ADVERTISEMENT

GOP con game? Or just dumb voting bloc?

Veer2Eternity

Well-Known Member
Apr 17, 2005
25,433
6,047
113
One of the best thing's about Paul Krugman is how he regularly
skewers Republican talking points. For instance, Republicans have been
running around with their hair on fire for years now, insisting that
Obamacare would destroy jobs and that raising taxes on the rich would
finish the job. But, as Krugman points out:
Well, in the first year of the Affordable Care Act's full implementation, the U.S. economy as a whole added 3.3 million jobs - those jobs were added in California, which has taken the lead in job creation away from Texas.

You'd think that after years of being wrong, and one full year
of being breathtakingly wrong, that Republicans would at least
begrudgingly admit that maybe Democrats have a point. After all,
California's Governor Jerry Brown raised taxes on the rich. The result?
After year's of massive budget deficits, California has a massive
surplus and the world's eighth largest economy has exploded. Meanwhile,
the dreaded Obamacare has dramatically slowed the growth of healthcare
premiums, insured millions of people that lacked even basic coverage and
even come in under budget. All of which is indisputably good for the
economy.

But, you'll be shocked to learn, Republicans don't care about these
facts. Partly, I'm sure you've guessed, in the GOP's unprecedented
hatred of Obama and the fact that he even exists. But most of it is the
mile high pile of bullcrap that Republicans must sell the country in order to justify their very existence:
At
a deeper level, modern conservative ideology utterly depends on the
proposition that conservatives, and only they, possess the secret key to
prosperity.
As a result, you often have politicians on the right making claims like this one, from Senator Rand Paul: "When is the last time in our country we created millions of jobs? It was under Ronald Reagan."

Actually, if creating
"millions of jobs" means adding two million or more jobs in a given
year, we've done that 13 times since Reagan left office: eight times
under Bill Clinton, twice under George W. Bush, and three times, so far,
under Barack Obama. But who's counting?

That's why, no matter
what is happening in the real world, Republicans will never EVER deviate
from their talking point that Democrats are "job killers." Here we are,
5 years into a record breaking job growth streak and they're STILL
saying that Obama is destroying the economy. They can read a chart just
as well as you or I so unless they've all sustained severe brain damage
(a possibility from spending all that time on Fox News), Republicans are
clearly lying through their teeth.

But the last part of the con game is the most obnoxious because it leads directly to the most suffering:
As a number of
observers have pointed out, however, for big businesses to admit that
government policies can create jobs would be to devalue one of their
favorite political arguments - the claim that to achieve prosperity
politicians must preserve business confidence, among other things, by
refraining from any criticism of what businesspeople do.

In other words, we must
never ever say anything mean about the greed, corruption and
sociopathic behavior of the rich or they'll take their toys and go home.
Under no circumstances must the government regulate the big
corporations! Sure, they poison our food, our water and our air. Yes,
they deliberately sell cars and toys that they know for a fact are
lethal. OK, so they've rigged the markets to steal billions from
ordinary Americans. But if we uphold the law and start throwing people
in jail for criminal behavior that destroys lives, they'll stop creating
jobs and America will be doomed!

Oh, and if we don't
give them billions in tax cuts, let them pay their workers less and
stroke their massive egos, the economy will immediately collapse and
we'll all die starving in the street.

Or so Republicans would
have us believe. The rich know better than us peasants so we should
just bend over and take it with a smile or things will somehow get
worse.

Of course, reality has a
liberal bias and the economy is growing despite every obstacle
Republicans have thrown in its path. Red states that pursued austerity
for the peasants while cutting taxes for the rich are collapsing and
blue states that did the opposite are booming. There MUST be a tipping
point where even the most hardcore right winger will notice that
California isn't falling into the ocean from all those high taxes on the
rich while conservative tax cutting utopias like Kansas, Texas and
Louisiana are seeing their economies meltdown.

Until then, Republicans
will keep running their con on Americans and hope no one notices that
they keep being wrong on everything.
 
California doesn't have a penny surplus. They are in debt almost 850 BILLION dollars

Pay off your debt then talk about a surplus

Illiterate fools
 
Funny in California they got rid of most of their deficit by slashing spending on education and social programs

You would have thought they were republicans :)
 
Originally posted by Stevedangos:
California doesn't have a penny surplus. They are in debt almost 850 BILLION dollars

Pay off your debt then talk about a surplus

Illiterate fools
What facts can you actually dispute in the article? Please back up your 'facts' with links to non-whackjob sites please.
 
They raised taxes as well. It was a balanced approach.

They still have a much larger government than most states.
 
Originally posted by millerbleach:
Originally posted by Veer2Eternity:

What facts can you actually dispute in the article?
Obamacare isn't fully implemented yet let alone for a year.
What about the good stuff?

I'll let Neutron school you on that.
 
Even Ted Cruz admits it has good stuff.
confused0024.r191677.gif
 
Originally posted by Veer2Eternity:

Originally posted by millerbleach:

Originally posted by Veer2Eternity:

What facts can you actually dispute in the article?
Obamacare isn't fully implemented yet let alone for a year.
What about the good stuff?

I'll let Neutron school you on that.
Are you saying it is fully implemented or changing the topic?
 
Originally posted by millerbleach:
Originally posted by Veer2Eternity:

Originally posted by millerbleach:

Originally posted by Veer2Eternity:

What facts can you actually dispute in the article?
Obamacare isn't fully implemented yet let alone for a year.
What about the good stuff?

I'll let Neutron school you on that.
Are you saying it is fully implemented or changing the topic?
No i'd prefer that you gain some reading comprehension and tell me how all that you and yours said would go wrong...didn't.

Of course it's not fully implemented. Big Insurance gotta get their cut first..and the party of NO is blocking anything they can...America be damned.

They'll give israel billions but won't take care of their own. Glad I don't support people that put other countries first.
 
Originally posted by Veer2Eternity:

Originally posted by millerbleach:

Originally posted by Veer2Eternity:


Originally posted by millerbleach:


Originally posted by Veer2Eternity:

What facts can you actually dispute in the article?
Obamacare isn't fully implemented yet let alone for a year.
What about the good stuff?

I'll let Neutron school you on that.
Are you saying it is fully implemented or changing the topic?
No i'd prefer that you gain some reading comprehension and tell me how all that you and yours said would go wrong...didn't.
Until it's implemented, HOW can it go wrong????

The employer mandate is the most damaging aspect of ACA. Why do you think Obama has delayed it?
Comprehension period wouldn't hurt you. Your post in the OP said it had been FULLY implemented for a year. It isn't fully implemented now! Then you ask what wasn't factual about the post and ignore that it wasn't!
 
Miller I learned a long time ago not to try to match wits with NM. you usually lose
 
Originally posted by vbsideout:

Miller I learned a long time ago not to try to match wits with NM. you usually lose
Certain people will believe what fits their world view and the facts be danged.

Thus the 'dumb voting bloc' wins.
 
Originally posted by Neutron Monster:
The mandate kicked in Jan 1, 2015 for companies with 100 or more employees.
Yes, for 3 months! That wouldn't show anything good or bad. You say it as though the die has been cast.
 
Originally posted by millerbleach:
Originally posted by Neutron Monster:
The mandate kicked in Jan 1, 2015 for companies with 100 or more employees.
Yes, for 3 months! That wouldn't show anything good or bad. You say it as though the die has been cast.
You'd think the employers would be cutting jobs..instead jobs are being added one on top of the other.

It's a bad time for the GOP

And you can't just admit you were wrong. Sure sign of a republiberalcan.
 
Not to mention the three months argument is idiotic for something which has been known in advance for nearly 5 years. Hiring and employment practices would have shifted prior to or at the time of the event, not after the event.

Digging into the data there has been no surge in part time employment like was predicted by some on the right. That's not to say the law has zero impact but it does say that the claims on the right were heavily overstated and disingenuous.
 
Originally posted by Veer2Eternity:

You'd think the employers would be cutting jobs..instead jobs are being added one on top of the other.
One is an increase and one on top of the other is 2. I can't dissagree with that but job growth is nothing to boast about right now. Just because it's better than the worst economic time since Jimmy does not make it good. Unless you can say what it would be without ACA and that it's better because of ACA your point is hollow. ACA has cost jobs and will cost more when the companies that are trying to keep their employees full time realize they can't.
 
Originally posted by millerbleach:
Originally posted by Veer2Eternity:

You'd think the employers would be cutting jobs..instead jobs are being added one on top of the other.
One is an increase and one on top of the other is 2. I can't dissagree with that but job growth is nothing to boast about right now. Just because it's better than the worst economic time since Jimmy does not make it good. Unless you can say what it would be without ACA and that it's better because of ACA your point is hollow. ACA has cost jobs and will cost more when the companies that are trying to keep their employees full time realize they can't.
Neutron is getting ready to skewer you.

Here's a hint: If you hear it on talk radio or see it on fauxnews...it's probably a lie.


Go read forbes boy.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/adamhartung/2014/09/05/obama-outperforms-reagan-on-jobs-growth-and-investing/



Make sure to get to the end...
Economically, President Obama’s administration has outperformed
President Reagan’s in all commonly watched categories. Simultaneously
the current administration has reduced the deficit, which skyrocketed
under Reagan. Additionally, Obama has reduced federal employment, which
grew under Reagan (especially when including military personnel,) and
truly delivered a “smaller government.” Additionally, the current
administration has kept inflation low, even during extreme international
upheaval, failure of foreign economies (Greece) and a dramatic slowdown in the European economy.

This post was edited on 4/4 7:30 AM by Veer2Eternity
 
I've been telling the folks on here that claim the job participation rate is a really big deal that a LOT of it is because baby boomers are retiring and for some goofy reason we are counted among those that have "left the workforce." Well DUH!!! We are RETIRED, what else is retirement if it's not leaving the workforce? !!!! Just maybe unemployment really is dropping. Before you jump on this I do know that a lot of the jobs created are not the high paying kind, BUT manufacturing IS picking up steam and good paying jobs are part to equation these days. Also much of the reason for hiring for good paying jobs is not growing faster is because a LOT of the jobs require a skill not enough people have to get the jobs, NOT because the work is not available. A LOT of people should going to tech schools and junior colleges to get the skills needed to be welder or machine operator, not a degree in some field filled with millions of others with the same degree. The jobs are out there but you have to be able to do the work.
 
Originally posted by 3Rfan:
I've been telling the folks on here that claim the job participation rate is a really big deal that a LOT of it is because baby boomers are retiring and for some goofy reason we are counted among those that have "left the workforce." Well DUH!!! We are RETIRED, what else is retirement if it's not leaving the workforce? !!!! Just maybe unemployment really is dropping. Before you jump on this I do know that a lot of the jobs created are not the high paying kind, BUT manufacturing IS picking up steam and good paying jobs are part to equation these days. Also much of the reason for hiring for good paying jobs is not growing faster is because a LOT of the jobs require a skill not enough people have to get the jobs, NOT because the work is not available. A LOT of people should going to tech schools and junior colleges to get the skills needed to be welder or machine operator, not a degree in some field filled with millions of others with the same degree. The jobs are out there but you have to be able to do the work.
But fox news or rush or hannity or michael weiner er savage or...yada yada...tells them the world is going to end so they just eat it up.

It's a losing cause. You can't fix stupid.
 
3R looking at the labor force participation rate of 25-54 year olds is more telling than looking at the total population, yes. More of us are retired now.
 
So why are retired people ever counted among those that have left the workforce because they couldn't find a job? They not unemployed and gave looking for a job they retired from a job!
 
I have never said the unemployment rate isn't lower. My point is that there aren't more total jobs. The economy isn't producing jobs as much as we need less jobs now (have less workers). We need less to fill the workforce needs but need more to meet revenue needs. Another point when saying people are retiring....many are retiring because they have reached that point in life but we have an abnormal amout of people retiring prematurely because they can't get a job. They are too old to retrain and the demand for workers is too low. If the economy were more dynamic, we would be re-training those older but established workers to fill the needs created by that dynamic economy. 2% annual growth won't do it.
 
Mass retraining of older workers has never happened in the history of America.
 
If they are able to retire early the economy must have been pretty good for them the last few years.
 
Originally posted by millerbleach:

I have never said the unemployment rate isn't lower. My point is that there aren't more total jobs. The economy isn't producing jobs as much as we need less jobs now (have less workers). We need less to fill the workforce needs but need more to meet revenue needs. Another point when saying people are retiring....many are retiring because they have reached that point in life but we have an abnormal amout of people retiring prematurely because they can't get a job. They are too old to retrain and the demand for workers is too low. If the economy were more dynamic, we would be re-training those older but established workers to fill the needs created by that dynamic economy. 2% annual growth won't do it.
 
Miller I'm pretty sure you have been one of those saying that unemployment is not really falling, just more people have stopped looking for a job. Most folks that retire don't want another real job. They may piddle around doing something but it's on their own terms and not working for a company 8 to 4 or on any kind of regular schedule and they're not drawing unemployment. Some teachers and administrators retire and take job in a school system in another state but they are NOT on counted as dropped out of the workforce.
 
Originally posted by Neutron Monster:
the right heavily overstates the impact of taxes on the economy.
Well, I can tell you that as a small business owner and taking it in the shorts this year on taxes, there will not be much spent on equipment or raises. Both of which take money out of the economy.
 
Originally posted by 3Rfan:
If they are able to retire early the economy must have been pretty good for them the last few years.
People are retiring in many cases because they can get access to their retirement funds as a means of living since they can't get a job. It's not that they don't need a job but that they can't get one FORCING them to retire.
 
Originally posted by 3Rfan:
Miller I'm pretty sure you have been one of those saying that unemployment is not really falling, just more people have stopped looking for a job. Most folks that retire don't want another real job. They may piddle around doing something but it's on their own terms and not working for a company 8 to 4 or on any kind of regular schedule and they're not drawing unemployment. Some teachers and administrators retire and take job in a school system in another state but they are NOT on counted as dropped out of the workforce.
I've said the stated unemployment number is misleading but not that it wasn't falling.
See previous post regarding early "retirement". People are doing what they have to so they can survive.
 
Originally posted by millerbleach:
Originally posted by 3Rfan:
If they are able to retire early the economy must have been pretty good for them the last few years.
People are retiring in many cases because they can get access to their retirement funds as a means of living since they can't get a job. It's not that they don't need a job but that they can't get one FORCING them to retire.
Who?
 
So you don't think it's falling as much as the stats say it is because of all the people that have dropped out of the work force. A number that is pumped up by counting people like me among those that have "left the work force."
 
Originally posted by millerbleach:
Originally posted by 3Rfan:
Miller I'm pretty sure you have been one of those saying that unemployment is not really falling, just more people have stopped looking for a job. Most folks that retire don't want another real job. They may piddle around doing something but it's on their own terms and not working for a company 8 to 4 or on any kind of regular schedule and they're not drawing unemployment. Some teachers and administrators retire and take job in a school system in another state but they are NOT on counted as dropped out of the workforce.
I've said the stated unemployment number is misleading but not that it wasn't falling.
See previous post regarding early "retirement". People are doing what they have to so they can survive.
Your point is stupid relative to 3Rs.

The fact is, as a % of the total American population, the % over age 65 increases annually by something like 0.2%. This causes the % of the total population which is working to decline by about 0.2% a year. It's not about people being unable to find jobs; it's about the fact that old people don't work past a certain point in a country that offers guaranteed pensions and health care to its senior citizens.

Yes, some people are retired not by choice, but that just means they retire a little early. It doesn't change the fact that we expect the labor force to shrink as a share of the population.
 
And that doesn't take into account all the school teachers and state and federal employees that can retire after 30 years regardless of age, or RR workers that can retire at age 60 with 30 years of service. Many of those folks have a spouse still working to provide health insurance and enough income that they don't HAVE to work anywhere else if they don't want to. I couldn't begin to guess how much that adds to the number that have "left the workforce." They're like Elvis, they have left the building and they ain't comin back!
 
Originally posted by Veer2Eternity:

Originally posted by millerbleach:

Originally posted by 3Rfan:
If they are able to retire early the economy must have been pretty good for them the last few years.
People are retiring in many cases because they can get access to their retirement funds as a means of living since they can't get a job. It's not that they don't need a job but that they can't get one FORCING them to retire.
Who?
Seriously? Who???? Do you want a list of names???
 
ADVERTISEMENT

Latest posts

ADVERTISEMENT