• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Unemployment Rate Rises to 9.2 Percent in June as Hiring Stalls

rcart76 said:
YES BOTH SIDES !!!! Even in bush years.
Click to expand...
Good! :clap:

So it is okay to sacrifice the debt ceiling for Big Oil subsidies
Click to expand...
I was speaking more generally - if what the other side wants to do is, long term, worse than doing nothing, then there's nothing wrong with refusing to compormise, forcing that nothing be done.

But, in ther terms you use - not raising the debt ceiling will force the government to live witnin its means. Long term, this is the best solution possible. So, doing nothing is the best thing to do.

Long term that is true. But the way you guys are trying to do it is nuts.
Click to expand...
Your guys aren't willing to consider it in a meaningful way, as cutting back government hand-outs reduces the Democtratic voter base.
So, if the choice is something that's "nuts" but saves the country, or doing nothing and allowing the county to fail, the only rational choice is the "nuts" solution.
 
rcart76 said:
You know this is getting really irritating. Where have we come to as a country when we take pleasure in bad unemployment numbers because it makes the other side look bad? Where have we come to when it is a "good" thing to not compromise to get things done. Both parties are treating american citizens as monopoly board game pieces just to prove a political point.
Click to expand...

Pleasure? I don't think anyone is pleased. I'm pissed big time that we spent all that money for nothing.
 
Goldenboy219 said:
Search my post history during the first month of the Obama presidency, and you will see a clear resemblance to that of the bold aspect of that quote.

What we need(ed) is:largest public works construction program since the inception of the interstate highway system
Click to expand...

You know political considerations would never allow another WPA-type program. I've heard both liberal and conservative economic professors say repeatedly "good politics is bad economics, and vice versa"
 
Tettsuo said:
Public Sector Job Cuts Threaten Recovery - US News and World Report

You're welcome.
Click to expand...

States have been cutting back jobs since the Recession began......a loss of 39,000 government jobs is a drop in the bucket considering only 57,000 private sector jobs were created.......when we need 200,000 just to jeep up with population.....and 300-500 thousand to make significant dents in unemployment.

The Reagan Recovery saw 600,000 jobs created per month........and it wasnt because this country was investing in a bunch of Public Sector Union Slobs.........
.
.
.
.
 
tessaesque said:
Few things.

1. "How patriotic are you if we are hoping for the president demise in order to put your candidate in the white house"
Okay, here's the deal. If you feel like a president's policies will have a negative effect, you are hoping for those policies to fail. That would mean that the negative effect never comes. That's a good thing. Hoping that a president fails to IMPLEMENT those policies, thereby destroying those negative effects....also a good thing. There are very few people who want the president to fail "no matter the cost". Those who do are hacks, and not representative of the whole.



2. Public sector job loss = less government spending. Less on salary, benefits, work-space, etc. Less government spending = less debt. Private sector jobs are a net gain for the government in terms of revenue. Tax revenue via income tax, employer taxes, and economic contribution (corporate taxes on profits, etc). Loosing public sector jobs hurts inititally, but if the economy is bolstered in other ways it is a temporary hit and we'll be better for it in the long term.
Click to expand...

Good hard working people I know lost their job for the city and are still trying to land a job to feed their family. Regardless of what you conservatives think, public workers are just as important as private workers and it is a not a "good" thing when someone looses their job. No one deserves this fate.
 
donsutherland1 said:
Such a stimulus plan would likely have delivered the greatest proverbial bang for the buck. Unfortunately, political considerations made it necessari for the program to be structured with low multiplier activities i.e., one-time payments to retirees, extension of the first-time homebuyer credit, etc. In addition, such a program would have improved U.S. infrastructure, which has been aging, and is falling behind the newer infrastructure in numerous rising economies. In the long-run, the infrastructure gap will also undermine U.S. competitiveness.
Click to expand...

I am thinking bigger in terms of public works. While highway renovation is always on the table when discussing infrastructure stimulus, the inconvenience created in the largest metropolitan areas will actually be a negative to job creating activities. Take this for example (I'll be out of here tomorrow!). IMHO, the majority of infrastructure renovation should occur during normal growth years.

As for a big idea?

Providing free wimax wireless internet throughout the U.S. is one of them. Essentially, the Federal government would contract current large scale for profit providers to construct and manage the system, granting already held monopolies official status, and requiring partnerships between the largest local providers.
 
cpwill said:
Apparently the situation is so dire that the President is going to Address Us. It's so important he's even cancelled this month's vacation.
Click to expand...

Gasp1.jpg



Cancelled ... vacation??? Must be serious.
 
Last edited:
If we would have built roads, at least we would have had roads as opposed to filling the coffers of the very institutes that caused the collapse.
 
Goldenboy219 said:
Providing free wimax wireless internet throughout the U.S. is one of them. Essentially, the Federal government would contract current large scale for profit providers to construct and manage the system, granting already held monopolies official status, and requiring partnerships between the largest local providers.
Click to expand...

I know that you know that there is no such thing as "free" internet.
 
Councilman said:
If he skips golf this weekend we know he's at least mildly interested in the problems at hand.
Click to expand...

Let's not go too far here... Cancel his golf game?

So when will the left come to the realization that Obama and the democrats economic policies have failed?
 
rcart76 said:
Good hard working people I know lost their job for the city and are still trying to land a job to feed their family. Regardless of what you conservatives think, public workers are just as important as private workers and it is a not a "good" thing when someone looses their job. No one deserves this fate.
Click to expand...

I'm not saying the work done is not important. I'm saying that private sector jobs provide more gains than public sector jobs. Those city jobs could (in many cases) be contracted to private firms at a lower cost than the city would expend paying for the salary and benefits of a city worker.
 
PzKfW IVe said:
Good! :clap:


I was speaking more generally - if what the other side wants to do is, long term, worse than doing nothing, then there's nothing wrong with refusing to compormise, forcing that nothing be done.

But, in ther terms you use - not raising the debt ceiling will force the government to live witnin its means. Long term, this is the best solution possible. So, doing nothing is the best thing to do.

Your guys aren't willing to consider it in a meaningful way, as cutting back government hand-outs reduces the Democtratic voter base.

So, if the choice is something that's "nuts" but saves the country, or doing nothing and allowing the county to fail, the only rational choice is the "nuts" solution.
Click to expand...

In short, you're okay with seeing the country struggle through economic hardship in the short-term as long as the long-term affects (i.e., reducing our long-term national debt as quickly as possible through massive spending cuts) as positive.

Question: How long do you expect it will take before we start seeing the positive affects of deep spending cuts? 2 yrs? 5 yrs? 10 yrs? Longer?

I ask because by your assessment, it's going to be a very long time before government spending is under control to the extent that this country is every solvent enough to start re-investing in those things that are in this country's best interest, i.e., education, infrastructure repair, new energy resources, etc. So, how long should we wait before reinvesting in US?
 
Last edited:
Objective Voice said:
In short, you're okay with seeing the country struggle through economic hardship in the short-term as long as the long-term affects (i.e., reducing our long-term national debt as quickly as possible through massive spending cuts) as positive.
Click to expand...
Sometimes, you have to cut off a leg to save a life.
:shrug:

Question: How long do you expect it will take before we start seeing the positive affects of deep spending cuts? 2 yrs? 5 yrs? 10 yrs? Longer?
Click to expand...
Beats me. As it is a long-term net positive, the fact that it may not have positive effect in the short term is, well, irrelevant.

I ask because by your assessment, it's going to be a very long time before government spending is under control...
Click to expand...
Incorrect. Spending comes under control immediately, as it may not exceed revenue.

to the extent that this country is every solvent enough to start re-investing in those things that are in this country's best interest
Click to expand...
Investment in these things need not necessarily stop - you simply have to decide where your priorities are rather than spending whatever you might want, without worrying about where the money comes from.
 
Last edited:
"It just can't keep going like this. Obama's going to end up getting slammed in 2012 if this doesn't fix itself soon. Whether or not it's his puppy..." - dontworrybehappy

It's his puppy now.
 
The jobs will probably 'never' come back.

Our nation has been exporting jobs and replacing people with machines for decades, diminishing the pool of available work for our country's population. One of the factors that slowed that process was that overhauling our businesses to make do with fewer employees (that is, streamlining labor divisions) was an ethically awkward and controversial process that was more trouble than it was worth. The recession gave executives the opportunity to retrofit their business models without controversy.

We're like Japan now; too efficient for our population's own good. We'll 'always' have a sizable unemployment rate.
 
Last edited:
Corporate America doesn't trust this buffoon of a president enough to go on a risk-laden growth strategy and hiring spree.

Once he's gone, the entrepreneurial spirit will return.
 
Erod said:
Corporate America doesn't trust this buffoon of a president enough to go on a risk-laden growth strategy and hiring spree.

Once he's gone, the entrepreneurial spirit will return.
Click to expand...

There's basically no chance. A multitude of economic trends have been at work for the last thirty years. Jobs have been an ever increasing net loss, and the recession was the nail in the coffin.
 
Last edited:
"the main culprit economists point to is uncertainty"

YouTube - Pelosi: "We Have to Pass the Bill So That You Can Find Out What Is In It"

uncertainty is obama's middle name

is he gonna VETO the short term ceiling hike, as he suggested yesterday?

or is he gonna EMBRACE it, like last week?

is it gonna be kent conrad at budget, the gang of six at joe biden, or is obama gonna personally involve himself once more?

depends on the day, the hour

is he leading from behind again?

are social security and medicare cuts part of the white house plan or not?

what kind of cuts, how big?

will he or won't he tax the rich, is it millionaires and billionaires or folks over 250K?

depends on the crowd

beyond the 7 as opposed to 5 year depreciation of private jets, exactly what subsidies does the president want eliminated?

when will he tell us?

what are those of us in industries he's looking at sposed to do in the meantime?

how bout those of who deal with folks who work in the industries he's looking to?

bottom line---why is it THREE YEARS, y'know, in times like these, since this poor perplexed president and his party in power in upper parliament have even PROPOSED a blueprint?

or at least one even the white house can believe in?

President's budget sinks, 97-0 - TheHill.com

did you SEE the things chief of staff daley was saying to the wall street donors who were pleading for the epa to get out of the way, to stop blocking construction on behalf of a fish?

"daley said he did not have many good answers, appearing to throw up his hands in frustration at what he called 'bureaucratic stuff that’s hard to defend'"

"sometimes you can’t defend the indefensible,” he said.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/polit...-manufacturers/2011/06/16/AG177yXH_story.html

to the paper company exec who worried about the 15 mil it would cost her to upgrade her mill:

"the number of rules and regulations that come out of agencies is overwhelming, we’re trying to bring some rationality to it"

certainty?

we can't even reach rationality (tho we're trying)

according to the white house chief of staff, on june 16, as reported by wapo

spin anyone?

partisanship?

certainty?

leadership?

party on, peeps
 
PzKfW IVe said:
Sometimes, you have to cut off a leg to save a life.
:shrug:


Beats me. As it is a long-term net positive, the fact that it may not have positive effect in the short term is, well, irrelevant.
Click to expand...

I don't buy that mindset one bit. I don't believe you have to sacrafic what's good about this country just to rein in spending. I believe we can do both. To that, the President is correct. We do need to face facts that we are going to have to raise taxes AND/OR eliminate some of the most expensive tax subsidies/tax loopholes in order to pay down the deficit while also doing certain things to bring about job growth and creation. I'm just as concerned about our national debt as the next guy, but I don't think we can cut spending only in order to get it under control.

We are a consumer nation. Just about everything we do is done with credit. Yes, that does need to turn around; we need to become a nation of manufactorers again. To that, I think the President has it right. We do need to invest in new technologies, new industries that can create the jobs that stay here in the U.S. But we'll never get there if one side of the political divide is so resistent to raise revenue and insists that the only way to get from Point A to Point B and beyond is essentially to wait until our financial house is perfectly in order before we do anything else.

I understand that in most American households when one finds himself in debt that that's what should be done - create a realistic budget, live within it, plan for expenditures. I get that and it IS the responsible thing to do. However, we're also told that if you need to generate additional income (revenue) go out and get a 2nd job! For the U.S. Treasury, that "2nd job" is eliminating tax subsidies and a slight tax increase in those areas and/or on those individuals who can afford to pay alittle bit more. It's the only way to have the best of both worlds where our deficit and debt problems are concerned. The alternative is prolonged unemployment which seems to be what the GOP wants.
 
personally, sincerely, i do not recall ever witnessing an american politician demonstrate more LEADERSHIP in very difficult times than young governor andrew cuomo in new york

granted, his situation is not identical to barack obama's, but there are at least tens of billions of similarities

anyway, here's governor cuomo's take on HIS situation:

"we have the worst business tax climate in the nation, period, our taxes are 66% higher than the national average"

"the costs of pensions are exploding... a 476% increase and its only getting worse"

"the state of new york spends too much money, it is that blunt and it is that simple"

"an unsustainable rate of growth and it has been for a long time"

"not only do we spend too much, but we get too little in return"

"the large government we have is all too often responsive to the special interests over the people"

"new yorkers are voting with their feet, two million new yorkers have left the state over the past decade"

"what does this say, it says we need radical reform, it says we need a new approach, we need a new perspective and we need it now"

"this is a fundamental realignment for the state"

"the old way wasn't working anyway, let's be honest"

"we want a government that puts the people first and not the special interests first"

"what made new york the empire state was a not a large government complex, it was a vibrant private sector that was creating great jobs"

"and that's what's going to make us the empire state again"

"at the heart of this state is business"

"we have to relearn the lesson our founders knew and we have to put up a sign that says new york is open for business, we get it, and this is going to be a business friendly state"

"we are going to have to confront the tax situation in our state, property taxes in this state are killing new yorkers, thirteen of the sixteen highest tax counties are in new york when assessed by home value"

"westchester county has the highest property taxes in the united states, nassau county has the second highest"

"it has to end, it has to end this year"

"we have to hold the line on taxes for now and reduce taxes in the future, new york has no future as the tax capital of the nation, our young people will not stay, our business will not come"

"put it simply, the people of this state simply cannot afford to pay any more taxes, period"

"we have to start with an emergency financial plan to stabilize our finances, we need to hold the line and we need to institute a wage freeze in the state of new york, we need to hold the line on taxes, we need a state spending cap and we need to close this $10 billion gap without any borrowing"

GOVERNOR ANDREW M. CUOMO STATE OF THE STATE ADDRESS | Governor Andrew M. Cuomo

mind you, the governor is not just talking, he's already moved

Cuomo budget: $10 billion deficit cut, no new taxes, layoffs likely

and NEW YORKERS, of all audiences, are giving the gub standing O's

Andrew Cuomo approval sky-high, new poll suggests - Jennifer Epstein - POLITICO.com

americans, even manhattanites, apparently, appreciate leadership

y'know, in times like these

spin, anyone?

partisan hackery?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom