Championship Subdivision Football | FCS Football | Stadiums | Blogs | Forums

AZGrizFan wrote:Meh. Every (and I mean EVERY) recovery after a recession has resulted in fewer and fewer jobs being recovered as businesses learn to do more with less and become more efficient. And the "new norm" for annualized GDP is about 2%, not the nice 3.5%-4% we used to see back in the U.S.'s glory days....it, too has been coming down steadily for about 30 years.

This ain't an "Obama" issue as much as it's a "big government strangling the economy" issue. It was going on long before Obama took office.

travelinman67 wrote:http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2015/04 ... -expected/

Contrasting Reagan's successful recovery job growth with Obama's failed policies.

Chizzang wrote: when googled leads to some really cool articles

Baldy wrote:

travelinman67 wrote:http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2015/04 ... -expected/

Contrasting Reagan's successful recovery job growth with Obama's failed policies.

Can't wait till kalm sees this...

According to Good Jobs First, there are 514 economic development programs in the 50 states and the District of Columbia. More than 245,000 awards have been granted under those programs. I ask again, where is the outrage? The system is antithetical to the idea of free markets. A quarter of a million times, state governments decided what is best for producers and consumers. That should make us cringe. First, the government is inefficient at providing public goods, and it is terrible at manipulating the markets for private goods. But more importantly, those 514 economic development programs are almost all the result of insidious cronyism. Narrow business interests manipulate government policymakers, and those interests prosper to the detriment of everyone else. Free markets be damned.

And while I’m looking for outrage, where are the liberals? The 965 companies in the report received over $110 billion of public money. Berkshire Hathaway, a company with $485 billion in assets and $20 billion in profits, received over $1 billion of that money. Its chair, Warren Buffett, is worth about $58 billion. Buffett, by the way, is still a darling of the left. He has some nerve to call for higher taxes. The billion dollars his companies took would pay for a lot of teachers, healthcare, and other public goods.

AZGrizFan wrote:Meh. Every (and I mean EVERY) recovery after a recession has resulted in fewer and fewer jobs being recovered as businesses learn to do more with less and become more efficient. And the "new norm" for annualized GDP is about 2%, not the nice 3.5%-4% we used to see back in the U.S.'s glory days....it, too has been coming down steadily for about 30 years.

This ain't an "Obama" issue as much as it's a "big government strangling the economy" issue. It was going on long before Obama took office.

AZGrizFan wrote:Meh. Every (and I mean EVERY) recovery after a recession has resulted in fewer and fewer jobs being recovered as businesses learn to do more with less and become more efficient. And the "new norm" for annualized GDP is about 2%, not the nice 3.5%-4% we used to see back in the U.S.'s glory days....it, too has been coming down steadily for about 30 years.

This ain't an "Obama" issue as much as it's a "big government strangling the economy" issue. It was going on long before Obama took office.

kalm wrote:

Baldy wrote: Can't wait till kalm sees this...

Yeah…Obama is Reagan lite. Capital gains and high end taxes historically low, financial markets under-regulated, massive investments in defense, etc.

Just different types of socialists.

http://truth-out.org/archive/component/ ... -socialist" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

The one big difference I see is that Volcker restricted the money supply and now we have QE. It would seem Volcker's method would be better for the long run.

Oh, and speaking of government control of markets:

According to Good Jobs First, there are 514 economic development programs in the 50 states and the District of Columbia. More than 245,000 awards have been granted under those programs. I ask again, where is the outrage? The system is antithetical to the idea of free markets. A quarter of a million times, state governments decided what is best for producers and consumers. That should make us cringe. First, the government is inefficient at providing public goods, and it is terrible at manipulating the markets for private goods. But more importantly, those 514 economic development programs are almost all the result of insidious cronyism. Narrow business interests manipulate government policymakers, and those interests prosper to the detriment of everyone else. Free markets be damned.

And while I’m looking for outrage, where are the liberals? The 965 companies in the report received over $110 billion of public money. Berkshire Hathaway, a company with $485 billion in assets and $20 billion in profits, received over $1 billion of that money. Its chair, Warren Buffett, is worth about $58 billion. Buffett, by the way, is still a darling of the left. He has some nerve to call for higher taxes. The billion dollars his companies took would pay for a lot of teachers, healthcare, and other public goods.

Scott Walker and Ron Reagan's version of socialism is more freer I suppose.

JohnStOnge wrote:I've got to say that in looking at how GDP has changed over a fairly long term I don't see a clear trend towards a consistent slowing rate of increase over time. See graph below. The black line is GDP 1960 - 2012. You can see the sharp disturbance in 2008 but otherwise it doesn't look like the most recent 30 years (which would be back through 1985 with 2013 and 2014 not being shown) were characterized by a generally slower growth rate than the 25 years prior to that back to 1960. To zoom in on the chart so you can see the years better go to http://www.theautomaticearth.com/2013/0 ... uy-growth/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;, scroll down to the chart, and click on the chart to get an enlarged version. 1985 is where the "k" in "Bank" is under the x axis. Again: Focus on the black line as that is the line showing the GDP trend.

CID1990 wrote:

kalm wrote:
Yeah…Obama is Reagan lite. Capital gains and high end taxes historically low, financial markets under-regulated, massive investments in defense, etc.

Just different types of socialists.

http://truth-out.org/archive/component/ ... -socialist" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

The one big difference I see is that Volcker restricted the money supply and now we have QE. It would seem Volcker's method would be better for the long run.

Oh, and speaking of government control of markets:



Scott Walker and Ron Reagan's version of socialism is more freer I suppose.

Your (and many other lefties') fear of Scott Walker is duly noted.

Pwns wrote:I agree with Z, but let's keep that point in mind when we are tempted to say that Obama "cleaned up a Republican mess".

kalm wrote:

CID1990 wrote:

Your (and many other lefties') fear of Scott Walker is duly noted.

As is your Walker fanboism.

I can't wait for a Walker-Clinton election. The differentiation would be epic!

Baldy wrote:

kalm wrote:
As is your Walker fanboism.

I can't wait for a Walker-Clinton election. The differentiation would be epic!

My God yes...Obama, Walker, Clinton, Reagan...all mirror images of each other.

Chizzang wrote:

Baldy wrote: My God yes...Obama, Walker, Clinton, Reagan...all mirror images of each other.

Other than the talk that gets them votes - which is radically different language
They all end up behaving in office with about 6 degrees of separation

The appointments (God help us all) the sh!tty Sh!tty appointments
I'm scarred for life after some of the appointments this past 6 years

kalm wrote:

Chizzang wrote:
Other than the talk that gets them votes - which is radically different language
They all end up behaving in office with about 6 degrees of separation

The appointments (God help us all) the sh!tty Sh!tty appointments
I'm scarred for life after some of the appointments this past 6 years

Agreed. But let the partisans know this. They get really upset!

Chizzang wrote:

Baldy wrote: My God yes...Obama, Walker, Clinton, Reagan...all mirror images of each other.

Other than the talk that gets them votes - which is radically different language
They all end up behaving in office with about 6 degrees of separation

The appointments (God help us all) the sh!tty Sh!tty appointments
I'm scarred for life after some of the appointments this past 6 years

Baldy wrote:

Chizzang wrote:
Other than the talk that gets them votes - which is radically different language
They all end up behaving in office with about 6 degrees of separation

The appointments (God help us all) the sh!tty Sh!tty appointments
I'm scarred for life after some of the appointments this past 6 years

That is true to a certain extent, Cleetus, but we're discussing core principles and philosophies here, not what happens when X becomes president.

Baldy wrote:

Chizzang wrote:
Other than the talk that gets them votes - which is radically different language
They all end up behaving in office with about 6 degrees of separation

The appointments (God help us all) the sh!tty Sh!tty appointments
I'm scarred for life after some of the appointments this past 6 years

That is true to a certain extent, Cleetus, but we're discussing core principles and philosophies here, not what happens when X becomes president.

kalm wrote:Another interesting part of this story is the federal jobs rise under Reagan while the government has shed 600,000 under Obama.

http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/20 ... and-temps/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

kalm wrote:Another interesting part of this story is the federal jobs rise under Reagan while the government has shed 600,000 under Obama.

http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/20 ... and-temps/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;