• Changing RCF's index page, please click on "Forums" to access the forums.

2012 Presidential Election

Do Not Sell My Personal Information

Who Will Win the 2012 Presidential Election?

  • Barack Obama

    Votes: 70 60.9%
  • Mitt Romney

    Votes: 42 36.5%
  • Electoral College Tie

    Votes: 3 2.6%

  • Total voters
    115
  • Poll closed .
Re: Gov. Rick Perry: The Candidate Obama Would Fear the Most

That certainly clarified things. I feel better now.
 
Re: Gov. Rick Perry: The Candidate Obama Would Fear the Most

BTW: if spending more of the people's money hasn't worked since Obama took office in 2009 when he spent 1 trillion that was claimed to never allow the unemployment rate to go above 8%, what makes people believe more spending of the people's money is going to help now?

Because the money spent wasn't big enough to fill the hole left in the economy. This is basic economics. When the economy retracts in a recession more money needs to get dumped into the economy. Cutting spending during a recession only makes things worse. Econ 101. It's insane to think that government spending actually reduces job creation.
 
Re: Gov. Rick Perry: The Candidate Obama Would Fear the Most

Because the money spent wasn't big enough to fill the hole left in the economy. This is basic economics. When the economy retracts in a recession more money needs to get dumped into the economy. Cutting spending during a recession only makes things worse. Econ 101. It's insane to think that government spending actually reduces job creation.

Everything you just wrote was batshit crazy. Government spending does NOT reduce unemployment or improve the economy in any conceivable way. Look at the economic clusterfucks in Europe right now, and the common thread among all those countries is that government spending is out of control. Government spending under the New Deal did not get us out of the Great Depression, and government spending under Obama has not gotten us out of this recession.

The fact is, government is incredibly inefficient at spending money. Case in point, it took $278,000 for every job 'saved or created' under the so-called stimulus. That's an extremely large number considering there were no 'shovel-ready' projects anyway, and that unemployment still got way above 8%.
 
Re: Gov. Rick Perry: The Candidate Obama Would Fear the Most

Because the money spent wasn't big enough to fill the hole left in the economy. This is basic economics. When the economy retracts in a recession more money needs to get dumped into the economy. Cutting spending during a recession only makes things worse. Econ 101. It's insane to think that government spending actually reduces job creation.

That isn't any kind of basic econ I know or learned. It's the exact opposite of what I was taught. It's also the exact opposite of what has happened since Obama took office. He has grown the debt by about 5 TRILLION bucks since he took office. He has spent and spent and wants to spend more. It's not helping. It won't help either.

Growing the economy means money is being spent by the people. Not by government. Government cannot create jobs. Gov can only create the right environment for business and real people to create jobs. Throwing money at infrastructure only means more money wasted. Those are temporary jobs created or no jobs at all.

You've got things backwards.

We will have to agree to disagree because I guarantee you we will never find agreement on the basic stuff about the economy.
 
Re: Gov. Rick Perry: The Candidate Obama Would Fear the Most

Growing the economy means money is being spent by the people. Not by government.

Right, because when the government hires more teachers --- or fires more teachers -- that's not real money and real jobs in the balance.

This is from the Reuters economics reporter:

Opinions of the budget deficit and the national debt differ — some people think they’re a huge and important issue which needs to be dealt with in an urgent and serious way, while others think that the whole issue is overblown and that the debt is doing little if any harm at all to the US economy. But whichever side you stand on that debate, it’s downright bonkers to think that, at the margin, government spending reduces job creation, while pushing for ever-larger spending cuts is the way to be “focused on jobs”.

“Spend less money, create more jobs” is the kind of world one normally finds only in Woody Allen movies, and it’s a profoundly unserious stance for any politician to take. Spending cuts, whether they’re implemented by the public sector or the private sector, are never going to create jobs. And there’s simply no magical ju-jitsu whereby government spending cuts get reversed and amplified, becoming larger private-sector spending increases.

It's depressing we can't agree on the basic fact that the government dumping money into the economy during a recession helps.
 
Last edited:
Re: Gov. Rick Perry: The Candidate Obama Would Fear the Most

Government spending under the New Deal did not get us out of the Great Depression, and government spending under Obama has not gotten us out of this recession.

I was a U.S. history major in college. This is some awesome revisionist thinking. Spending from WWII pulled us out of the Depression. That spending was initiated by the government. This is basic stuff.
 
Re: Gov. Rick Perry: The Candidate Obama Would Fear the Most

I was a U.S. history major in college. This is some awesome revisionist thinking. Spending from WWII pulled us out of the Depression. That spending was initiated by the government. This is basic stuff.

The war pulled us out, not the New Deal. The WAR required massive defense spending, but it was not stimulus, shovel-ready bullshit like FDR tried earlier and BHO is trying now. Oh, and I'm so impressed that you majored in US History in college. I'm sure you weren't indoctrinated at all by your liberal professors and their penchant for Howard Zinn blame America first-ism.
 
Re: Gov. Rick Perry: The Candidate Obama Would Fear the Most

Right, because when the government hires more teachers --- or fires more teachers -- that's not real money and real jobs in the balance.

This is from the Reuters economics reporter:



It's depressing we can't agree on the basic fact that the government dumping money into the economy during a recession helps.

No, it doesn't help. Of course spending money doesn't lose jobs. It does NOT create jobs or help the economy either. Geez. LOL It does mean more money is wasted of YOUR money though. We all should know by now the track record of government's spending of your money. More gov spending cannot and will not and does not create jobs. Period. PEOPLE create jobs. Business creates jobs. More government spending also means more government regulation. How can more regulation help business create more jobs? You've got to be on some serious drugs if you think tacking on more regulation onto business is going to spur them to hire more workers. What kind of college education do kids get these days?

[
http://townhall.com/tipsheet/keving...bs_report_18k_new_jobs,_unemployment_up_to_92

Part of the article:

"This dismal report may shine a light on debt negotiations. It puts an even finer point on Democrats claiming that we need higher taxes, both on corporations and individuals. Even by conventional Keynesian economics, that's a terrible idea. Keynes himself would push for tax cuts during a recession. But Democrats can't even keep their liberal economics consistent - they don't care about economics, they care about class warfare and soak-the-rich policies, no matter how the economy is going.

Guy's earlier report on Democrats pushing for more stimulus in light of a continually-sluggish economy is looking more and more prescient."
 
Re: Gov. Rick Perry: The Candidate Obama Would Fear the Most

Anyone who thinks the government can spend his money better than he can has an awfully low opinion of himself.
 
Re: Gov. Rick Perry: The Candidate Obama Would Fear the Most

Anyone who thinks the government can spend his money better than he can has an awfully low opinion of himself.

Nice scarecrow. Nobody is saying that. If the private sector isn't spending money then the government needs to step in. That's not remotely close to what you just typed.
 
Re: Gov. Rick Perry: The Candidate Obama Would Fear the Most

The war pulled us out, not the New Deal. The WAR required massive defense spending, but it was not stimulus, shovel-ready bullshit like FDR tried earlier and BHO is trying now. Oh, and I'm so impressed that you majored in US History in college. I'm sure you weren't indoctrinated at all by your liberal professors and their penchant for Howard Zinn blame America first-ism.

Hilarious. I say I studied this stuff before it was a political issue and you channel Rush Limbaugh.

Btw, Zinn's book is interesting because it tells American's history through the perspective of the lower-middle class. Most text books have a more top-down view. There's nothing anti-American about that, it's just more information to digest when considering the country's history.
 
Re: Gov. Rick Perry: The Candidate Obama Would Fear the Most

Nice scarecrow. Nobody is saying that. If the private sector isn't spending money then the government needs to step in. That's not remotely close to what you just typed.

The private sector isn't spending money because there's too much uncertainty around the current state of the economy. There's too much uncertainty around the current state of the economy because the government has spent us into oblivion and our debts are coming home to roost. Gas is expensive, transport is expensive, food is expensive, the job creators are over-taxed, as are corporations. All of these reasons are the government's fault. That's it.

I know you live in the swamp, so you're employed by the government in one manner or another, but the rest of the country doesn't, nor should, depend on the government for its entire economy.

Also, a quick question, do you pay more than your tax bill every year, or do you just pay what you owe?

Edit: Scarecrow? I think you meant Straw Man. There's a subtle difference, but one is a Jungian Archetype/Batman villain, and the other is a false argument. There's also the possibility that you were thinking Wicker Man, but that's another story altogether.
 
Re: Gov. Rick Perry: The Candidate Obama Would Fear the Most

After reading this entire thread, I'm still left wondering why Rick Perry would be a good president. Other than Obama, apparently, would be afraid to debate him. Because, you know, debating skills are what makes a good president.
 
Re: Gov. Rick Perry: The Candidate Obama Would Fear the Most

Obama’s Economists: ‘Stimulus’ Has Cost $278,000 per Job


The stimulus is now causing the economy to shed jobs.

12:07 PM, Jul 3, 2011 • By JEFFREY H. ANDERSON


When the Obama administration releases a report on the Friday before a long weekend, it’s clearly not trying to draw attention to the report’s contents. Sure enough, the “Seventh Quarterly Report” on the economic impact of the “stimulus,” released on Friday, July 1, provides further evidence that President Obama’s economic “stimulus” did very little, if anything, to stimulate the economy, and a whole lot to stimulate the debt.

The report was written by the White House’s Council of Economic Advisors, a group of three economists who were all handpicked by Obama, and it chronicles the alleged success of the “stimulus” in adding or saving jobs. The council reports that, using “mainstream estimates of economic multipliers for the effects of fiscal stimulus” (which it describes as a “natural way to estimate the effects of” the legislation), the “stimulus” has added or saved just under 2.4 million jobs — whether private or public — at a cost (to date) of $666 billion. That’s a cost to taxpayers of $278,000 per job.

In other words, the government could simply have cut a $100,000 check to everyone whose employment was allegedly made possible by the “stimulus,” and taxpayers would have come out $427 billion ahead.

Furthermore, the council reports that, as of two quarters ago, the “stimulus” had added or saved just under 2.7 million jobs — or 288,000 more than it has now. In other words, over the past six months, the economy would have added or saved more jobs without the “stimulus” than it has with it. In comparison to how things would otherwise have been, the “stimulus” has been working in reverse over the past six months, causing the economy to shed jobs.

Again, this is the verdict of Obama’s own Council of Economic Advisors, which is about as much of a home-field ruling as anyone could ever ask for. In truth, it’s quite possible that by borrowing an amount greater than the regular defense budget or the annual cost of Medicare, and then spending it mostly on Democratic constituencies rather than in a manner genuinely designed to stimulate the economy, Obama’s “stimulus” has actually undermined the economy’s recovery — while leaving us (thus far) $666 billion deeper in debt.

The actual employment numbers from the administration’s own Bureau of Labor Statistics show that the unemployment rate was 7.3 percent when the “stimulus” was being debated. It has since risen to 9.1 percent. Meanwhile, the national debt at the end of 2008, when Obama was poised to take office, was $9.986 trillion (see Table S-9). It’s now $14.467 trillion — and counting.

All sides agree on these incriminating numbers — and now they also appear to agree on this important point: The economy would now be generating job growth at a faster rate if the Democrats hadn’t passed the “stimulus.”
 

Rubber Rim Job Podcast Video

Episode 3-12: "Max Strus Juice"

Rubber Rim Job Podcast Spotify

Episode 3:11: "Clipping Bucks."
Top