Obama Failures
So What

Pikeville, KY

#33 Dec 17, 2013
Robber Barons wrote:
The only way to stimulate the U.S. economy is to go back to a tax structure like the one that was in place in the post-World War II years. Tax the hell out of the corporate fat cats and redistribute the money by building public infrastructure, providing education, etc. Cutting taxes on the wealthy will not fix the mess. It's what caused the present situation.
I believe it would be better for it to be put into higher wages. That isn't going to happen. They have robbed the working people for over 40 years now. You will never get conservative republicans to understand this.
So What

Pikeville, KY

#34 Dec 17, 2013
During the discussion, Varney—a very bright and knowledgeable guy when it comes to economics—argued that the Bush tax cuts had resulted in significant job growth. To the true believers, Mr. Varney’s position represents a restatement of the obvious—cutting taxes creates jobs while increasing taxes will likely have the opposite effect.

While I was a bit more focused on the dismal jobs picture at the end of the Bush second term during out radio debate, it struck me that it might be a good idea to take a closer look at the assertion that the Bush tax cuts produced an era of expanded job growth, a benefit to be expected when taxes to the wealthy are cut.

As Unemployment Predictably Rises, the Solution Couldn't Be Simpler James K. GlassmanJames K. Glassman Contributor

Why Do Companies Hire? Peter CohanPeter Cohan Contributor

The results?

If the tax cuts delivered to the wealthy by President Bush are the shining beacon of policy to be used when making the case that reducing taxes leads to increased jobs numbers, tax hawks are going to have to go back to the drawing board or hope that the dishonestly of their political pitch can survive the truth come election day because the facts just don’t back up the assertion.

It turns out that Politifact had already taken a look this issue as a result of a claim made by Speaker John Boehner during a 2011 appearance on “The Today Show” where Boehner was singing the job creating praises of the Bush tax cuts—a claim that the fact checking organization determined to be wholly false.

To come up with the fairest possible assessment, we use the period commencing in June 2001 (the month the first of the tax cuts were passed by Congress) through the pre-recession employment peak that came in January, 2008. Note that I am not ‘counting’ the recession that took hold during the end of the Bush Administration and the resulting job losses against the tax cuts.

To further fairly assess the number of jobs gained during the relevant period, the analysis uses both methods used by the Bureau of Labor Statistics to establish employment and unemployment numbers. The first method employed—the Current Employment Statistics (CES)— is the survey Governor Scott Walker informed us is the more accurate method of measuring jobs because it involves actual surveys of large numbers of employers on a state-by-state basis. For those who may not ‘recall’, shortly before the recent election in Wisconsin, Governor Walker released newly configured employment numbers revealing that he had actually created jobs in Wisconsin despite the BLS statistics indicated that jobs had, in fact, been lost under his governance. Walker did this by using the CES data compiled by his state—rather than the CPS data—despite the fact that the numbers had not yet been verified by the Department of Labor.

Still, Walker was quick to remind us that the CES is the far more accurate measurement of employment because it tracks a large number of employers in a state rather than the more narrow survey called the Current Population Survey (CPS). Fair enough. According to the CES data , the employment numbers during the period commencing in June 2001 through January, 2008 were as follows:
•June 2001: 132,047,000 people employed
•January 2008: 137,996,000 people employed

Total Increase: 5,949,000 more people employed.

If we use the alternate survey measurement, the Current Population Survey (CPS), which, as noted above, collects data via a smaller survey of individuals and families and produces the numbers used to deliver us the monthly unemployment rate—a measurement Scott Walker considered less reliable and subject to revision by the CES results— the numbers appear a bit better.
•June 2001: 136,873,000 people employed
•January 2008: 146,407,000 people employed
So What

Pikeville, KY

#35 Dec 17, 2013
So, should we argue over which measuring stick is the better judge of success?

No need. Let’s use them both because, whether we use one tool or the other, the growth in jobs following the Bush tax cuts remains surprisingly small in comparison to the job growth achieved by two-term presidents without the benefit of the mega-tax cuts for the wealthiest among us as delivered by President Bush.

Using the CES survey, employment during the period measured grew 4.5 percent. Using the CPS approach, employment grew 7 percent—both numbers producing a large yawn for Gary Burtless , a senior policy analysts with the centrist Brookings Institute, because neither number is very impressive, particularly if one is seeking to make the case that cutting taxes on the so called ‘job creators’ equals job growth.

By Mr. Burtless’ calculations, the Reagan years produced double-digit job growth. Same goes for the Clinton era, the 8 years of the combined Nixon and Ford administrations, and the 8 years of the combined Lyndon Johnson and John F. Kennedy terms (both Ford and Johnson finished the terms of their predecessors.) Indeed, the only two-term president in modern history to experience job growth as sluggish as that experienced during the President George W. Bush years used in this analysis, even before the recession set in, was Dwight D. Eisenhower.(Note that Mr. Burtless did not compare the growth during the terms of George H.W. Bush or Jimmy Carter as each served but one term.) Each and every one of these two-timers, except Eisenhower, had double digit job growth compared to either 4.5 percent or 7 percent for George W. Bush, depending on which measuring tool you prefer to use.

As Unemployment Predictably Rises, the Solution Couldn't Be Simpler James K. GlassmanJames K. Glassman Contributor

Why Do Companies Hire? Peter CohanPeter Cohan Contributor

So what does this data tell us?

For starters, given that all of these two-term presidents experienced better job growth without the assistance of the massive tax cuts for the wealthy provided by President George W. Bush, it certainly seems fair to note that a certain amount of job growth would have come during the years George W. was president—whether he had given us the tax cuts or not.

And if one feels the need to argue that tax cuts are the great driver of employment, the comparative numbers presented make it shockingly clear that these tax benefits to the wealthy do little to nothing to even keep up with the employment increases under all of the other two term presidents of the modern era, with the exception of poor old Ike.

Nobody likes to pay taxes. We can—and will—have more endless debates over whether we should resolve our debt crisis by cutting, raising taxes or some reasonable or unreasonable combination of the two.

But the GOP meme suggesting that tax cuts equals jobs while, conversely, tax increases on the so-called “job creators” mean less work for the rest of us, simply does not survive any reasonable scrutiny.

Putting more money in the pockets of the wealthy may create a few jobs for the foreign bankers who get to count the extra money funneled into into the off-shore accounts of the rich, but there is nothing in the way of actual data to support the notion that putting more money into the pockets of the wealthiest Americans will inure to the benefit of those looking for work.

I wish it were otherwise.
Obama sold out

Corbin, KY

#36 Dec 17, 2013
Bush busted out the economy, the 08 crash was on his watch, him and Paulson his ex Goldman Sachs Sec. of Treasury robbed the treasury as he left office and then Obama sold out. Obama continued on with the program after Wall Street pumped millions into his campaign account.
old dude

Pikeville, KY

#37 Dec 17, 2013
Robber Barons wrote:
<quoted text>
Problem with letting the big Wall Street banks go broke is that if they went down they would take down the nation's whole banking system. Even the local banks in small towns in Kentucky would have gone under. You would have lost your savings if you had any above the amount insured by FDIC. Moreover, when the banks went broke all mortgages would have been called in, even if you were not behind on payments. You would have been given a length of time, probably 90 days or so, to find another bank to refinance your house and pay off the called in note. If you could not, your house would be foreclosed and sold. The "venture capitalists" as you call them, the very sort of Robber Barons who made the mess to start with and got the huge bonuses, would have made a killing in realestate by buying up mortgages for pennies on the dollar and then selling or renting your own house back to you.
You are not supposed to have money in any one bank in excess of FDIC limits.....Where are all the Robber Barons buying up the houses that were lost.....banks are still sitting on foreclosed homes as we speak....people DESERVED to lose if they borrowed more than they could afford...the REAL cause of the collapse was Barney Frank and his ilk who bought votes by offering easy money to low income people...the banks and sellers of derivatives were guilty also but it was Barney Frank and Chris Dodd who cooked up the whole scheme. When your local garbage man or ditch digger starts flipping houses or investing heavily in the stock market you better take your money out and hunker down;the bubble's going to bust..
old dude

Pikeville, KY

#38 Dec 17, 2013
Kyboy wrote:
<quoted text>
Working well.
How many of the 365k are subsidized?
How many did you say paid the premiums.
How many millions of people did you say who are not subsidized lost coverage?
As of Nov. 30, just shy of 365,000 indiduals had selected an insurance plan. The majority of those individuals -- 227,478, to be exact -- used the state-run marketplaces. HealthCare.gov , the much-maligned federally operated insurance website, was used by 137,204 individuals to select a plan.
The December HHS report also revealed that just two states -- California and New York -- together reported more individuals selecting an insurance plan than all of the 36 states using the federal website combined. California counted more than 107,000 residents who selected an insurance plan on the state's online marketplace, while New York's figure totaled more than 45,000.
And as of today Oregon has signed up a total of 42 people
old dude

Pikeville, KY

#39 Dec 17, 2013
Robber Barons wrote:
The only way to stimulate the U.S. economy is to go back to a tax structure like the one that was in place in the post-World War II years. Tax the hell out of the corporate fat cats and redistribute the money by building public infrastructure, providing education, etc. Cutting taxes on the wealthy will not fix the mess. It's what caused the present situation.
KEYNESIAN economics again..or is it more like Nancy Piglosi's idea that more food stamps stimulate the economy....been there done that... IMPEACH OBAMA elect a BUSINESSMAN with business experience..
Kyboy

Newport, KY

#41 Dec 17, 2013
old dude wrote:
<quoted text>And as of today Oregon has signed up a total of 42 people
As of today obama still won't tell us how many have signed up that are not subsidize.
So What

Pikeville, KY

#46 Dec 18, 2013
old dude wrote:
<quoted text> And as of today Oregon has signed up a total of 42 people
Yesterday I wrote about Oregon's big success signing people up for Obamacare: The state had, in the course of 17 days, signed up 56,000 people for the health law's Medicaid expansion. In one fell swoop, the state had cut its uninsured rate by 10 percent.
This story is from the Washington post. Why do you continue to lie. I posted proof that cutting taxes didn't create jobs and you change the subject. Now this lie you tell is exposed.
So What

Pikeville, KY

#47 Dec 18, 2013
old dude wrote:
<quoted text> KEYNESIAN economics again..or is it more like Nancy Piglosi's idea that more food stamps stimulate the economy....been there done that... IMPEACH OBAMA elect a BUSINESSMAN with business experience..
Are you saying that people not spending money at the grocery store will stimulate the economy? Whats sad is that more and more people are struggling while corporations are making record profit. Wages drive our economy! If people have money to spend they buy goods and services. That will drive up demand and thus create jobs. In turn more people making good wages keeps people off foodstamps and other government assistance. Businessmen cheating and making business transactions they new would fail then betting on them to fail is what crashed the economy to begin with. That's what we need is more Bernie Madoffs running the country.
old dude

Pikeville, KY

#49 Dec 18, 2013
So What wrote:
<quoted text>
Yesterday I wrote about Oregon's big success signing people up for Obamacare: The state had, in the course of 17 days, signed up 56,000 people for the health law's Medicaid expansion. In one fell swoop, the state had cut its uninsured rate by 10 percent.
This story is from the Washington post. Why do you continue to lie. I posted proof that cutting taxes didn't create jobs and you change the subject. Now this lie you tell is exposed.
Medicaid Expansion is different from paying customers.
old dude

Pikeville, KY

#50 Dec 18, 2013
Fox News Is A Joke wrote:
<quoted text>Food Stamps do stimulate the Economy you stupid pos.
They stimulate the drug economy when the sorry bastards sell their stamps for 50 cents on the dollar to get money to buy drugs...I'll tel you what stmulates E. Ky's economy more than anything is WYMT and their "Food City Forecasts" every time a little snow or ice is forecast you can't find bread or milk or beer at the store.
old dude

Pikeville, KY

#51 Dec 18, 2013
So What wrote:
<quoted text>Are you saying that people not spending money at the grocery store will stimulate the economy? Whats sad is that more and more people are struggling while corporations are making record profit. Wages drive our economy! If people have money to spend they buy goods and services. That will drive up demand and thus create jobs. In turn more people making good wages keeps people off foodstamps and other government assistance. Businessmen cheating and making business transactions they new would fail then betting on them to fail is what crashed the economy to begin with. That's what we need is more Bernie Madoffs running the country.
So your answer is trading m,ore dollars,taxing corporations even more while they are paying the highest corp.taxes in the world,taxing the wealthy simply because they are successful and so on......that's what is already happening and it ain't working. Look at California;people with enough money to get out are leaving in droves to escape the higher taxes....spending money at the grocery DOES stimulate the economy just like spending money anywhere does but my point is it is just trading dollars---an economy based on 75% spending is the problem...this country needs new manufacturing jobs or product producing jobs...just dividing the wealth is MARXISM
Obamas my man

Pikeville, KY

#52 Dec 18, 2013
old dude wrote:
<quoted text> Medicaid Expansion is different from paying customers.
The point is you should be focused on the fact that more people Qualify for government assistance and cant afford basic health insurance. Besides you lied when you said only 42 people has signed up for Obama care.
Kyboy

Cleveland, OH

#53 Dec 18, 2013
So What wrote:
<quoted text>Yesterday I wrote about Oregon's big success signing people up for Obamacare: The state had, in the course of 17 days, signed up 56,000 people for the health law's Medicaid expansion. In one fell swoop, the state had cut its uninsured rate by 10 percent.
This story is from the Washington post. Why do you continue to lie. I posted proof that cutting taxes didn't create jobs and you change the subject. Now this lie you tell is exposed.
The rest of the story.

How could so many people sign up for the Medicaid expansion, and not a single person enroll in private insurance? It mostly has to do with how simple the Medicaid sign-up was: The state sent out notices to about 260,000 people who already receive public benefits and were below 138 percent of the federal poverty line, the cut-off for the Medicaid expansion.

To enroll, they simply had to call a phone number or return a form to the state.

Only 44 people have been able to sign up under the web site.
Robber Barons

La Fayette, KY

#54 Dec 18, 2013
old dude wrote:
<quoted text> You are not supposed to have money in any one bank in excess of FDIC limits.....Where are all the Robber Barons buying up the houses that were lost.....banks are still sitting on foreclosed homes as we speak....people DESERVED to lose if they borrowed more than they could afford...the REAL cause of the collapse was Barney Frank and his ilk who bought votes by offering easy money to low income people...the banks and sellers of derivatives were guilty also but it was Barney Frank and Chris Dodd who cooked up the whole scheme. When your local garbage man or ditch digger starts flipping houses or investing heavily in the stock market you better take your money out and hunker down;the bubble's going to bust..
You are evading the issue of what would have happened if the government let the Wall Street banks fail and take the whole banking system down with them.

If that had happened, the bill for paying the FDIC on people's accounts would have been far greater than the cost of the bailout. Given today's political climate, I seriously doubt that the government would have been able to live up to its FDIC promise to depositors. Something like what happened in Cyprus would have happened here. People would have lost at least part of their savings.

And there is also the matter of mortgages that are not behind in payments being called in when a bank goes under.
Kyboy

Cleveland, OH

#55 Dec 18, 2013
Obamas my man wrote:
<quoted text>The point is you should be focused on the fact that more people Qualify for government assistance and cant afford basic health insurance. Besides you lied when you said only 42 people has signed up for Obama care.
Oregon has a long way to go in reaching
the goal of 237k people paying for their own insurance to help cover the non paying.

We can skip the scoffing over Oregon as their ludicrously embarrassing failures have been extensively discussed. Oregon’s at 44, with a state goal of 237,000
Another Big Lie

Corbin, KY

#58 Dec 18, 2013
"You can keep your own plan if you like it" a big Obama lie!

People are getting kicked off their plans if they don't meet all the requirements of the Obama Care and in a lot of cases it is costing 4 times more that what they were paying.
old dude

Pikeville, KY

#59 Dec 18, 2013
Obamas my man wrote:
<quoted text> The point is you should be focused on the fact that more people Qualify for government assistance and cant afford basic health insurance. Besides you lied when you said only 42 people has signed up for Obama care.
How many have PAID for it?
old dude

Pikeville, KY

#60 Dec 18, 2013
So What wrote:
<quoted text>
Yesterday I wrote about Oregon's big success signing people up for Obamacare: The state had, in the course of 17 days, signed up 56,000 people for the health law's Medicaid expansion. In one fell swoop, the state had cut its uninsured rate by 10 percent.
This story is from the Washington post. Why do you continue to lie. I posted proof that cutting taxes didn't create jobs and you change the subject. Now this lie you tell is exposed.
I did not lie 42 people had signed up on their website----42

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Pikeville Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Real haunted house stories 29 min SKIPS 1
Wreck 1 hr Patient 7
Do you know Chris Ratliff? (Jul '09) 1 hr just curious 19
My dog is a homosexual. 2 hr Now we know 14
Vote Ray Out 2 hr Truth or Conseque... 40
Add a word, Drop a word (May '10) 2 hr _FLATLINE-------- 24,623
What's mitch McConnell done for coal, when ther... (Jul '14) 2 hr IND 28,783
Hillary Clinton OUR next President 4 hr One Eyed Willy 606
Allstate safe driving Check??? (Dec '10) 13 hr LOL 74
More from around the web

Personal Finance

Pikeville Mortgages