Yes, it is.
![']['ear is offline](cpstyles/classicblue/statusicon/user-offline.png)
Yes, it is.
We've yet to see the Tea Party move anyone/thing yet. Yes we've seen pandering from the GOP for Tea Party votes, but thats it so far. The "ordinary" Americans in the Tea Party movement don't have the numbers and financial clout to muscle their influence into the backroom dealings DC politicians are infamous for. I wouldn't be surprised if the few Tea Party angels that did win get a shocking little sit down with the rest of the Republican party soon.
This guy says this same thing.
Oh, don't be silly OG! Politics isn't about money or special interests!
Jobs jobs jobs. It's the economy, stupid. It'll be interesting to watch Boehner and McConnell (who say the GOP will create jobs) fight with Rand Paul (who says the government isn't supposed to create jobs).But those Americans, like all the others on the short end of the 2008 crash, have reason to be mad as hell. And their numbers will surely grow once the Republican establishment’s panacea of tax cuts proves as ineffectual at creating jobs, saving homes and cutting deficits as the half-measures of the Obama White House and the Democratic Congress. The tempest, however, will not be contained within the tiny Tea Party but will instead overrun the Republican Party itself, where Palin, with Murdoch and Beck at her back, waits in the wings to “take back America” not just from Obama but from the G.O.P. country club elites now mocking her. By then — after another two years of political gridlock and economic sclerosis — the equally disillusioned right and left may have a showdown that makes this election year look as benign as Woodstock.
How's Boehner going to create jobs? Le me guess: Cut taxes?
Adding $700 Billion to the deficit. How're they going to reduce our debt that way?Originally Posted by ']['ear
What do you think is the most effective way to create jobs?
Hope is the denial of reality
Hire low paid grad students to do everything!
Seriously, I'm curious. The leftist line is that the government has a magical ability to create jobs. So short of hiring millions of additional government employees, how exactly do you want the government to create more jobs?
Hope is the denial of reality
So you're saying that John Maynard Keynes was totally wrong? And you're saying that tax cuts will create the jobs we need now?
Ah, I forgot that you worship the Friedman deity. Once again I am reminded that Economics (and PoliSci) are more philosophy that science.
Firstly, yes he was broadly wrong. Secondly, his solution would be for the government to spend a massive amount of money. Is that what you think should be done to create more jobs?
Coincidentally, it's an undisputed fact that economic growth creates. The best way to create jobs is to do anything that promotes economic growth. A one percent change in GDP growth is usually associated with a 2% decrease in the unemployment rate (i.e. about 3 million jobs now). Meanwhile, Obama has spent $200-300k per job "saved" (according to his rosy estimates). Which do you think is the most sustainable solution?
Hope is the denial of reality
Tax cuts won’t create jobsThe theory of tax cuts as economic stimulus has been put to the test - and failed - twice in the past six years alone.
And tax cuts or stimulus spending are equally a drain on the Government revenue pool. The difference is that stimulus spending has a steering mechanism and tax cuts do not.
Faith is Hope (see Loki's sig for details)
If hindsight is 20-20, why is it so often ignored?
Wand waved, Keynes wrong! Or so Friedmanites have claimed on the basis of little or no concrete evidence (note: do me a favor, and stop citing personal beliefs as "fact."). With the latest fiasco, people are now saying the same about Friedman, including, to a degree, former Fed chair and Milton Friedman/Ayn Rand worshipper Alan Greenspan. Whom should I believe, Loki? I'll tell you what. The safest conclusion is that macroeconomists are full of shit with their absolutes, and that they're all pushing their particular world view as a path to respect and success. Another safe bet is that reports of Keynes' demise were greatly exaggerated. Totally right? I doubt it. But there's some truth to it.
It might have been a good path had our deficit leeway not been squandered by, yes!, you guessed it!, tax cuts. Specifically cuts for the very wealthy, which was supposed to create a huge number of jobs. {scratches head wondering why those jobs didn't materialize during Bush's presidency, when massive amounts of money were flowing from federal accounts to wealthy individuals' accounts.}Secondly, his solution would be for the government to spend a massive amount of money. Is that what you think should be done to create more jobs?
Then again, you've been strenuously denying that almost all of our deficit is from Republican tax cuts, in spite of graphs I've provided you showing the truth of my claim. So how am I to convince you? Answer: I can't. You don't change somebody's mind about their religion.
"Jobs," I assume was next. But haven't corporations had record earnings this year? And what's this I read about them having huge amounts of cash, but no interest in expanding?Coincidentally, it's an undisputed fact that economic growth creates.
And the missing link here is that tax cuts would result in economic growth. There's a shitload of money in personal and corp[orate coffers in this country after record earnings. Why isn't it being used to create jobs? Oh! I know! Maybe it's not a simplistic formula like you state.
But see above notes. Where are our jobs from growth? Where were they in the oughts?The best way to create jobs is to do anything that promotes economic growth. A one percent change in GDP growth is usually associated with a 2% decrease in the unemployment rate (i.e. about 3 million jobs now).
Dunno. How many jobs are created by giving out huge tax cuts? Judging by the oughts, not many.Meanwhile, Obama has spent $200-300k per job "saved" (according to his rosy estimates). Which do you think is the most sustainable solution?
You've elided a couple of disconnects here, Loki.
Edit: broken link, Being.
Thanks.
Tax cuts won’t create jobsThe theory of tax cuts as economic stimulus has been put to the test - and failed - twice in the past six years alone.
And tax cuts or stimulus spending are equally a drain on the Government revenue pool. The difference is that stimulus spending has a steering mechanism and tax cuts do not.
Faith is Hope (see Loki's sig for details)
If hindsight is 20-20, why is it so often ignored?
In the article posted, it was said;
Do the yanks here agree with this?The more the Tea Party looks as if it’s calling the shots in the G.O.P., the easier it is to distract attention from those who are actually calling them — namely, those who’ve cashed in and cashed out as ordinary Americans lost their jobs, homes and 401(k)’s.
Furthermore (though obviously all op-eds tend towards to hilariously biased in the final paragraphs, would those currently criticising the current Democrat government agree with the sentiment below;
That the current Republican status quo which helped create a huge government and did very little to cut taxes or the defecit, either.But those Americans, like all the others on the short end of the 2008 crash, have reason to be mad as hell. And their numbers will surely grow once the Republican establishment’s panacea of tax cuts proves as ineffectual at creating jobs, saving homes and cutting deficits as the half-measures of the Obama White House and the Democratic Congress.
Just wondering as currently 90% of my news comes from the BBC or the bloody Evening Standard.
"Son," he said without preamble, "never trust a man who doesn't drink, because he's probably a self-righteous sort, a man who thinks he knows right from wrong all the time. Some of them are good men, but in the name of goodness, they cause most of the suffering in the world. They're the judges, the meddlers. And, son, never trust a man who drinks but refuses to get drunk. They're usually afraid of something deep down inside, either that they're a coward or a fool or mean and violent. You can't trust a man who's afraid of himself. But sometimes, son, you can trust a man who occasionally kneels before a toilet. The chances are that he is learning something about humility and his natural human foolishness, about how to survive himself. It's damned hard for a man to take himself too seriously when he's heaving his guts into a dirty toilet bowl.
Obviously there is no consensus, spawnie. Opinions you hear are ideology-driven.
But a couple of things are certain:
1) There will be no one group to blame or credit after this next stretch, since the GOP controls the House and the SCOTUS, and the Dems control the Senate and the POTUS. So for two years it is split.
2) The longest political flush (poker parlance) by a party in recent history is the GOP 2001-2007. Given that the biggest economic collapse came immediately thereafter, a reasonable course would be to do the direct opposite of the GOP in every regard. Given the foreign policy gaffes, the same might be justified there.
Edit: The GOP not only did little to cut the deficit, they created almost all of it. The exception is George HW Bush (89-93), but his own party turned on him for it, and flirted with Perot. This is one reason I lionize Bush the Elder as the best modern president. He also gave us the fantastic quote, "voodoo economics," which I'll allow Loki to explain away.
This should be its own thread, not in Lewk's GOP rally.
IE: As it was for the last two years, all legislation that is passed is only done so by Democrat consent. Now however they will need to compromise with Republicans and can not simply ram down far left legislation. Personally I'm hoping for gridlock with someone like Romney winning in 2012. Then we can start working on the massive increase in deficits Obama and Democrats have given us.1) There will be no one group to blame or credit after this next stretch, since the GOP controls the House and the SCOTUS, and the Dems control the Senate and the POTUS. So for two years it is split.
Democrats controlled the legislative branches from 2007 through 2010. I wonder what most Americans think of when they think of the last four years of the economy...
USE THE QUOTE FUNCTION PROPERLY, please. Just how many times do you have to be asked?
I think of the last ten years. Even recent decades, actually. When I hear Republican leadership announce their primary goal is making sure Obama is a one-term President, and there will be NO compromise with Democrats......that sounds clearly obstructionist to me.Democrats controlled the legislative branches from 2007 through 2010. I wonder what most Americans think of when they think of the last four years of the economy...
How was this proved?
On a tangent, I'm curious as to how you prove something like that. In medicine you could use a double blind trial to compare a new drug to the old or a placebo. I don't see how you could apply this to economics, so how do you test the efficacy of two economic 'treatments'?
There's a man goin' 'round, takin' names
And he decides who to free and who to blame
You make this sound like its a bad thing. Standing firmly in the path of more government control over our lives is awesome. I'd rather have nothing done then more freedom lost.When I hear Republican leadership announce their primary goal is making sure Obama is a one-term President, and there will be NO compromise with Democrats......that sounds clearly obstructionist to me.
A) It's inconsistent with most economic theory.
B) Its predictions have rarely been empirically verified
C) The predictions of the orthodox economic theory have been verified in numerous circumstances
D) Keynesian theory itself is not very rigorous and is contradictory in places; it's why we have neo-Keynesians instead of Keynesians now (i.e. those who still claim to follow Keynes have abandoned many of his ideas).
Hope is the denial of reality
NO macroeconomic principles can be empirically verified.B) Its predictions have rarely been empirically verified
No they haven't.C) The predictions of the orthodox economic theory have been verified in numerous circumstances
So fucking what?D) Keynesian theory itself is not very rigorous and is contradictory in places; it's why we have neo-Keynesians instead of Keynesians now (i.e. those who still claim to follow Keynes have abandoned many of his ideas).
Its just too bad we don't have any branch of government or method made possible by the Constitution capable of regulating the legislative branch, especially one with a Republican in control of it. Perhaps if there was, none of what the Democrats have done to us would've happened...
. . .
That doesn't speak for it or against it.
Again, how? What do you consider the gold standard to be for proving an economic theory?B) Its predictions have rarely been empirically verified
C) The predictions of the orthodox economic theory have been verified in numerous circumstances
There's a man goin' 'round, takin' names
And he decides who to free and who to blame
Republicans keep saying their primary goal is to create JOBS. (Except for the Republicans who say that's not gummint's job.) Then McConnell says their real primary goal is to make sure Obama is a one-term President. Or repealing "Obamacare", yeah that's their #1 job.You make this sound like its a bad thing. Standing firmly in the path of more government control over our lives is awesome. I'd rather have nothing done then more freedom lost.
The GOP whined about not enough bi-partisan compromise for two years. Reach across the aisle, they said. Soon it'll be their turn for bi-partisan compromise, and they're already saying NO.
Doing nothing is another form of "control", but it's not really governance.
The distinction is a very important one. Government should not create jobs. It should encourage economic growth by eliminating crippling over taxation and over regulation. It should eliminate inefficiencies and subsidies that distort the economy. Lowering taxes, tort reform, ending Ethanol subsidies, other agricultural subsidies, ending Freddie/Fannie and so on. But government should never be int he business of creating jobs, because if they are that means they run the economy and that is the LAST thing any free people should wish.Republicans keep saying their primary goal is to create JOBS. (Except for the Republicans who say that's not gummint's job.)
The government is also charged with protecting public safety and its long-term interests, with regulations and laws. Regulatory agencies that don't let special interests write the standards or rules, like MMS [allegedly] did with the oil industry.Government should not create jobs. It should encourage economic growth by eliminating crippling over taxation and over regulation.
I'm not in favor of abolishing all regulation. If you are working on a nuclear power plant obviously there will need to be safeguards. But right now there is waaaay too much regulation.
Such as what Lewk, give us some examples of what we should take out...
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote