I'm far from a policy expert so I cannot answer your last question completely. However, it would seem fair for me to reverse it and say what policies have been enacted to cause the job losses? Can we actually attribute a policy to either side?

You gave him credit for the 4M jobs. I assumed there was something he did specifically that made you give him credit for it. My guess is you could find a policy to blame for the losses but that would have to be dependent on what you blame for the collapse.

Demand is created by cash in the pockets of people working and buying things.

 

And where does that money come from?

Not to prospertity but out of depressions and recessions. If you're not familiar with Keynesian economic theory it calls for a generally free market system that requires government intervention in bad times to keep demand up and thus prop up the economy until it recovers.

 

Keynesianism requires a central bank. Controlling the money supply is in no way "free market."

You gave him credit for the 4M jobs. I assumed there was something he did specifically that made you give him credit for it. My guess is you could find a policy to blame for the losses but that would have to be dependent on what you blame for the collapse.

 

I did give credit because that's how we measure POTUS today. We don't really look into anything. It's just black and white. Heck, maybe some policies enacted by Pres Bush helped create jobs during Mr Obama's tenure.

 

As I said, I'm not versed well enough on individual policy to know for sure what impact they had. I don't believe a policy lives in a vacuum one way or the other.

And where does that money come from?

 

Expiration of the Bush tax cuts, I'd end the war in Afghanistan immediately and cut the defense budget to a reasonable level.

Keynesianism requires a central bank. Controlling the money supply is in no way "free market."

 

Isn't it time for the Ron Paul crowd to give up on the audit the fed and get back on the gold standard routine?

Expiration of the Bush tax cuts, I'd end the war in Afghanistan immediately and cut the defense budget to a reasonable level.

 

That's an eloquent euphuism. Government can only give away money to some by taking it from others. It comes from taxation.

Isn't it time for the Ron Paul crowd to give up on the audit the fed and get back on the gold standard routine?

 

You're ignoring what I said.

 

Nice pivot though.

You're ignoring what I said.

 

Nice pivot though.

 

Yes because the United States would be a horrible place to live and work in a true free market environment. It's unwanted and unrealistic and so completely out of the realm of possibility that it's not worth discussing.

When considering unemployment, you have to consider that many jobs are being lost to technological innovation and not a reduction of economic activity. Furthermore, both parties support programs like H1-b that import cheap technology labor that depress the wages available of all. This phenomena would be of less impact if more students would choose science, technology or math majors. This is where the jobs are and will be in the future.

 

IMO. both Democrats and Republicans are responsible for the fiscal irresponsibility we have experienced. Yet, we continue to elect them as if we did not have a choice. My hope is that a certain Texas Congressman will run on the Libertarian ticket! Neither Romney nor Obama is getting my vote.

Expiration of the Bush tax cuts, I'd end the war in Afghanistan immediately and cut the defense budget to a reasonable level.

While I'm not saying I disagree that those things need to be done, definitely ending the war...how is that going to put more money in peoples pockets? Ending the tax cuts will take money out of peoples pockets. Ending the war will simply help cut the deficit down but will not directly give you and I more money.

Yes because the United States would be a horrible place to live and work in a true free market environment. It's unwanted and unrealistic and so completely out of the realm of possibility that it's not worth discussing.

 

That's a vague accusation. Keynesianism is not a free market. It's a centrally planned economy with interventionist policies.

 

You may discredit the free market with extreme claims but the principles are in no way similar.

Yes because the United States would be a horrible place to live and work in a true free market environment. It's unwanted and unrealistic and so completely out of the realm of possibility that it's not worth discussing.

 

You just spew material and talking points you read from Paul Krugman or MSNBC. I've mentioned this before. The mixed market you desire is the same one we live in. It's by no means 'free'. The government and people who think like you try to fix a problem through government. It then backfires and you blame it on free market economics.

I hold everyone accountable including posters on here who can't back up their contentions.

 

Are you saying I should not have voted for President Bush in 2004 because he failed to live up to all of his campaign promises?

 

"Failed leader" is obviously subjective.

 

I give him full credit for the attacking the healthcare issue.

I give him full credit for bringing troops home.

I give him full credit for avoiding a catastrophe in Detroit.

I give him full credit for no attacks on US soil.

I give him full credit for making the call on Bin laden.

I give him full credit for 4M private sector jobs in 29 months.

 

To say he hasn't had accomplishments is pure partisan hackery.

 

Ft. Hood was not an attack on US soil? An almost insider to the administration with links to radical imams overseas?

 

The Army recruiter killed in Arkansas was not an attack on US soil?

 

2009 Little Rock recruiting office shooting - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

"He said that he had been sent by Al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula,..."

 

No 911s but direct attacks by extremists with overseas connections to Muslim terrorists. In the case of the former links were identified ahead of time but there was failure to act.

 

Even CNN reported on Hassan's links to terrorists that were white washed.

 

Ft. Hood was not an attack on US soil? An almost insider to the administration with links to radical imams overseas?

 

The Army recruiter killed in Arkansas was not an attack on US soil?

 

2009 Little Rock recruiting office shooting - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

"He said that he had been sent by Al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula,..."

 

No 911s but direct attacks by extremists with overseas connections to Muslim terrorists. In the case of the former links were identified ahead of time but there was failure to act.

 

Even CNN reported on Hassan's links to terrorists that were white washed.

 

 

I don't consider that to be the same .