Leader

Collapse

Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

No 2016 olympics, but the Stimulus worked...

Collapse

300x250 Mobile

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • No 2016 olympics, but the Stimulus worked...

    WASHINGTON (MarketWatch) -- The U.S. labor market weakened in September as 263,000 payroll jobs were lost and the unemployment rate rose a tenth of a percentage point to a 26-year high of 9.8%, the Labor Department reported Friday.
    It marked the 21st consecutive month of job losses. Since the recession began in December 2007, 7.2 million jobs have been lost and the unemployment rate has doubled.

    Details of the report were almost universally dismal, with the number of unemployed people rising by 214,000 to 15.1 million.
    Of those, 5.4 million have been out of work longer than six months, accounting for a record 35.6% of the jobless. The employment participation rate fell to 65.2%


    Okay, I lied. The Stimulus Package worked about as good as Obama's bid for the Olympics worked.
    "Blaming the prince of the fools should not blind anyone to the vast confederacy of fools that made him their prince" - Unknown Author
    ______________________________________________

    "That government is best which governs the least, because its people discipline themselves." - Thomas Jefferson
    ______________________________________________

    “There are two ways to conquer and enslave a nation. One is by the sword. The other is by debt.” - John Adams

  • #2
    It's Bush's fault.
    sigpic

    " 'Blessed are the Peacemakers', is, I suppose, to be understood in the other world, for in this one they are frequently cursed." - Benjamin Franklin

    Comment


    • #3
      Chicago not getting the Olympic's is not a Government issue. If anything the USOC problems played a large roll in it. Trying to link Tarp to Chicago getting booted out of the running. Is just as absurd as saying ice isn't water.

      Comment


      • #4
        Someone should have told Obama the Olympics wasn't a government issue.

        And who gives a flip about Michelle's dad and his health problems? Those have to be the two most narcissistic people on earth. Their act is officially wearing thin.

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by FNA209 View Post
          WASHINGTON (MarketWatch) -- The U.S. labor market weakened in September as 263,000 payroll jobs were lost and the unemployment rate rose a tenth of a percentage point to a 26-year high of 9.8%, the Labor Department reported Friday.
          It marked the 21st consecutive month of job losses. Since the recession began in December 2007, 7.2 million jobs have been lost and the unemployment rate has doubled.

          Details of the report were almost universally dismal, with the number of unemployed people rising by 214,000 to 15.1 million.
          Of those, 5.4 million have been out of work longer than six months, accounting for a record 35.6% of the jobless. The employment participation rate fell to 65.2%


          Okay, I lied. The Stimulus Package worked about as good as Obama's bid for the Olympics worked.
          History question: How long did it take for the economy to turn around under teh leadership of President Reagan in the 1980s?

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by BigPat View Post
            History question: How long did it take for the economy to turn around under teh leadership of President Reagan in the 1980s?
            http://www.heritage.org/research/taxes/bg1414.cfm

            In 1981, newly elected President Ronald Reagan refocused fiscal policy on the long run. He proposed, and Congress passed, sharp cuts in marginal tax rates. The cuts increased incentives to work and stimulated growth. These were funda-mental policy changes that provided the foundation for the Great Expansion that began in December 1982.

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by JasperST View Post
              http://www.heritage.org/research/taxes/bg1414.cfm

              In 1981, newly elected President Ronald Reagan refocused fiscal policy on the long run. He proposed, and Congress passed, sharp cuts in marginal tax rates. The cuts increased incentives to work and stimulated growth. These were funda-mental policy changes that provided the foundation for the Great Expansion that began in December 1982.
              You still failed to answer the question. How long did it take for the economy to turn around under President Reagan? Look it up and get back to me on that one.

              As to Reagan's fiscal policy, I don't see how it would work in the present climate, seeing as the top marginal tax rates are nowhere near what they were in 1980. Entitlements have also increased dramatically since that point, so without addressing entitlement spending, tax cuts would simply worsen our deficit situation. The Heritage foundation also forgot to mention how Reagan stimulated the economy with deficit spending (mostly in defense) in addition to doing so with tax cuts.

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by BigPat View Post
                You still failed to answer the question. How long did it take for the economy to turn around under President Reagan? Look it up and get back to me on that one.
                Let's see...from early 1981 to December 1982...hmmm. I guess that's too vague?
                As to Reagan's fiscal policy, I don't see how it would work in the present climate, seeing as the top marginal tax rates are nowhere near what they were in 1980. Entitlements have also increased dramatically since that point, so without addressing entitlement spending, tax cuts would simply worsen our deficit situation. The Heritage foundation also forgot to mention how Reagan stimulated the economy with deficit spending (mostly in defense) in addition to doing so with tax cuts.
                This again is where reading comes in handy. It says:

                "HOW DID REAGAN'S POLICIES AFFECT FEDERAL SPENDING?

                Although critics continue to focus on President Reagan's budget "cuts," federal spending rose significantly during the 1980s:

                *

                Federal spending more than doubled, growing from almost $591 billion in 1980 to $1.25 trillion in 1990. In constant inflation-adjusted dollars, this was an increase of 35.8 percent.6
                *

                As a percentage of GDP, federal expenditures grew slightly from 21.6 percent in 1980 to 21.8 percent in 1990.7
                *

                Contrary to popular myth, while inflation-adjusted defense spending increased by 50 percent between 1980 and 1989, it was curtailed when the Cold War ended and fell by 15 percent between 1989 and 1993. However, means-tested entitlements, which do not include Social Security or Medicare, rose by over 102 percent between 1980 and 1993, and they have continued climbing ever since.8
                * Total spending on all national security programs never equaled domestic spending, even when Social Security, Medicare, and net interest are excluded from domestic totals. In addition, national security spending fell during the Administration of the senior President Bush, while domestic spending increased in both mandatory and discretionary accounts.9 (See Chart 1.)"

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by BigPat View Post
                  As to Reagan's fiscal policy, I don't see how it would work in the present climate, seeing as the top marginal tax rates are nowhere near what they were in 1980. Entitlements have also increased dramatically since that point, so without addressing entitlement spending, tax cuts would simply worsen our deficit situation.
                  There were many more deductions and "loopholes" back in the early 80's also. So the tax rate might be lower now, but so are the deductions. The end result is a less complicated tax system with about the same revenue collected. Our system is still very complicated and needs to be simplified a lot more, but that would take a lot of power out of the Congress and we all know that isn't going to happen no matter who is running the show. Personally I like the idea of a national sales tax on retail sales only (no VAT tax). If you are on welfare then you can be given a card that allows all purchases to be rung up tax free.

                  I do agree that non-essential spending needs to be cut. For a good list of essential items that must not be cut look at the Constitution. If the program is not specifically listed there, it is on the table for spending cuts. I agree with the pay-go bill that was passed, but as usual Congress and the POTUS are screwing up a good idea, by not applying it to EVERY bill passed, no exceptions, period.
                  But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object, evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new guards for their future security.

                  For the intelectually challenged: If the government screws the people enough, it is the right and responsibility of the people to revolt and form a new government.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    The IOC is RACIST!!!!! They turned their backs on Obama, Ms Obama, and Oprah......

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by JasperST View Post
                      Someone should have told Obama the Olympics wasn't a government issue.

                      And who gives a flip about Michelle's dad and his health problems? Those have to be the two most narcissistic people on earth. Their act is officially wearing thin.
                      It's to show support for your countries bid. The leaders from every country attended the voting. President Obama by news articles was the first head of state to leave.

                      About the story the first lady had. The Olympics is always filled with those stories. Every year you hear about some athlete's brother was sick and told him to win the gold or something like that. It's nothing different!

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by livestrong6 View Post
                        It's to show support for your countries bid. The leaders from every country attended the voting. President Obama by news articles was the first head of state to leave.

                        About the story the first lady had. The Olympics is always filled with those stories. Every year you hear about some athlete's brother was sick and told him to win the gold or something like that. It's nothing different!
                        Oh and to add,

                        IOC member Denis Oswald of Switzerland cited the USOC instability as a problem and said it was his impression "this was a defeat for the USOC, not for Chicago."
                        http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/c...7643606.column

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by livestrong6 View Post
                          Oh and to add,

                          IOC member Denis Oswald of Switzerland cited the USOC instability as a problem and said it was his impression "this was a defeat for the USOC, not for Chicago."
                          http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/c...7643606.column
                          When you get right down to it, Rio was the choice for the 2016 Olympics LONG before the official decision. Short of Brazil collapsing into total anarchy, there was no chance for Chicago to get it, even with high-powered star power behind the USOC's bid (I'm talking Oprah, not Obama.... ).
                          Originally posted by kontemplerande
                          Without Germany, you would not have won World War 2.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by livestrong6 View Post
                            It's to show support for your countries bid. The leaders from every country attended the voting. President Obama by news articles was the first head of state to leave.

                            About the story the first lady had. The Olympics is always filled with those stories. Every year you hear about some athlete's brother was sick and told him to win the gold or something like that. It's nothing different!
                            What's your evidence that the leaders were there representing their country? What's Obama's leaving first have to do with it? Michelle's dad is entering into the Olympics?

                            They should have medals for mental gymnastics.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by SRT936 View Post
                              When you get right down to it, Rio was the choice for the 2016 Olympics LONG before the official decision. Short of Brazil collapsing into total anarchy, there was no chance for Chicago to get it, even with high-powered star power behind the USOC's bid (I'm talking Oprah, not Obama.... ).
                              Well, In the Olympic community, Pele is a bigger star then Oprah. I would totally agree with you. Like the article I linked in my previous comment. The IOC can take credit for helping improve the way of Life in Rio.

                              Comment

                              MR300x250 Tablet

                              Collapse

                              What's Going On

                              Collapse

                              There are currently 3536 users online. 192 members and 3344 guests.

                              Most users ever online was 26,947 at 07:36 PM on 12-29-2019.

                              Welcome Ad

                              Collapse
                              Working...
                              X