Page 48 of 194 FirstFirst ... 3846474849505898148 ... LastLast
Results 471 to 480 of 1936

Thread: Employers add no net jobs in Aug.; rate unchanged

  1. #471
    Sage
    Conservative's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Houston, TX
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 01:37 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    67,270

    Re: Employers add no net jobs in Aug.; rate unchanged

    Quote Originally Posted by pbrauer View Post
    Well said. ..
    that is because he said what you wanted to hear. You prefer rewarding politicians for their failures by giving them more money. That is the typical liberal philosphy, this group of liberals didn't spend enough or spend it the right way?

  2. #472
    Sage
    pbrauer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Oregon
    Last Seen
    11-27-15 @ 03:31 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    25,394

    Re: Employers add no net jobs in Aug.; rate unchanged

    Quote Originally Posted by Conservative View Post
    I have shown them but again what purpose does it serve since you ignore the results. Apparently as has been pointed out you prefer living in the past so as to not having to address the present. We have the Obama record TODAY that you don't want to discuss but instead want to focus on what happened during the Carter and compare that to Bush. How typical!
    Why are you thanking the Democratic Congress, Chris Dodd and Barney Frank for? What specifically did they do?

  3. #473
    Sage
    Conservative's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Houston, TX
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 01:37 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    67,270

    Re: Employers add no net jobs in Aug.; rate unchanged

    Quote Originally Posted by pbrauer View Post
    Why are you thanking the Democratic Congress, Chris Dodd and Barney Frank for? What specifically did they do?
    Support for the sub prime mortgage and for believing that home ownership is a civil right. Couple that with ACORN, Franklin Raines, and Jaime Gorelick you will find that liberal fingerprints are all over the financial crisis.

  4. #474
    Sage
    pbrauer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Oregon
    Last Seen
    11-27-15 @ 03:31 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    25,394

    Re: Employers add no net jobs in Aug.; rate unchanged

    Quote Originally Posted by Conservative View Post
    Support for the sub prime mortgage and for believing that home ownership is a civil right. Couple that with ACORN, Franklin Raines, and Jaime Gorelick you will find that liberal fingerprints are all over the financial crisis.
    Credible citations please!

  5. #475
    Sage
    Conservative's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Houston, TX
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 01:37 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    67,270

    Re: Employers add no net jobs in Aug.; rate unchanged

    Quote Originally Posted by pbrauer View Post
    Credible citations please!
    Done giving you citations because you ignore them. You are too frustrating to deal with but start here and use Google, it can be your true friend however in your case ones own words make you look foolish.

    Barney Frank What Housing Bubble

    There are a lot of videos posted on that link showing Barney Frank speeches. you can find the same for ACORN and Chris Dodd, Franklin Raines, Jaime Gorelick, and Tim Geithner
    Last edited by Conservative; 09-05-11 at 01:22 PM.

  6. #476
    I'm not-low all the time
    Kushinator's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    West Loop
    Last Seen
    Today @ 02:01 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    16,261

    Re: Employers add no net jobs in Aug.; rate unchanged

    Quote Originally Posted by Conservative View Post
    Just goes to show the lack of leadership of Obama, he delegated the responsibility for coming up with a stimulus plan when he had total control of the Congress with overwhelming numbers.
    Which is beside the point; just because a person has a D in front of their name does not mean they would vote for anything he proposed. Now letís consider what happened in Beijing in November of 2008 to gain a relative perspective.

    The Chinese implement a stimulus package of about $586 billion (or 11.2% of GDP) for which $222 billion (4% of GDP) was attributed to public works.

    The United States implements a stimulus package of $787 billion (5.6% of GDP) for which $111 billion (0.8% of GDP) was attributed to public works, nearly three months after the Chinese stimulus package.

    What is so astounding is the success of such policy in China, even though the Chinese have a savings rate (which is critical to estimating the effectiveness) greater than the U.S. by many multiples.

    The stimulus amount was enough but the way it was spent wasn't.
    No it was not, and nothing you can or will provide negates this fact. It has been broken down on multiple occasions only to see you reply with personal attacks. See for instance

    http://www.debatepolitics.com/breaki...post1059704456

    Saving jobs that weren't federal responsibility did nothing to increase employment and thus govt. tax revenue or GDP growth. His so called tax cuts were targeted and did nothing for the job producers but did provide a rebate check to many that once gone were totally gone.
    ??? What are the taxes that job producers pay? Secondly, would you say that worker productivity increased with targeted tax cuts (you know, people taking more home for the job they do)? Businesses expand based on projections of consumer confidence, consumer credit, business credit, and the cost of capital (or credit). There is nothing to suggest that cutting taxes would lead to job creation. Reason being, corporate profits are at all time highs and firms are flush with cash and short term liquid assets.

    With the economy declining and instead of focusing on growing that economy he came up with a job killer in the form of healthcare.
    Private sector job growth (albiet meager) has continued since March 21, 2010. Maybe uncle sam should subsidize every single businesses health care costs as a means of stimulating the economy

    Not sure what makes you an expert on what to do. Have you ever created a job, created anything of value, promoted community growth? Why is it the role of the Federal Govt. to handle local social issues and personal responsibility?
    Ahh, the personal attacks begin when you run on empty.
    It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion.
    "Wealth of Nations," Book V, Chapter II, Part II, Article I, pg.911

  7. #477
    I'm not-low all the time
    Kushinator's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    West Loop
    Last Seen
    Today @ 02:01 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    16,261

    Re: Employers add no net jobs in Aug.; rate unchanged

    Quote Originally Posted by j-mac View Post
    Then it should be a breeze to destroy. Instead what I seem to see is a lot of personal attack, and little fact coming from liberals, and quasi intellectuals aimed at Conservative. I am quite sure the he would move on if there were even a chance that the numbers he posts in many threads now, were debunked. Now can you do that? Or just continue to use pejorative and name call, thus losing the argument?


    j-mac
    Search my post history involving discussions with conservative. Discussions tend to go nowhere when the only response you get has been copy pasted dozens of times.
    It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion.
    "Wealth of Nations," Book V, Chapter II, Part II, Article I, pg.911

  8. #478
    I'm not-low all the time
    Kushinator's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    West Loop
    Last Seen
    Today @ 02:01 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    16,261

    Re: Employers add no net jobs in Aug.; rate unchanged

    Quote Originally Posted by j-mac View Post
    So the stimulus didn't work because it wasn't big enough? Good luck with that one.

    j-mac
    This has been my sentiment since January 2009. The rationale has been laid out on multiple occasions. Do you need help referencing the specific posts that outline why the stimulus was far too small?
    It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion.
    "Wealth of Nations," Book V, Chapter II, Part II, Article I, pg.911

  9. #479
    Sage
    Conservative's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Houston, TX
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 01:37 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    67,270

    Re: Employers add no net jobs in Aug.; rate unchanged

    Quote Originally Posted by Goldenboy219 View Post
    Which is beside the point; just because a person has a D in front of their name does not mean they would vote for anything he proposed. Now let’s consider what happened in Beijing in November of 2008 to gain a relative perspective.

    The Chinese implement a stimulus package of about $586 billion (or 11.2% of GDP) for which $222 billion (4% of GDP) was attributed to public works.

    The United States implements a stimulus package of $787 billion (5.6% of GDP) for which $111 billion (0.8% of GDP) was attributed to public works, nearly three months after the Chinese stimulus package.

    What is so astounding is the success of such policy in China, even though the Chinese have a savings rate (which is critical to estimating the effectiveness) greater than the U.S. by many multiples.



    No it was not, and nothing you can or will provide negates this fact. It has been broken down on multiple occasions only to see you reply with personal attacks. See for instance

    http://www.debatepolitics.com/breaki...post1059704456



    ??? What are the taxes that job producers pay? Secondly, would you say that worker productivity increased with targeted tax cuts (you know, people taking more home for the job they do)? Businesses expand based on projections of consumer confidence, consumer credit, business credit, and the cost of capital (or credit). There is nothing to suggest that cutting taxes would lead to job creation. Reason being, corporate profits are at all time highs and firms are flush with cash and short term liquid assets.



    Private sector job growth (albiet meager) has continued since March 21, 2010. Maybe uncle sam should subsidize every single businesses health care costs as a means of stimulating the economy



    Ahh, the personal attacks begin when you run on empty.
    Got to love it, do you really want to compare this country's economy to China? How about this country's wages to China? Typical textbook rhetoric out of touch with reality. I asked a very logical question, have you ever created a job, created anything of value, promoted community growth? You call that a personal attack? Seeking clarification as to your qualifications as an expert on the economy.

    How do you know the amount spent on the stimulus wasn't enough? Do you believe it was spent wisely? What did it do to promote the private sector? It really is a shame when China sets the standard for fiscal responsibility.

    As for people taking home more take home pay, you are confusing the Obama tax cuts with the Bush tax cuts. Rebate checks aren't more take home pay. How is that consumer confidence today?

  10. #480
    I'm not-low all the time
    Kushinator's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    West Loop
    Last Seen
    Today @ 02:01 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    16,261

    Re: Employers add no net jobs in Aug.; rate unchanged

    Quote Originally Posted by Conservative View Post
    Then put the data into context and tell me how a rebate check benefits the economy long term, or how universal healthcare provides incentive for small business to hire.
    Strawman! You may rephrase the question without the use of a fallacy.

    Tell me how bailing out unions benefit the economy long term and costs to the consumer?
    Strawman part II.

    What I see from you are personal attacks that never address the results or the economic policy implemented.
    It is not a personal attack to note that you lack the ability to produce relevant econometric analysis. I am simply judging by the context of your replies, to which your analysis is sub-par given the complexity of the subject.
    It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion.
    "Wealth of Nations," Book V, Chapter II, Part II, Article I, pg.911

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •