|
|
Post by AztecWilliam on Jul 31, 2013 16:24:16 GMT -8
|
|
|
|
Post by aztecwin on Jul 31, 2013 18:32:55 GMT -8
Interesting and impossible to intelligently refute.
|
|
|
|
Post by azteccc on Jul 31, 2013 19:42:46 GMT -8
Sure, I'll go. Before I read any article from an unknown author, I google them. Policy advisor for <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Heartland_Institute">The Heartland Institute</a> And "he argues that the Civil Rights Act and other anti-discrimination legislation would be better if repealed." Great start... On to the article: "Because he does not understand rudimentary economics..." -lol "Such legislation offsets the many of the benefits from the Bush tax cuts, which, of course, Obama has undone." -Except they are now called the Obama tax cuts? "No jobs at artificially high wages is no improvement over plentiful jobs at market wages." -At this point, an $8 minimum wage is above the market wage because the labor market is saturated with supply. Without minimum wage laws, current wages would be 5 or 6 bucks an hour... On the other hand, forcing the Wal-Marts of the world to adopt a living wage means that the retail space in areas such as DC will either be full of non-poverty wage labor, or filled by small businesses that are good for the economy. "On this point, he substantially overstates the increase in the income gap." -No, he doesn't. The GAO report cited by The Heritage Foundation shows a 300% increase between 1979 and 2007. Since 2008, 93% of economic growth has gone to the top 1% of the country. "which tries to pick winners and ends up with losers like Solyndra..." -lol "In the face of... weak corporate earnings" -  "and continued high unemployment" -  In general, the author makes assumptions that cannot be assumed from the one very short paragraph he dissects, and his rant is full of assertions that have no basis in fact. |
|
|
|
Post by aztec70 on Jul 31, 2013 22:02:24 GMT -8
Pass the TP. William has posted more crap. |
|
|
|
Post by AztecWilliam on Jul 31, 2013 23:05:38 GMT -8
Pass the TP. William has posted more crap. Okay, respond to this. Do you or do you not concede that this is the worst recovery from a recession since World War II? We have to have a mutually agreed upon starting point or else the conversation is pointless. Let me frame the question in this fashion. If you disagree that this is the worst recovery since World War II, then your support of Obama's economic policies (I assume that you do support them) are logical, or at least consistent with that first point. If you agree that this recovery is the weakest, then we must ask ourselves why that is so. I say that the President is at least partly to blame. You may have other explanations. But can we at least agree on a starting point? Is this or is this not the weakest recovery from a recession since WWII? Keep in mind two things before you answer. First, in previous cases, the worse the recession the stronger has been the recovery. Second, let's not forget that it has been over FOUR YEARS since the recession ended in June of 2009. Okay, it's your serve. AzWm |
|
|
|
Post by aztec70 on Aug 1, 2013 8:17:01 GMT -8
Pass the TP. William has posted more crap. Okay, respond to this. Do you or do you not concede that this is the worst recovery from a recession since World War II? We have to have a mutually agreed upon starting point or else the conversation is pointless. Let me frame the question in this fashion. If you disagree that this is the worst recovery since World War II, then your support of Obama's economic policies (I assume that you do support them) are logical, or at least consistent with that first point. If you agree that this recovery is the weakest, then we must ask ourselves why that is so. I say that the President is at least partly to blame. You may have other explanations. But can we at least agree on a starting point? Is this or is this not the weakest recovery from a recession since WWII? Keep in mind two things before you answer. First, in previous cases, the worse the recession the stronger has been the recovery. Second, let's not forget that it has been over FOUR YEARS since the recession ended in June of 2009. Okay, it's your serve. AzWm It is the weakest because conservatives have fought to derail any and all of his proposals up and down the line. Anything he proposes is automatically voted against. Very hard to govern in that circumstance. I look forward to his later years in in second term. I think he has learned he can not trust conservatives to want the best for our country. Conservatives are not interested in governing, they are interested in power. |
|
|
|
Post by aztec70 on Aug 1, 2013 8:31:32 GMT -8
Sure, I'll go. Before I read any article from an unknown author, I google them. Policy advisor for <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Heartland_Institute">The Heartland Institute</a> And "he argues that the Civil Rights Act and other anti-discrimination legislation would be better if repealed." Great start... On to the article: "Because he does not understand rudimentary economics..." -lol "Such legislation offsets the many of the benefits from the Bush tax cuts, which, of course, Obama has undone." -Except they are now called the Obama tax cuts? "No jobs at artificially high wages is no improvement over plentiful jobs at market wages." -At this point, an $8 minimum wage is above the market wage because the labor market is saturated with supply. Without minimum wage laws, current wages would be 5 or 6 bucks an hour... On the other hand, forcing the Wal-Marts of the world to adopt a living wage means that the retail space in areas such as DC will either be full of non-poverty wage labor, or filled by small businesses that are good for the economy. "On this point, he substantially overstates the increase in the income gap." -No, he doesn't. The GAO report cited by The Heritage Foundation shows a 300% increase between 1979 and 2007. Since 2008, 93% of economic growth has gone to the top 1% of the country. "which tries to pick winners and ends up with losers like Solyndra..." -lol "In the face of... weak corporate earnings" - "and continued high unemployment" - In general, the author makes assumptions that cannot be assumed from the one very short paragraph he dissects, and his rant is full of assertions that have no basis in fact. William, please respond to this post. |
|
|
|
Post by AztecWilliam on Aug 1, 2013 15:20:44 GMT -8
Sure, I'll go. Before I read any article from an unknown author, I google them. Policy advisor for <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Heartland_Institute">The Heartland Institute</a> And "he argues that the Civil Rights Act and other anti-discrimination legislation would be better if repealed." Great start... On to the article: "Because he does not understand rudimentary economics..." -lol "Such legislation offsets the many of the benefits from the Bush tax cuts, which, of course, Obama has undone." -Except they are now called the Obama tax cuts? "No jobs at artificially high wages is no improvement over plentiful jobs at market wages." -At this point, an $8 minimum wage is above the market wage because the labor market is saturated with supply. Without minimum wage laws, current wages would be 5 or 6 bucks an hour... On the other hand, forcing the Wal-Marts of the world to adopt a living wage means that the retail space in areas such as DC will either be full of non-poverty wage labor, or filled by small businesses that are good for the economy. "On this point, he substantially overstates the increase in the income gap." -No, he doesn't. The GAO report cited by The Heritage Foundation shows a 300% increase between 1979 and 2007. Since 2008, 93% of economic growth has gone to the top 1% of the country. "which tries to pick winners and ends up with losers like Solyndra..." -lol "In the face of... weak corporate earnings" - "and continued high unemployment" - In general, the author makes assumptions that cannot be assumed from the one very short paragraph he dissects, and his rant is full of assertions that have no basis in fact. William, please respond to this post. Individual companies may be doing very well. Fine. One can debate why that is so. My point, and in this I agree with the author, is that Obama, not unlike the Democrats in general, believe that the success of a national economy is basically due to government actions. "You built that" is the most revealing statement BHO has made in this area. Sure, the government (local can do many things to encourage economic growth. Let me enumerate: 1. Maintain a stable currency. 2. Defend our borders. 3. Build & maintain roads, bridges, etc. 4. Operate court systems tasked with adjudicating contract disputes and related issues. 5. Create regulatory systems that weigh costs to business versus their benefits to society. 6. Reduce regulatory and legislative churning to a minimum so that business executives can plan more rationally. When government rules are unclear and uncertain, or when they change unpredictably, the business man or woman is left wondering how to proceed in the coming months and years. As for Barrack Obama, the guy has never really had a job in the non-governmental sector. Anyone who believes that the President has a strong grasp of basic economic theory is invited to provide evidence that such is the case. AzWm |
|
|
|
Post by aztecwin on Aug 1, 2013 17:39:23 GMT -8
Sure, I'll go. Before I read any article from an unknown author, I google them. Policy advisor for <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Heartland_Institute">The Heartland Institute</a> And "he argues that the Civil Rights Act and other anti-discrimination legislation would be better if repealed." Great start... On to the article: "Because he does not understand rudimentary economics..." -lol "Such legislation offsets the many of the benefits from the Bush tax cuts, which, of course, Obama has undone." -Except they are now called the Obama tax cuts? "No jobs at artificially high wages is no improvement over plentiful jobs at market wages." -At this point, an $8 minimum wage is above the market wage because the labor market is saturated with supply. Without minimum wage laws, current wages would be 5 or 6 bucks an hour... On the other hand, forcing the Wal-Marts of the world to adopt a living wage means that the retail space in areas such as DC will either be full of non-poverty wage labor, or filled by small businesses that are good for the economy. "On this point, he substantially overstates the increase in the income gap." -No, he doesn't. The GAO report cited by The Heritage Foundation shows a 300% increase between 1979 and 2007. Since 2008, 93% of economic growth has gone to the top 1% of the country. "which tries to pick winners and ends up with losers like Solyndra..." -lol "In the face of... weak corporate earnings" - "and continued high unemployment" - In general, the author makes assumptions that cannot be assumed from the one very short paragraph he dissects, and his rant is full of assertions that have no basis in fact. Hard to guess what you are trying to say. I would think that being frugal with profit rather than reinvesting into an unstable environment would be understood. You have not made a point on anything other than to show how unwilling business is to trust Obama. |
|
|
|
Post by aztecwin on Aug 1, 2013 17:42:42 GMT -8
Okay, respond to this. Do you or do you not concede that this is the worst recovery from a recession since World War II? We have to have a mutually agreed upon starting point or else the conversation is pointless. Let me frame the question in this fashion. If you disagree that this is the worst recovery since World War II, then your support of Obama's economic policies (I assume that you do support them) are logical, or at least consistent with that first point. If you agree that this recovery is the weakest, then we must ask ourselves why that is so. I say that the President is at least partly to blame. You may have other explanations. But can we at least agree on a starting point? Is this or is this not the weakest recovery from a recession since WWII? Keep in mind two things before you answer. First, in previous cases, the worse the recession the stronger has been the recovery. Second, let's not forget that it has been over FOUR YEARS since the recession ended in June of 2009. Okay, it's your serve. AzWm It is the weakest because conservatives have fought to derail any and all of his proposals up and down the line. Anything he proposes is automatically voted against. Very hard to govern in that circumstance. I look forward to his later years in in second term. I think he has learned he can not trust conservatives to want the best for our country. Conservatives are not interested in governing, they are interested in power. To oppose unwise agendas is the prudent thing to do. It avoids making matters even worse. Neither Obama nor any of his mob have any sound ideas. |
|
|
|
Post by aztecwin on Aug 1, 2013 17:46:56 GMT -8
William, you should have voted for romney instead of whoever the Libertarians ran out there this time. romney seems to fit your belief system a whole lot better than the Libertarian party does. In fact, I'm shocked you're a registered Libertarian given what they support and oppose. Had more people like you voted romney, this would be a past-tense discussion. Good point and always a problem in the voting booth. Do you vote your ideals or take the path least likely to end up with a liberal in power. I usually just vote for a Republican rather than the best candidate to more effectively counter votes for liberals. |
|
|
|
Post by aztec70 on Aug 1, 2013 20:44:05 GMT -8
It is the weakest because conservatives have fought to derail any and all of his proposals up and down the line. Anything he proposes is automatically voted against. Very hard to govern in that circumstance. I look forward to his later years in in second term. I think he has learned he can not trust conservatives to want the best for our country. Conservatives are not interested in governing, they are interested in power. To oppose unwise agendas is the prudent thing to do. It avoids making matters even worse. Neither Obama nor any of his mob have any sound ideas. Just another troll. It no longer annoys me. It amuses me. |
|
|
|
Post by aztec70 on Aug 1, 2013 20:47:30 GMT -8
William, you should have voted for romney instead of whoever the Libertarians ran out there this time. romney seems to fit your belief system a whole lot better than the Libertarian party does. In fact, I'm shocked you're a registered Libertarian given what they support and oppose. Had more people like you voted romney, this would be a past-tense discussion. Good point and always a problem in the voting booth. Do you vote your ideals or take the path least likely to end up with a liberal in power. I usually just vote for a Republican rather than the best candidate to more effectively counter votes for liberals. True, Republicans are seldom the best candidate. I did vote for Jerry Ford, though. |
|
|
|
Post by AztecWilliam on Aug 1, 2013 20:51:05 GMT -8
I see that I did not finish one thought in a previous post. When referring to the legitimate roles of governmental, I meant to say that by government, I meant all levels: local, state, and national.
Also, I would like to challenge something that was posted. Barrack Obama had, for the first two years of his first term absolute control of the federal government. There was nothing, absolutely nothing, that the GOP could do during those years to prevent the Democrats from passing any law they cared to think up. Obama and his party had the chance to do something significant to boost the economy. Clearly, they thought that the stimulus would do the job. They were wrong. The stimulus did little to turn things around. In fact, the recession had ended by the time the stimulus bill was passed so the President cannot even take credit for that.
Again, keep in mind that this recovery is over four years old, and yet things are far from satisfactory. Labor participation is still below where it was in 2007.
Why are we not growing by the 3 or 4 percent a year (or more) that would be typical for a recovery from such a bad recession? The Republicans? You will have to do better than that. Fact; actual unemployment, if you count those who have given up looking for a job or those who can only find part time work, is about 14%. That is the U-6 unemployment rate from the Feds. Even the 7.6% U-1 is way too high for a recovery.
Saying that the Republicans are at fault is a pathetic excuse use by the administration to avoid taking responsibility.
AzWm
|
|
|
|
Post by aztec70 on Aug 1, 2013 20:56:45 GMT -8
I see that I did not finish one thought in a previous post. When referring to the legitimate roles of governmental, I meant to say that by government, I meant all levels: local, state, and national. Also, I would like to challenge something that was posted. Barrack Obama had, for the first two years of his first term absolute control of the federal government. There was nothing, absolutely nothing, that the GOP could do during those years to prevent the Democrats from passing any law they cared to think up. Obama and his party had the chance to do something significant to boost the economy. Clearly, they thought that the stimulus would do the job. They were wrong. The stimulus did little to turn things around. In fact, the recession had ended by the time the stimulus bill was passed so the President cannot even take credit for that. Again, keep in mind that this recovery is over four years old, and yet things are far from satisfactory. Labor participation is still below where it was in 2007. Why are we not growing by the 3 or 4 percent a year (or more) that would be typical for a recovery from such a bad recession? The Republicans? You will have to do better than that. Fact; actual unemployment, if you count those who have given up looking for a job or those who can only find part time work, is about 14%. That is the U-6 unemployment rate from the Feds. Even the 7.6% U-1 is way too high for a recovery. Saying that the Republicans are at fault is a pathetic excuse use by the administration to avoid taking responsibility. AzWm I did not expect the truth to satisfactory for you. You are a blind ideologue. |
|
|
|
Post by azteccc on Aug 1, 2013 21:44:53 GMT -8
Also, I would like to challenge something that was posted. Barrack Obama had, for the first two years of his first term absolute control of the federal government. There was nothing, absolutely nothing, that the GOP could do during those years to prevent the Democrats from passing any law they cared to think up. Is there anything the GOP can do, right now, to prevent Democrats from passing laws through the Senate? Whatever your answer, the same holds true for the 111th. Hint: Remember, it takes 60 votes to pass anything in the Senate. I believe that's in the Constitution, right? |
|
|
|
Post by aztecwin on Aug 3, 2013 7:33:13 GMT -8
Also, I would like to challenge something that was posted. Barrack Obama had, for the first two years of his first term absolute control of the federal government. There was nothing, absolutely nothing, that the GOP could do during those years to prevent the Democrats from passing any law they cared to think up. Is there anything the GOP can do, right now, to prevent Democrats from passing laws through the Senate? Whatever your answer, the same holds true for the 111th. Hint: Remember, it takes 60 votes to pass anything in the Senate. I believe that's in the Constitution, right? Suggest you figure out what requires a "super majority" and what requires only a "simple majority". |
|
|
|
Post by aztecwin on Aug 3, 2013 7:34:56 GMT -8
Good point and always a problem in the voting booth. Do you vote your ideals or take the path least likely to end up with a liberal in power. I usually just vote for a Republican rather than the best candidate to more effectively counter votes for liberals. True, Republicans are seldom the best candidate. I did vote for Jerry Ford, though. True, rarely the best, but always better than a liberal. |
|
|
|
Post by AztecWilliam on Aug 3, 2013 10:19:09 GMT -8
The Senate creates its own rules. The 60 vote super-majority rule is NOT in the Constitution. In fact, that practice has been suspended on occasion. Even with the 60 vote rule in place, the Dems were able to pass ObamaCare using Reconciliation. The reason that the Republicans are crying "foul" over that move is that Reconciliation had never before been used except for minor legislation, and certainly not to make an end-run around the Senate's usual procedures in order to pass such a monumental bill to which there was so much opposition.
AzWm
|
|
|
|
Post by AztecWilliam on Aug 3, 2013 10:27:47 GMT -8
Also, I would like to challenge something that was posted. Barrack Obama had, for the first two years of his first term absolute control of the federal government. There was nothing, absolutely nothing, that the GOP could do during those years to prevent the Democrats from passing any law they cared to think up. Is there anything the GOP can do, right now, to prevent Democrats from passing laws through the Senate? Whatever your answer, the same holds true for the 111th. Hint: Remember, it takes 60 votes to pass anything in the Senate. I believe that's in the Constitution, right? It takes an affirmative vote of BOTH houses of Congress to send a bill to the President's desk. Obviously, that isn't going to happen much with the GOP in control of the House and the Dems controlling the Senate. You may know that the House has passed a lot of bills that Reid will not let the Senate even consider. Most of those would probably be defeated in the upper house, but perhaps some would pass, given that there are a lot of nervous Democratic senators. In the absence of total Democratic control of the Congress, Obama is more and more taking actions that many believe to be beyond his constitutional authority (i.e., executive orders). AzWm |
|
