Total Posts:67|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

How Much Has Obama Hurt the US Economy?

jimtimmy
Posts: 3,953
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/9/2011 3:10:42 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
He has implemented strong anti growth policies... such as higher marginal tax rates, more regulations, much larger debt, and a much larger government size.

Furthermore, he has created an environment of economic uncertainty by passing massive expansions of government in bills that few businesses have time to read or understand, using strong anti business rhetoric, increasing the debt massively, and passing numerous new regulations and taxes on business with the threat of new ones always there...

Just how much damage has this President done to the US economy
President of DDO
CosmicAlfonzo
Posts: 5,955
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/9/2011 3:12:21 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
Probably not as much as you think.

I mean, to be straight honest, it was pretty much in the sh!tter by the time he got elected.
Official "High Priest of Secular Affairs and Transient Distributor of Sonic Apple Seeds relating to the Reptilian Division of Paperwork Immoliation" of The FREEDO Bureaucracy, a DDO branch of the Erisian Front, a subdivision of the Discordian Back, a Limb of the Illuminatian Cosmic Utensil Corp
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/9/2011 3:13:02 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/9/2011 3:12:21 PM, CosmicAlfonzo wrote:
Probably not as much as you think.

I mean, to be straight honest, it was pretty much in the sh!tter by the time he got elected.

shhh, that's just what he wants you to think!
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
jimtimmy
Posts: 3,953
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/9/2011 3:15:17 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/9/2011 3:12:21 PM, CosmicAlfonzo wrote:
Probably not as much as you think.

I mean, to be straight honest, it was pretty much in the sh!tter by the time he got elected.

I am talking about the slow recovery, not the initial decline... Recoveries are supposed to, and they have been historically, feature strong GDP and Job Growth... This one has had virtuall no Growth
President of DDO
Double_R
Posts: 4,886
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/9/2011 3:30:34 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/9/2011 3:15:17 PM, jimtimmy wrote:
At 10/9/2011 3:12:21 PM, CosmicAlfonzo wrote:
Probably not as much as you think.

I mean, to be straight honest, it was pretty much in the sh!tter by the time he got elected.

I am talking about the slow recovery, not the initial decline... Recoveries are supposed to, and they have been historically, feature strong GDP and Job Growth... This one has had virtuall no Growth

I would like to hear your insight on this chart:
http://maddowblog.msnbc.msn.com...
DanT
Posts: 5,693
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/9/2011 3:36:01 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/9/2011 3:10:42 PM, jimtimmy wrote:
He has implemented strong anti growth policies... such as higher marginal tax rates, more regulations, much larger debt, and a much larger government size.

Furthermore, he has created an environment of economic uncertainty by passing massive expansions of government in bills that few businesses have time to read or understand, using strong anti business rhetoric, increasing the debt massively, and passing numerous new regulations and taxes on business with the threat of new ones always there...

Just how much damage has this President done to the US economy

You mean congress. The President is the chief of the executive branch. Congress is the legislature. The supreme court is the court of last resort.

The powers of the Executive, Legislative, and Judicial Branches are all separated, unlike the Parliamentary system where the executive and legislative branches are intertwined.

Congress is responsible for the laws. The president is responsible for the execution of the laws congress sets forth. The Judiciary upholds the law.
"Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons."~Lordknukle
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/9/2011 3:41:39 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/9/2011 3:30:34 PM, Double_R wrote:
At 10/9/2011 3:15:17 PM, jimtimmy wrote:
At 10/9/2011 3:12:21 PM, CosmicAlfonzo wrote:
Probably not as much as you think.

I mean, to be straight honest, it was pretty much in the sh!tter by the time he got elected.

I am talking about the slow recovery, not the initial decline... Recoveries are supposed to, and they have been historically, feature strong GDP and Job Growth... This one has had virtuall no Growth

I would like to hear your insight on this chart:
http://maddowblog.msnbc.msn.com...
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
jimtimmy
Posts: 3,953
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/9/2011 4:20:04 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/9/2011 3:41:39 PM, darkkermit wrote:
At 10/9/2011 3:30:34 PM, Double_R wrote:
At 10/9/2011 3:15:17 PM, jimtimmy wrote:
At 10/9/2011 3:12:21 PM, CosmicAlfonzo wrote:
Probably not as much as you think.

I mean, to be straight honest, it was pretty much in the sh!tter by the time he got elected.

I am talking about the slow recovery, not the initial decline... Recoveries are supposed to, and they have been historically, feature strong GDP and Job Growth... This one has had virtuall no Growth

I would like to hear your insight on this chart:
http://maddowblog.msnbc.msn.com...



I was going to post the exact same video... It really is an absurd and misleading chart
President of DDO
Double_R
Posts: 4,886
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/9/2011 5:24:50 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/9/2011 4:20:04 PM, jimtimmy wrote:
At 10/9/2011 3:41:39 PM, darkkermit wrote:
At 10/9/2011 3:30:34 PM, Double_R wrote:
At 10/9/2011 3:15:17 PM, jimtimmy wrote:
At 10/9/2011 3:12:21 PM, CosmicAlfonzo wrote:
Probably not as much as you think.

I mean, to be straight honest, it was pretty much in the sh!tter by the time he got elected.

I am talking about the slow recovery, not the initial decline... Recoveries are supposed to, and they have been historically, feature strong GDP and Job Growth... This one has had virtuall no Growth

I would like to hear your insight on this chart:
http://maddowblog.msnbc.msn.com...



I was going to post the exact same video... It really is an absurd and misleading chart

This video is complete nonsense. We lost about 8 million jobs in the recession, in a country of over 310 million people. That is not even 3% of the population. That trend had much more room to continue, and the predictions before the stimulus were much worse.

What I also find ridiculous about this message is the basic concept that the job loss slow down was inevitable and therefore happened naturally. So let me get this straight... when things improve it's natural, when things get worse it's Obama's fault?
jimtimmy
Posts: 3,953
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/9/2011 5:29:02 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/9/2011 5:24:50 PM, Double_R wrote:
At 10/9/2011 4:20:04 PM, jimtimmy wrote:
At 10/9/2011 3:41:39 PM, darkkermit wrote:
At 10/9/2011 3:30:34 PM, Double_R wrote:
At 10/9/2011 3:15:17 PM, jimtimmy wrote:
At 10/9/2011 3:12:21 PM, CosmicAlfonzo wrote:
Probably not as much as you think.

I mean, to be straight honest, it was pretty much in the sh!tter by the time he got elected.

I am talking about the slow recovery, not the initial decline... Recoveries are supposed to, and they have been historically, feature strong GDP and Job Growth... This one has had virtuall no Growth

I would like to hear your insight on this chart:
http://maddowblog.msnbc.msn.com...



I was going to post the exact same video... It really is an absurd and misleading chart

This video is complete nonsense. We lost about 8 million jobs in the recession, in a country of over 310 million people. That is not even 3% of the population. That trend had much more room to continue, and the predictions before the stimulus were much worse.

What I also find ridiculous about this message is the basic concept that the job loss slow down was inevitable and therefore happened naturally. So let me get this straight... when things improve it's natural, when things get worse it's Obama's fault?

Obama always says "We were losing 750,000 Jobs a Month when I took Office"... Did you really think that, had Obama not been president, we would still be losing 750,000 Jobs a month...

If you do, then you are very detached from reality my friend...

Furthermore, we are not talking about jobs being gained early on under Obama... Job LOSSES just SLOWED down...

So, yes, job losses DO stop happening NATURALLY... And, the economy recovers strongly, naturally... Except, this time the recovery is unusually slow... My explanation is Obama's policies... I don't know what yours is, but I can guarantee it has less evidence than mine
President of DDO
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/9/2011 5:34:04 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/9/2011 5:29:02 PM, jimtimmy wrote:

Obama always says "We were losing 750,000 Jobs a Month when I took Office"... Did you really think that, had Obama not been president, we would still be losing 750,000 Jobs a month...

If you do, then you are very detached from reality my friend...

What? He was saying that the economy had room to get much worse. It is not some natural occurance that it didn't. People like to discredit the president when its most expedient, then neglect to give him credit when it is deserved. That rubbish video essentially credited the reduced job loss to CHANCE.

Furthermore, we are not talking about jobs being gained early on under Obama... Job LOSSES just SLOWED down...

In order for job losses to slow down in the projected statistics, jobs must be gained. Do you hear yourself?

So, yes, job losses DO stop happening NATURALLY... And, the economy recovers strongly, naturally... Except, this time the recovery is unusually slow... My explanation is Obama's policies... I don't know what yours is, but I can guarantee it has less evidence than mine
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
jimtimmy
Posts: 3,953
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/9/2011 5:37:53 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/9/2011 5:34:04 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 10/9/2011 5:29:02 PM, jimtimmy wrote:

Obama always says "We were losing 750,000 Jobs a Month when I took Office"... Did you really think that, had Obama not been president, we would still be losing 750,000 Jobs a month...

If you do, then you are very detached from reality my friend...

What? He was saying that the economy had room to get much worse. It is not some natural occurance that it didn't. People like to discredit the president when its most expedient, then neglect to give him credit when it is deserved. That rubbish video essentially credited the reduced job loss to CHANCE.

No, it attributed the reduced job loss to mathmatical reality... And, how do you even know the economy had room to get much worse?

This is not some objective fact... I really don't know why you are assuming this


Furthermore, we are not talking about jobs being gained early on under Obama... Job LOSSES just SLOWED down...

In order for job losses to slow down in the projected statistics, jobs must be gained. Do you hear yourself?

No, thats not right... Jobs continued to be lost well into the Obama Admin... They were just being lost at a slower rate... If that is considered successful policy, then I am in awe... Especially since jobs historically grow with the population

So, yes, job losses DO stop happening NATURALLY... And, the economy recovers strongly, naturally... Except, this time the recovery is unusually slow... My explanation is Obama's policies... I don't know what yours is, but I can guarantee it has less evidence than mine
President of DDO
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/9/2011 5:43:25 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/9/2011 5:34:04 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 10/9/2011 5:29:02 PM, jimtimmy wrote:

Obama always says "We were losing 750,000 Jobs a Month when I took Office"... Did you really think that, had Obama not been president, we would still be losing 750,000 Jobs a month...

If you do, then you are very detached from reality my friend...

What? He was saying that the economy had room to get much worse. It is not some natural occurance that it didn't. People like to discredit the president when its most expedient, then neglect to give him credit when it is deserved. That rubbish video essentially credited the reduced job loss to CHANCE.

Furthermore, we are not talking about jobs being gained early on under Obama... Job LOSSES just SLOWED down...

In order for job losses to slow down in the projected statistics, jobs must be gained. Do you hear yourself?

So, yes, job losses DO stop happening NATURALLY... And, the economy recovers strongly, naturally... Except, this time the recovery is unusually slow... My explanation is Obama's policies... I don't know what yours is, but I can guarantee it has less evidence than mine

If we want an accurate depiction of whether Obama's policies worked, the best is to figure out what his experts predicted the unemployment rate would be without the stimulus. Its a complete mismatch:

http://www.redstate.com...

So now that unemployment is not at the level he predicted, he is now claiming that it would have been worse, when his own experts stated it would have been better if there was no stimulus.
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
jimtimmy
Posts: 3,953
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/9/2011 5:45:35 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/9/2011 5:43:25 PM, darkkermit wrote:
At 10/9/2011 5:34:04 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 10/9/2011 5:29:02 PM, jimtimmy wrote:

Obama always says "We were losing 750,000 Jobs a Month when I took Office"... Did you really think that, had Obama not been president, we would still be losing 750,000 Jobs a month...

If you do, then you are very detached from reality my friend...

What? He was saying that the economy had room to get much worse. It is not some natural occurance that it didn't. People like to discredit the president when its most expedient, then neglect to give him credit when it is deserved. That rubbish video essentially credited the reduced job loss to CHANCE.

Furthermore, we are not talking about jobs being gained early on under Obama... Job LOSSES just SLOWED down...

In order for job losses to slow down in the projected statistics, jobs must be gained. Do you hear yourself?

So, yes, job losses DO stop happening NATURALLY... And, the economy recovers strongly, naturally... Except, this time the recovery is unusually slow... My explanation is Obama's policies... I don't know what yours is, but I can guarantee it has less evidence than mine

If we want an accurate depiction of whether Obama's policies worked, the best is to figure out what his experts predicted the unemployment rate would be without the stimulus. Its a complete mismatch:

http://www.redstate.com...

So now that unemployment is not at the level he predicted, he is now claiming that it would have been worse, when his own experts stated it would have been better if there was no stimulus.

Hmmm, there must be some explaination for this. It is almost as if the stimulus didn't help the economy at all... But.. that is impossible... It must be something else...

Aha... The Stimulus was far too small.... That was the problem
President of DDO
Double_R
Posts: 4,886
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/9/2011 5:46:23 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/9/2011 5:29:02 PM, jimtimmy wrote:
Obama always says "We were losing 750,000 Jobs a Month when I took Office"... Did you really think that, had Obama not been president, we would still be losing 750,000 Jobs a month...

I think that trend would have likely been reversed no matter who was elected, because I don't believe that anyone would have taken office and been dumb enough to do nothing while the country falls apart. But for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. Obama borrows money to fix the economy, then you guys blame him for putting us in debt. You guys even blame him for using the bail out funds which were passed during the Bush administration. You remember, the funds that John Boehner literally cried on the floor of congress demanding for everyone to "vote yes".

I do not think that Obama is the greatest thing on earth, I just think that conservatives are full of crap when they talk about how he is destroying the country. I have yet to hear a sensible argument. You say you have evidence. Can you enlighten me with one solid point?
Double_R
Posts: 4,886
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/9/2011 5:59:07 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/9/2011 5:43:25 PM, darkkermit wrote:
If we want an accurate depiction of whether Obama's policies worked, the best is to figure out what his experts predicted the unemployment rate would be without the stimulus. Its a complete mismatch:

http://www.redstate.com...

So now that unemployment is not at the level he predicted, he is now claiming that it would have been worse, when his own experts stated it would have been better if there was no stimulus.

Another complete rubbish response. You are justifying Obama's stimulus as a failure because the results did not match the predictions. Predictions do not always come true, especially when you have economists everywhere predicting something different. The fact that they were wrong has nothing to do with whether the stimulus did more harm then good.
jimtimmy
Posts: 3,953
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/9/2011 6:03:26 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/9/2011 5:46:23 PM, Double_R wrote:
At 10/9/2011 5:29:02 PM, jimtimmy wrote:
Obama always says "We were losing 750,000 Jobs a Month when I took Office"... Did you really think that, had Obama not been president, we would still be losing 750,000 Jobs a month...

I think that trend would have likely been reversed no matter who was elected, because I don't believe that anyone would have taken office and been dumb enough to do nothing while the country falls apart. But for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. Obama borrows money to fix the economy, then you guys blame him for putting us in debt. You guys even blame him for using the bail out funds which were passed during the Bush administration. You remember, the funds that John Boehner literally cried on the floor of congress demanding for everyone to "vote yes".

I do not think that Obama is the greatest thing on earth, I just think that conservatives are full of crap when they talk about how he is destroying the country. I have yet to hear a sensible argument. You say you have evidence. Can you enlighten me with one solid point?

That is assuming that Obama's borrowing helped the economy, which it didn't... Debt and government spenidng HURT the economy...

And, Obama himself predicted that Unemployment WITHOUT the stimulus would be lower than it actually has been...

If the anti Stimulus people were right, this is exactly how things would have happened... But, ignore that... Libertarians could never be right about anything
President of DDO
Double_R
Posts: 4,886
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/9/2011 6:12:36 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/9/2011 6:03:26 PM, jimtimmy wrote:
That is assuming that Obama's borrowing helped the economy, which it didn't... Debt and government spenidng HURT the economy...

Debt hurts the countries long term financial standing, it does not hurt the economy. Government spending helps the economy, unless you believe that government giving people money, and those people having money to spend elsewhere is bad for the economy. In that case I guess we are using a different definition.
jimtimmy
Posts: 3,953
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/9/2011 6:16:07 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/9/2011 6:12:36 PM, Double_R wrote:
At 10/9/2011 6:03:26 PM, jimtimmy wrote:
That is assuming that Obama's borrowing helped the economy, which it didn't... Debt and government spenidng HURT the economy...

Debt hurts the countries long term financial standing, it does not hurt the economy. Government spending helps the economy, unless you believe that government giving people money, and those people having money to spend elsewhere is bad for the economy. In that case I guess we are using a different definition.

Yes, I would recommend reading Reinhard and Rogoff on this... Debt DOES hurt economic growth

And, wow... I guess the government can pull resources out of a magical hat and give them to people to spend... Nope... Whatever the government spends is either printed, taxed, or borrowed out the private economy...

ONly difference is that the government is less efficient...
President of DDO
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/9/2011 6:17:29 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/9/2011 6:12:36 PM, Double_R wrote:
At 10/9/2011 6:03:26 PM, jimtimmy wrote:
That is assuming that Obama's borrowing helped the economy, which it didn't... Debt and government spenidng HURT the economy...

Debt hurts the countries long term financial standing, it does not hurt the economy. Government spending helps the economy, unless you believe that government giving people money, and those people having money to spend elsewhere is bad for the economy. In that case I guess we are using a different definition.

In that case, Greece's economy shouldn't have in troubles at all :p. Government debt is a future tax. Taxes lower the Purchasing power of citizens to buy private goods based on consumer demand.
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
jimtimmy
Posts: 3,953
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/9/2011 6:17:55 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/9/2011 6:14:32 PM, FREEDO wrote:
>Complaining about higher taxes and higher debt in same sentence.
>Me Gusta

Higher Debt=Higher Future Taxes

Higher Taxes are bad for the economy... As is EXPECTATION of higher future taxes... So, I can complain about both... Plus, it is entitelment spenidng, not low taxes, driving future deficits...
President of DDO
Double_R
Posts: 4,886
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/9/2011 6:39:16 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/9/2011 6:16:07 PM, jimtimmy wrote:
At 10/9/2011 6:12:36 PM, Double_R wrote:
At 10/9/2011 6:03:26 PM, jimtimmy wrote:
That is assuming that Obama's borrowing helped the economy, which it didn't... Debt and government spenidng HURT the economy...

Debt hurts the countries long term financial standing, it does not hurt the economy. Government spending helps the economy, unless you believe that government giving people money, and those people having money to spend elsewhere is bad for the economy. In that case I guess we are using a different definition.

Yes, I would recommend reading Reinhard and Rogoff on this... Debt DOES hurt economic growth

And, wow... I guess the government can pull resources out of a magical hat and give them to people to spend... Nope... Whatever the government spends is either printed, taxed, or borrowed out the private economy...

ONly difference is that the government is less efficient...

Yes debt hurts the countries economic growth. Growth is long term, which is exactly what I said. However it all depends on what the debt is used for. Falling into debt from low taxation provides no benefits for future generations. Falling into debt to fund education increases our ability to compete with the rest of the world. This is not bad for our economy.

Yes taking money out of the private sector hurts, but when the private sector is not spending money (like in a recession) then the only way to get money flowing is for the government to spend. No one else will. Once money starts moving around others will stop sitting on the sidelines and contribute. Now the government has the means to get the money that was borrowed back.

You say the government is inefficient. Please explain. This morning I flipped my light switch and the light turned on. I turned the knob in my shower and water came out. I got in the subway and ended up at my next stop. It is easy to claim that something is bad when you spend your entire life focusing on everything that is bad about it. Conservative talk radio is very good at this. Perhaps you should look around at what government has done for you.
jimtimmy
Posts: 3,953
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/9/2011 6:43:44 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/9/2011 6:39:16 PM, Double_R wrote:
At 10/9/2011 6:16:07 PM, jimtimmy wrote:
At 10/9/2011 6:12:36 PM, Double_R wrote:
At 10/9/2011 6:03:26 PM, jimtimmy wrote:
That is assuming that Obama's borrowing helped the economy, which it didn't... Debt and government spenidng HURT the economy...

Debt hurts the countries long term financial standing, it does not hurt the economy. Government spending helps the economy, unless you believe that government giving people money, and those people having money to spend elsewhere is bad for the economy. In that case I guess we are using a different definition.

Yes, I would recommend reading Reinhard and Rogoff on this... Debt DOES hurt economic growth

And, wow... I guess the government can pull resources out of a magical hat and give them to people to spend... Nope... Whatever the government spends is either printed, taxed, or borrowed out the private economy...

ONly difference is that the government is less efficient...

Yes debt hurts the countries economic growth. Growth is long term, which is exactly what I said. However it all depends on what the debt is used for. Falling into debt from low taxation provides no benefits for future generations. Falling into debt to fund education increases our ability to compete with the rest of the world. This is not bad for our economy.

Yes taking money out of the private sector hurts, but when the private sector is not spending money (like in a recession) then the only way to get money flowing is for the government to spend. No one else will. Once money starts moving around others will stop sitting on the sidelines and contribute. Now the government has the means to get the money that was borrowed back.

You say the government is inefficient. Please explain. This morning I flipped my light switch and the light turned on. I turned the knob in my shower and water came out. I got in the subway and ended up at my next stop. It is easy to claim that something is bad when you spend your entire life focusing on everything that is bad about it. Conservative talk radio is very good at this. Perhaps you should look around at what government has done for you.

Ya, because there wouldnt be water, lights, or transportation if the government didnt violently take my property and spend my money on it...
President of DDO
Double_R
Posts: 4,886
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/9/2011 6:48:03 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/9/2011 6:43:44 PM, jimtimmy wrote:
Ya, because there wouldnt be water, lights, or transportation if the government didnt violently take my property and spend my money on it...

Violently... Really? So much for finding an enlightening response.
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/9/2011 6:51:00 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/9/2011 6:39:16 PM, Double_R wrote:

You say the government is inefficient. Please explain. This morning I flipped my light switch and the light turned on. I turned the knob in my shower and water came out. I got in the subway and ended up at my next stop. It is easy to claim that something is bad when you spend your entire life focusing on everything that is bad about it. Conservative talk radio is very good at this. Perhaps you should look around at what government has done for you.

Roylatham showed some data that demonstrated that the government is 3 times less efficient then the private sector. Take for example once the telecommunication industry was privatized. Prices went down dramatically and quality improved. Go to the DMV, place sucks. Amtrack, a government entity, loses money.

The private sector has more incentives to be efficient. It wants to make a profit so it needs to maximize its output while minimizing input. The public sector doesn't have the incentive since they don't get rewarded for efficiency, public labor unions are very powerful and are more effective at making things more inefficient then private labor unions. The public sector can obtain their revenue via force, so they don't need to worry as much as satisfying the customer.
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
Double_R
Posts: 4,886
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/9/2011 7:48:14 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/9/2011 6:51:00 PM, darkkermit wrote:
Roylatham showed some data that demonstrated that the government is 3 times less efficient then the private sector. Take for example once the telecommunication industry was privatized. Prices went down dramatically and quality improved. Go to the DMV, place sucks. Amtrack, a government entity, loses money.

The private sector has more incentives to be efficient. It wants to make a profit so it needs to maximize its output while minimizing input. The public sector doesn't have the incentive since they don't get rewarded for efficiency, public labor unions are very powerful and are more effective at making things more inefficient then private labor unions. The public sector can obtain their revenue via force, so they don't need to worry as much as satisfying the customer.

It is true that the government does not have the same incentive of maximizing profit, but it also does not have the same motive. The role of the government is to provide for its citizens. Amtrak may be loosing money, but it wasn't funded only as a profit venture. It would never be profitable for a company to provide a solution to a city's traffic congestion problem, or to help the overall economy by providing people without a car the means to get to work and to go places to shop. You can't judge the efficiency of something like Amtrak only on whether it is profitable, because that is not its only purpose.

Just to be clear I am not saying that government is just as efficient, but that it is no where near as inefficient as conservative talk radio makes it sound.

I would still however be interested to see what numbers you are talking about. Post the link if you have it.
jimtimmy
Posts: 3,953
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/9/2011 8:13:53 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/9/2011 6:48:03 PM, Double_R wrote:
At 10/9/2011 6:43:44 PM, jimtimmy wrote:
Ya, because there wouldnt be water, lights, or transportation if the government didnt violently take my property and spend my money on it...

Violently... Really? So much for finding an enlightening response.

Well, what do you call it?

If I refuse to pay my taxes, I'll eventually get thrown at jail. And, at some point, if i resist enough, they will shoot me... That sounds violent to me...

And, you act like water and lights wouldnt exist without government... come on... dont be absurd...
President of DDO
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/9/2011 8:38:43 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/9/2011 7:48:14 PM, Double_R wrote:
At 10/9/2011 6:51:00 PM, darkkermit wrote:
Roylatham showed some data that demonstrated that the government is 3 times less efficient then the private sector. Take for example once the telecommunication industry was privatized. Prices went down dramatically and quality improved. Go to the DMV, place sucks. Amtrack, a government entity, loses money.

The private sector has more incentives to be efficient. It wants to make a profit so it needs to maximize its output while minimizing input. The public sector doesn't have the incentive since they don't get rewarded for efficiency, public labor unions are very powerful and are more effective at making things more inefficient then private labor unions. The public sector can obtain their revenue via force, so they don't need to worry as much as satisfying the customer.

It is true that the government does not have the same incentive of maximizing profit, but it also does not have the same motive. The role of the government is to provide for its citizens. Amtrak may be loosing money, but it wasn't funded only as a profit venture. It would never be profitable for a company to provide a solution to a city's traffic congestion problem, or to help the overall economy by providing people without a car the means to get to work and to go places to shop. You can't judge the efficiency of something like Amtrak only on whether it is profitable, because that is not its only purpose.

Just to be clear I am not saying that government is just as efficient, but that it is no where near as inefficient as conservative talk radio makes it sound.

I would still however be interested to see what numbers you are talking about. Post the link if you have it.

Contact roylatham about it. If a venture is unprofitable, it means that it isn't something that consumers demand. Profits are signals that consumers want to buy a product.
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
DanT
Posts: 5,693
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/9/2011 9:02:06 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
One thing that drives me crazy is when people focus on unemployment. We should be focusing on employment.

The Labor Force is Employed + Unemployed. When the Labor force increase faster than employment increases we have a increase in unemployment even if we have an increase in jobs.

Another thing that bugs me is that people look at when someone takes office, rather than the fiscal year. A fiscal year starts the 1st day of October and ends the last day of September, for example; the fiscal year of 2011 is October 2010 - September 2011.

A increase in Employment means job creation, a decrease in unemployment means jack.

Congress takes office in January but their bills don't start working until the next fiscal year (besides very rare occasions), because they are still on the last congress's budget.

Now let's look at job creation and unemployment by fiscal year.

Fiscal: 2002
Administration: Bush
Congress: 107th
Senate: Democrat/Republican
House: Republican
Job Creation: 456
Unemployment Increase: 0.7 points

Fiscal: 2003
Administration: Bush
Congress: 107th
Senate: Democrat/Republican
House: Republican
Job Creation: 307
Unemployment Increase: 0.4 points

Fiscal: 2004
Administration: Bush
Congress: 108th
Senate: Republican
House: Republican
Job Creation: 1,878
Unemployment Increase: (0.7) points

Fiscal: 2005
Administration: Bush
Congress: 108th
Senate: Republican
House: Republican
Job Creation: 2,914
Unemployment Increase: (0.4) points

Fiscal: 2006
Administration: Bush
Congress: 109th
Senate: Republican
House: Republican
Job Creation: 2,414
Unemployment Increase: (0.5) points

Fiscal: 2007
Administration: Bush
Congress: 109th
Senate: Republican
House: Republican
Job Creation: 1,416
Unemployment Increase: 0.2 points

Fiscal: 2008
Administration: Bush
Congress: 110th
Senate: Democrat
House: Democrat
Job Creation: (1,175)
Unemployment Increase: 1.5 points

Fiscal: 2009
Administration: Bush
Congress: 110th
Senate: Democrat
House: Democrat
Job Creation: (6,265)
Unemployment Increase: 3.6 points

Fiscal: 2010
Administration: Obama
Congress: 111th
Senate: Democrat
House: Democrat
Job Creation: 587
Unemployment Increase: (0.2) points

Fiscal: 2011
Administration: Obama
Congress: 111th
Senate: Democrat
House: Democrat
Job Creation: 647
Unemployment Increase: (0.5) points

Source: http://www.dlt.ri.gov...

If you notice the only time we lost jobs was under the 110th congress. The 110th congress was controlled by Democrats.

Also the stimulus does squat, because the stimulus packages started flying through congress during the 110th congress, and all it did was make matters worse. If anything the stimulus packages of the 111th congress made recover harder.
"Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons."~Lordknukle