to the Bush tax cut, free market agenda! Idiots, pure and simple idiots! By being able to borrow money there skippy! Hi stupid http://news.yahoo.com/gop-adds-constitutional-amendment-budget-fight-190757159.html Try paying attention, it might help, but then again with you, what's the point? Not just a worm, but a stupidly gullible one. You kill me.
birdog1960 Posted July 15, 2011 Posted July 15, 2011 (edited) You might get a serious reply if anything in your incoherent ramblings so much as hinted at even a vague understanding of the underlying principles of employment and economics in general. or if he might argue with the logic of socrates and the eloquence of lincoln and you guys would likely still resort to name calling Edited July 15, 2011 by birdog1960
DC Tom Posted July 15, 2011 Posted July 15, 2011 or if he might argue with the logic of socrates and the eloquence of lincoln and you guys would likely still resort to name calling "Who the !@#$ do you think you are? Socrates? Lincoln?" Well...yeah...
Recommended Posts