Allen West: US Must 'Absolutely' Support Israel in Iran Attack

[phkrause]

http://www.newsmax.com/Headline/west-ira...omo_code=D7D1-1

[phkrause]

So from this I gather the Republican party really isn't interested in not spending, its what they really want spending to be used for that the problem is???????

[olger]

Conservatives are earnest that our current spending sprees (Obama) have the potential to bankrupt America and impoverish our children.

[phkrause]

Conservatives are earnest that our current spending sprees (Obama) have the potential to bankrupt America and impoverish our children.

I disagree with that. I do agree we spent to much. But the spending on the 2 wars is what's brought us to this result or place that we are at right now. And that comes from both Republicans and Democrats in an interview on some radio program. As a matter of fact I posted that interview some time ago. I don't remember the name of the post. Oh well that's life, loss of memory. :)

[lazarus]

Republicans love to spend too! They just like to spend it on destroying other countries to secure American Interests, particular access the oil.

The American people are being duped. The GOP don't care about spending, they care about power. How do I know this? When Bush was in power they voted time and time again to increase spending. and there wasn't a peep out of them. Pathetic really.

[lazarus]

On the other hand war is probably the best way to get the economies of the world to recover.

[olger]

I agree that GWB was part of the problem. I also recognize, as a mathematician, that Obama floored the accelerator, shifted into overdrive and turned towards the cliff. His policies made the debt much worse!!!!!! Come on guys, you are smarter than to exonerate "President Downgrade."

[lazarus]

The calculation was to spend in order to avert an economic collapse. What effect would have a dramatic cut in spending had on the economy in 2009?

[Dr. Shane]

The calculation was to spend in order to avert an economic collapse.

That was the same calculation after 9/11/01. The chart pasted in this thread is very good. We see revenues peaking in 2000 and then dropping because that tech-bubble popped. The first quarter of 2001 was actually the first of the tech-bubble recession. The Bush tax cuts were passed along with a stimulus bill that included tax rebates to all tax payers. The fact is that Bush waged two wars while trying to get the economy to recover from the tech-bubble recession and the damage done to the markets by 9/11. When that is taken into consideration, he really didn't do that bad and we have no reason to believe that a Democrat would have done better.

In Obama's case, no one knew what to do. Not only did the housing-bubble pop but the house of cards built by a corrupt marriage between Wall Street and Washington came tumbling down. Obama tried his theory. It has failed. What he wants to do now is more of the same. Since it failed the first time, I think common sense tells us to elect someone else with some different ideas.

[lazarus]

Collapse was averted right?

[Dr. Shane]

I think that is a hypothetical. We really don't know what would have happened if things were done differently. However everyone was in agreement with TARP and most people of both parties were in agreement with the auto bail-out. Where Obama has really fallen on his face is with the stimulus and Obama-care. Both of those have not helped the economy as they were expected to. And with the stimulus, we are slowly finding out that a lot of it was squandered which is sure to be in a lot of general-election TV ads.

[lazarus]

Everyone was not in agreement with tarp. It took several votes to get it through. Check the votes.

Again the with Auto-bailout there was considerable opposition. I'm surprised you don't remember that.

The CBO said the stimulus created 1.5 jobs. Only a few provisions of the health care bill have been enacted so of course the impact on the deficit etc. is limited.

[Dr. Shane]

TARP passed in the Senate 74-25 and in the House 263-171. What I meant by "everyone" was leadership. The leadership of both parties, including both Presidential candidates supported it.

Quote:

The CBO said the stimulus created 1.5 jobs.

And how much did the population grow during the same time period?

[lazarus]

TARP passed in the Senate 74-25 and in the House 263-171. What I meant by "everyone" was leadership.

That's a new a interesting definition of everyone.

Quote:

And how much did the population grow during the same time period?

According to the CBO:

As of June, between 1 million and 2.9 million Americans owed their jobs to the recovery act.

In the second quarter of 2011 the recovery act added or preserved 550,000 full-time jobs.

The recovery act brought down the unemployment rate by between 0.5 and 1.6 percentage points in the second quarter of 2011.

My guess is that their economic models make adjustments for shifts in the workforce. I'm sure a birth/death model is part of it.

To me TARP was the most problematic part of the measures used to fight the economic crisis.

[Dr. Shane]

That's a new a interesting definition of everyone.

[Dr. Shane]

To me TARP was the most problematic part of the measures used to fight the economic crisis.

Of course all political leadership "everyone" supported TARP. Obama himself was involved with the negotiations which created TARP and as a senator he voted for it. The Bush Administration only spent half of the TARP funds. The Obama Administration spent the other half. Even today economic annalists in both parties still say that TARP was the right thing to do.

[lazarus]

The unemployment rate was 8.1% when the Recovery Act was passed. It went up to 10% afterward and has never been back to 8% since. The reason why is that regardless how many jobs the act may have created, it wasn't enough to keep up with the growing population.

That may be part of the issue but people were still being laid off at over 400,000/month. It it were not for the recovery act unemployment would be worse.

Quote:

We know that millions of jobs are waiting in the energy sector to be created and Obama has done more harm than good. Oil companies are anxious to drill for oil in new areas and thus create millions of jobs. Investors are anxious to build refineries to make gasoline from coal and create millions of jobs. Energy companies are anxious to build nuclear power plants and create millions of jobs. The energy sector is waiting to jump start the economy but Obama stands in the way.

The CBO just released a report that shows that Obama's jobs would would creat more jobs that GOP proposals.

[lazarus]

Of course all political leadership "everyone" supported TARP. Obama himself was involved with the negotiations which created TARP and as a senator he voted for it. The Bush Administration only spent half of the TARP funds. The Obama Administration spent the other half. Even today economic annalists in both parties still say that TARP was the right thing to do.

The problem with TARP is that it has made the problem worse in some respects. Some of those who were too big to fail are even bigger. Some banks have more toxic assets! The Fed absorbed a significant portion but that has led to greater public debt. Some economists suggest that the toxic debt problem is worse than in 2008.

[Dr. Shane]

It it were not for the recovery act unemployment would be worse.

[lazarus]

That is something we will never know.

? Job creation is measurable.

Originally Posted By: lazarus

The CBO just released a report that shows that Obama's jobs would would create more jobs that GOP proposals.

Quote:

Speculation. Opening the energy sector will certainly create more jobs than any amount of government spending.

So if a CBO report is speculation then your assertions about energy jobs is wishful thinking.