AMERICAN CONSERVATISM IN 2008 AND BEYOND

@cicerone imposter,

Your version of the slide analogy is an invalid analogy. It portrays the slide slope--the rate of job loss--as constant.

You do not understand my version of the slide analogy is a valid analogy. It portrays the slide slope--the rate of job loss--as variable depending on how well the controller--Obama--controls the glide slope.

Your compulsive devotion to blaming Bush for every bad thing that happens while Obama is president is sad.

Well, one can play your same silly game by blaming Carter for the job losses that occurred during Reagan's administration, blaming Clinton for the job losses that occurred during BushII's administration except in 2008, and blaming the Congressional Democrat majority for the job loss that occurred in 2008.

Look at the USA's total employment and total population! Bold faced are the job losses that occurred 1980 thru to 2009 and their silly blames.

Quote:

ftp://ftp.bls.gov/pub/suppl/empsit.cpseea1.txt
Year...................USA Population....USA Total Employed
1980..........................167,745,000...........99,302,000
1981........................ 170,130,000.......100,397,000
1982..................... 172,271,000.............99,526,000 (Carter's high tax rates)
1983........................ 174,215,000.......100,834,000
1984........................ 176,383,000.......105,005,000
1985........................ 178,206,000 ......107,150,000
1986 .................... 180,587,000..........109,597,000
1987........................ 182,753,000........112,440,000
1988........................ 184,613,000.......114,968,000
1989........................ 186,393,000.......117,342,000
1990.................... 189,164,000..........118,793,000
1991........................ 190,925,000......117,718,000 (Democrat Congress's majority)
1992........................ 192,805,000 .....118,492,000
1993........................ 194,838,000.....120,259,000
1994.................... 196,814,000.........123,060,000
1995........................ 198,584,000.....124,900,000
1996........................ 200,591,000.....126,708,000
1997........................ 203,133,000.....129,558,000
1998..................... 205,220,000 ........131,463,000
1999........................ 207,753,000.....133,488,000
2000....................... 212,577,000.....136,891,000
2001........................ 215,092,000....136,933,000
2002....................... 217,570,000.....136,485,000 (Clinton's tax increases)
2003........................ 221,168,000.....137,736,000
2004....................... 223,357,000.....139,252,000
2005....................... 226,082,000 .....141,730,000
2006....................... 228,815,000 .....144,427,000
2007....................... 231,867,000......146,047,000
2008....................... 233,788,000......145,362,000 (Democrat Congress's majority)

December 2009............... ------- ......137,792,000

1 Reply

@cicerone imposter,

Show us the 250,000 jobs per month Obama has created since his swearing in.

0 Replies

Remember when I remarked that I was absolutely convinced that Obamacare would be passed? Another event shows this Democratic obsession. Last night in closed-door secret negotiations, President Obama cut a sweetheart deal with the big labor unions to exempt them from taxes that this health care takeover will levy on millions of Americans. This another argument in favor of a flat (percentage) tax to generate Federal revenues.

Irony is that if Obamaism gets its wish to unionize, well, everyone ,this tactic becomes a liability for it.

JM

2 Replies

@JamesMorrison,

It's an obsession to pass legislation that the country voted you in to pass?

This is almost as bad as the Nobel prize award idiocy. Can't you guys pretend for a second that you have any knowledge or experience at all with the history of US governance and how it works?

Cycloptichorn

2 Replies

@JamesMorrison,

JamesMorrison wrote:

Last night in closed-door secret negotiations, President Obama cut a sweetheart deal with the big labor unions to exempt them from taxes that this health care takeover will levy on millions of Americans.

JM

Really? How come the details of the discussions are all over the media?
Closed door and secret? Open your eyes and your ears.

1 Reply

@ican711nm,

Your cut and paste numbers do not mean anything; it's because you are totally ignorant about what happened to the world economy precipitated by the Bush regime that had no clue about fiscal management.

Do you remember what happened after Katrina?

Total incompetence by Bush who chose, Michael Brown, a race track manager to take over as Under Secretary of Emergency Preparedness and Response.

All the signs of a disaster were building up to the financial crisis, but Bush and his administration had no clue. All this while the middle class and the poor in our country continued to lose buying power and benefits since 2000 after Bush took over the presidency, and Bush gave the wealthy tax cuts "to create jobs" that never happened. Instead, the financial world crashed, and millions lost their jobs. The conservatives goal for less government intervention created the environment for more financial disasters of companies like Enron, Worldcom, the banks and finance companies. They were all asleep at the switch. They were all feeding on greed and overvalued assets on their books, and when the great recession hit us in December 2007, the world came crashing down ruining millions of people around the world.
Many lost their jobs, homes, health insurance, and their retirement savings - and many are still losing their jobs and homes. This is still the after-effect of the Bush regime and their incompetence to manage anything right.

You are an ignoramus with no hope of revival to reality.

0 Replies

@ican711nm,

I found Castleman's article helpful. The implication of that article was twofold:

First, such attempts at throwing tax payer money at perceived problems should have a built in mechanism to guard against the unavoidable fraud inherent in such givaways. This is because this money has absolutley no value to either those giving it (politicians) or those getting it (its free after all). It's considered manna from heaven. Contrast this with your own decisions regarding personal charity given directly to deserving recipients.

Second, the mere fact that when such givaways are enacted 10% can be immediately considered as money down the toilet. How often is this considered in Keynesian calculation of ,so called, multipliers? If so why isn't this more widely publizied when promoting such 'Stimuli'?

JM

0 Replies

@realjohnboy,

Quote:

Really? How come the details of the discussions are all over the media?
Closed door and secret? Open your eyes and your ears.

That's right. I forgot to watch the negotiating process on CSPAN. Thank goodness these partisan negotiations were so extensively covered.

JM

1 Reply

@JamesMorrison,

JM, Do you read any newspaper? Both the local newspaper and the WSJ have been reporting what's been going on with the health plan debate. Unfortunately, I don't watch that much tv, so I'm not sure how much coverage they've given this issue. I assume from past experience, they've also been reporting it.

0 Replies

No, the discussions were not on CSPAN. But the participants were falling over each other today eager to talk.
The issue is the so called "Cadillac" health plans offered by some employers. The premiums can be really high because they allow the insured to go to a doctor for, say, a headache. The employer gets to expense the premiums.
The idea is that there should be some sort of threshold on the cost of these policies. Cross it and the employee must consider a portion of it taxable income.
Have I expressed this correctly as yall understand it?

1 Reply

@realjohnboy,

rjb, That's what I read in today's newspapers too! I believe what they reported was that the Obama administration wasn't going to add the tax to their plans, because it'll penalize the middle class workers.

0 Replies

Here is another argument for small government and less government intervention into the economy ...no matter what party is in charge.
The present economy and the housing bust has been a double whammy for Pella, Anderson, and others but this window company is booming. This due to a business model that relies heavily on the "a little help from my friends" concept.

http://stossel.blogs.foxbusiness.com/2010/01/14/a-little-company-praised-by-president-obama/

If there is bidding involved it doesn't relate to the windows.

JM

2 Replies

@JamesMorrison,

Stossel once again proves he can make up whatever he wants and conservatives will accept it.

If the VP visits a company and the media reports on his visit, that is NOT the liberal media going out of their way to promote that company. They are doing their job by reporting on the VP. Stossel just loves to twist facts and it seems those at Fox love to accept the twisting as if it was the actual truth.

0 Replies

@JamesMorrison,

Can you say Halliburton?

2 Replies

@JTT,

JTT, To piggy back on your post, this shows how the Bush regime gave Halliburton non-bid contracts (against US laws), and the reason our country started the war in Iraq. Only blind men wouldn't see the connection.

From Wiki:

Quote:

0 Replies

CRA, Fannie and Freddie, Bush’s TARP, and Obama’s Stimulus"all government loans and purchases--contributed to the USA’s employment depression.

Quote:

ftp://ftp.bls.gov/pub/suppl/empsit.cpseea1.txt
Total employment in the USA in:
December 2006 = 144,427,000
December 2007 = 146,047,000 (peak total employment in the USA)
December 2008 = 143,338,000
http://www.bls.gov/news.release/pdf/empsit.pdf
December 2009 = 137,792,000

Total Employment Losses:
December 2007 to December 2008 = 2,709,000
December 2008 to December 2009 = 5,546,000

To reduce this employment depression, the federal government should stop loaning money to private businesses and private individuals, and instead increase its buying of services, products, and commodities from private businesses and private individuals. For example, it should, via individual tax credits and vouchers, allow individuals to buy their own health care insurance from private health insurance providers instead of providing or buying that insurance for them itself.

Like CRA (COMMUNITY REINVESTMENT ACT), FANNIE, FREDDIE, TARP and STIMULUS, Obama Healthcare will cause significant increases in costs to the economy, and significant decreases in the number of people employed. Both are due to its resulting increase in taxes/fees/charges/penalties on individuals, and on small as well as large businesses.

The Obama Administration continues to repeat and expand the mistakes of the Bush Administration"all while blaming Bush for their problems--causing a continuation of decreases in total employment by increasing quantity of:
(1) government expenditures;
(2) budget deficits;
(3) giveaways of government revenues;
(4) housing loans to people who are unable to pay monthly costs of loans.

Roosevelt did not end his unemployment depression by having the government provide services, products, and commodities. Roosevelt began ending his unemployment depression in 1941 by having the government buy services, products, and commodities from private businesses and individuals.

Quote:

http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0104719.html
UNEMPLOYMENT RATES 1920 TO 1944
YEAR….. %RATE | YEAR….. %RATE | YEAR….. %RATE | YEAR….. %RATE | YEAR….. %RATE |
1920……… 5.2….|1928….…. 4.2…...|1930….…. 8.7…...|1932…… 23.6 ….|1934…... 21.7…...|
1936……… 16.9….|1938….…. 19.0....|1940….…. 14.6....|1942….…. 4.7….|1944….….. 1.2.…|

Reagan's net reduction of the top tax rate was from from 70% to 33%. While Clinton’s net increase of the top tax rate was to less than 40%. Clinton's net increase was minor compared to Reagan's major net decrease. So also during Clinton's 8 years, the economy benefitted significantly because of Reagan's preceding net tax rate decrease.

However, the growth rate of employment was negative in 2008 and 2009. The cause of that negative growth rate is logically attributable to the beginning in 2007 of an accelerating, rapidly increasing rate of federal borrowing to pay for the rapidly increasing federal budget deficit. That borrowing, of course, increasingly decreased the amount of money available to private enterprises for investment in their own growth instead of government growth.

1 Reply

@ican711nm,

ican wrote:

Quote:

However, the growth rate of employment was negative in 2008 and 2009. The cause of that negative growth rate is logically attributable to the beginning in 2007 of an accelerating, rapidly increasing rate of federal borrowing to pay for the rapidly increasing federal budget deficit.

WRONG! You can't even learn how this great recession started even though there are thousands of excellent articles in web-land that is easily accessible.

1 Reply

@JTT,

JTT, Halliburton employs a great many Americans!
I'd rather tolerate Halliburton's greed for profits than the Obama administration's greed for power.

Profit greed is continually held accountable via competition.

Power greed is not accountable except by the elections of the power greedy that are corrupted by fraudulent power greedy organizations like Soros's and ACORN's.

1 Reply

@cicerone imposter,

cicerone imposter wrote:

WRONG! You can't even learn how this great recession started even though there are thousands of excellent articles in web-land that is easily accessible.

You are WRONG! I am RIGHT!

The depression started in 1929 under Hoover was prolonged by Hoover's Smoot-Hawley Tariffs and dramatically increased top income tax rates in 1932 from 25% to 63%, and by Roosevelt's increased top income tax rates from 63% in 1933 to 79% in 1936 and his spending policies, until 1941.

In 1941, Roosevelt redirected government revenue from give aways to government purchases from the private sector of that required for the USA to win WWII. That redirection resulted in the huge reduction in total USA unemployment from 14.6% in 1940 to 4.7% in 1942 to 1.2% in 1944.

1 Reply

@ican711nm,

I said "great recession," not great depression.

1 Reply

AMERICAN CONSERVATISM IN 2008 AND BEYOND

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know