THE EMPLOYMENT SITUATION -- NOVEMBER 2009

Tax cuts and incentives for small business, marginal tax rate cuts, and capital gains cuts, all stimulate growth on the "supply" side

which is exactly what Obama's doing. At least he doesn't stick to hard ideology like the dem tools ineptly trying to discuss economics always do. He wants to get reelected so he's going with tried and true supply side.
 
Topspin said:
Do you read anything, he gave income tax cuts to 95%. How is it not supply side?
Click to expand...

Did he give tax cuts to 95% or did he say he would not raise the taxes of 95%? Is there a tax-cut bill somewhere in the past ten months that I'm not aware of? Perhaps you can provide some information on it and its date of passage or its relevence to conditions on 1/19/2009. Workers and retiree tax cuts are not Supply Side, tax cuts to wealthy investors and business are.

The point remains bush received an unemployment rate of 4.2% and passed on an 8% unemployment rate to his successor. An increase of appr. 80% in the 8 yr bush term. That's fact. Incidentally, during that period, taxes were cut to most segments of the population and business even though 2 wars had been initiated and a huge, unpaid for, Medicare addition had passed. Classic Supply Side. Call it coincidence, but the mess the country was in financially on 1/19/2009 is undeniable.
 
Last edited:
there will be a barage of rightwingers piling on you for this one.

your anti-rich anti-supply side talking point card from the dem playbook is cute.

Again, as a main part of the stimulus package 95% of workers got a tax cut.
Tax cuts work, that's supply side. Obama made it taste good to democrats by shafting the top 5% of income earners.
 
belme1201 said:
Did he give tax cuts to 95% or did he say he would not raise the taxes of 95%? Is there a tax-cut bill somewhere in the past ten months that I'm not aware of? Perhaps you can provide some information on it and its date of passage or its relevence to conditions on 1/19/2009. Workers and retiree tax cuts are not Supply Side, tax cuts to wealthy investors and business are.

The point remains bush received an unemployment rate of 4.2% and passed on an 8% unemployment rate to his successor. An increase of appr. 80% in the 8 yr bush term. That's fact. Incidentally, during that period, taxes were cut to most segments of the population and business even though 2 wars had been initiated and a huge, unpaid for, Medicare addition had passed. Classic Supply Side. Call it coincidence, but the mess the country was in financially on 1/19/2009 is undeniable.
Click to expand...

The point remains....etc...?

Bullshit....you can't go from month 1 to month 96 and ignore the other 95 months Bush was President....83 of those months unemployment was under 6% and the number goes higher if you use 8%....
 
bravo said:
The point remains....etc...?

Bullshit....you can't go from month 1 to month 96 and ignore the other 95 months Bush was President....83 of those months unemployment was under 6% and the number goes higher if you use 8%....
Click to expand...

You're ignoring the larger point.

You have argued about the economy in much broader terms - talking about long cycles that are fairly predictable.

However, when you argue about Bush's Presidency, you seem to think that unemployment figures are directly related to immediate policies. So, the unemployment rate in 2005, for example, relates directly to Bush's policies in that year, and are not the result of policies over, say, the previous decade.
 
everyones going to fail this quizz unless you want to tie bush to zero regulation of wall street or willfull ignorance. The housing bubble caused the unemploymet, He was in charge and his head was up his arrs.
 
Topspin said:
everyones going to fail this quizz unless you want to tie bush to zero regulation of wall street or willfull ignorance. The housing bubble caused the unemploymet, He was in charge and his head was up his arrs.
Click to expand...

Bush was in way over his head. When I think about his Presidency, the thing that stands out is a guy who was asleep at the wheel on a variety of issues, including the economy.

He had tunnel vision on Iraq. I think that was all he cared about after the war started...
 
Onceler said:
You're ignoring the larger point.

You have argued about the economy in much broader terms - talking about long cycles that are fairly predictable.

However, when you argue about Bush's Presidency, you seem to think that unemployment figures are directly related to immediate policies. So, the unemployment rate in 2005, for example, relates directly to Bush's policies in that year, and are not the result of policies over, say, the previous decade.
Click to expand...

You're scavvy enough to know...

Usually...the laws enacted by Congress don't show immediate effect on the economy....and if it does, its only on a minor scale as business, etc. react to some anticipated event....maybe a future tax break....

Congress has more effect on the economy than any President could hope for....whether he agrees or disagrees with them is the only issue....
 
Onceler said:
Bush was in way over his head. When I think about his Presidency, the thing that stands out is a guy who was asleep at the wheel on a variety of issues, including the economy.

He had tunnel vision on Iraq. I think that was all he cared about after the war started...
Click to expand...

His (his Congress, in reality)economic record stands on it own...a success by any measurement....at least until the last year
 
bravo said:
You're scavvy enough to know...

Usually...the laws enacted by Congress don't show immediate effect on the economy....and if it does, its only on a minor scale as business, etc. react to some anticipated event....maybe a future tax break....

Congress has more effect on the economy than any President could hope for....whether he agrees or disagrees with them is the only issue....
Click to expand...

I'm being serious here - not trying to provoke. What is it with you & Bush?

Why do you feel bound to aggressively ensure that he has no accountability for any of his action (or inaction) while in office?

Is he family?
 
bravo said:
His (his Congress, in reality)economic record stands on it own...a success by any measurement....at least until the last year
Click to expand...

If a CEO presides over a company that does well for awhile but ultimately tanks while he's in charge, it isn't a success, by any measurement.
 
Onceler said:
I'm being serious here - not trying to provoke. What is it with you & Bush?

Why do you feel bound to aggressively ensure that he has no accountability for any of his action (or inaction) while in office?

Is he family?
Click to expand...

Bush?....I'm not particularly fond of him, but I do have a hard on for the truth and historical accuracy ...
Issues and actions, the laws enacted, and the budgets passed drive the economy....thats just how it is....and no President reigns supreme....

Take for instance Obama....this president has been on tv practically EVERY DAY since hes been in office....has traveled the world more in a few months than most presidents have in a full term....
this guy is having a effect on events....he uses the bully pulpit to the max.....every day.....and he enjoys a friendly media and his party is in full control of EVERY aspect the government.....
Blame or credit for events in this environment is absolutely just..
 
Onceler said:
If a CEO presides over a company that does well for awhile but ultimately tanks while he's in charge, it isn't a success, by any measurement.
Click to expand...

A CEO can be a victim or events and personal that are completely our of his control......just as a president
 
Nice attempt at a dodge, but you're a Bush apologist through & through, whether you're "crediting" Dems with the Iraq war or excusing Bush's lack of economic policy or oversight.

It's exceedingly embarassing; I still don't know what it is about Bush that makes you feel so loyal to him...
 
belme1201 said:
...Incidentally, during that period, taxes were cut to most segments of the population and business even though 2 wars had been initiated and a huge, unpaid for, Medicare addition had passed. Classic Supply Side. Call it coincidence, but the mess the country was in financially on 1/19/2009 is undeniable.
Click to expand...

How do you figure that giving a tax rebate check to middle class taxpayers is "supply side" economics? It's not "classic supply side" at all! It's classic Keynesian economics, it promotes the DEMAND side, not the supply side! Increased Medicare spending and two wars is neither Keynesian or Supply Side, those are measures attributed to "Compassionate Conservatism" and can't be confused with "Supply Side" economics.
 
Onceler said:
Nice attempt at a dodge, but you're a Bush apologist through & through, whether you're "crediting" Dems with the Iraq war or excusing Bush's lack of economic policy or oversight.

It's exceedingly embarassing; I still don't know what it is about Bush that makes you feel so loyal to him...
Click to expand...

Fairness requires that I give credit where credit is due....the Iraqi was would and could not have occurred without the direct assistance of the Democrats in Congress....

You may call that a dodge, I call it accurate, historical fact.....


At least six and 1/2 years of an 8 year reign were an undeniable economic success for the US.n spite of a terrible terrorist attack and collapse of the WTC...the very heart of economics and business ....

You may call that being a Bush apologist, I call it accurate, historical fact....

My personal opinion doesn't enter into or alter these FACTS in the least....


What must be embarrassing is having your personal hatred of a man and your party loyalty get in the way of what is factually the truth ...

The two claims I make above and your continued denial of them is proof...
I claim nothing right or wrong about the war...thats irrelevant.. that it REQUIRED the yes votes of Democrats to occur is undeniable....

Incidentally...."oversight" is not the job of the President...its the job of Congress...and there is plenty of proof, even video proof, that the Bush Admin. actively warned Congress of problems in the banking and mortgage industry years before the "shit hit the fan"...but thats another thread
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top