Page 78 of 194 FirstFirst ... 2868767778798088128178 ... LastLast
Results 771 to 780 of 1936

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

  1. #771
    Sage
    AdamT's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Last Seen
    02-13-13 @ 04:09 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    17,773

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Conservative View Post
    Bush wasn't alone and you know it. Obama and Democrats approved everything that Bush did and it seems they were more interested in regaining the WH than doing their job yet you give them a pass. Says a lot about you.
    Obama and Democrats approved the Bush tax cuts? Obama and Democrats approved the Iraq war? Obama and Democrats approved Medicare Part D? What a load of BS.

  2. #772
    Sage
    Conservative's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Houston, TX
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 12:10 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    67,270

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

    Quote Originally Posted by AdamT View Post
    Obama and Democrats approved the Bush tax cuts? Obama and Democrats approved the Iraq war? Obama and Democrats approved Medicare Part D? What a load of BS.
    In 2007-2011, you bet, they approved the Bush budgets in 2007-2008, In 2002 it was a Democrat Senate that approved the War Resolutino, and in 2010 it was Obama signing extension of the Bush tax cuts. Keep denying reality.

  3. #773
    Sage
    Boo Radley's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Last Seen
    11-22-17 @ 04:22 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    36,858

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Conservative View Post
    Right, see your point, spending enough to create 5 trillion in 8 years certainly is spending a lot more than 4 trillion in less than 3. I can see how the Obama spending on steroids was the wrong thing to say, LOL
    Again, read what I said. You're being dishonest to say I said Bush spent more. I said both spent, a lot. You merely seem to think republican spending is fine. And no, you have not shown Obama's spending was spending on steroids. You need to do a lot more to support that claim.

    AUSTAN GOOLSBEE: I think the world vests too much power, certainly in the president, probably in Washington in general for its influence on the economy, because most all of the economy has nothing to do with the government.

  4. #774
    Sage
    Boo Radley's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Last Seen
    11-22-17 @ 04:22 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    36,858

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

    Quote Originally Posted by OpportunityCost View Post
    I can already see where you are going Sheik. You want to tack TARP onto Bush's budget when the totality of the money wasnt available and wasnt spent until Obama was already in office and some of it still hasnt been spent. You also want to target the payback into Obama's budget impact. IE Have your cake and eat it too. Am I close?
    I would say two separate issues. One is that Bush did spend, and it does show on Obama's budget. That is just a fact. Now, a separate issue is if any of the spending was effective. If it was, than we can say spending can help. If it wasn't, it wasn't for either. But effectiveness is separate from the issue of whether both spent or not.

    AUSTAN GOOLSBEE: I think the world vests too much power, certainly in the president, probably in Washington in general for its influence on the economy, because most all of the economy has nothing to do with the government.

  5. #775
    Sage
    Conservative's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Houston, TX
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 12:10 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    67,270

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Boo Radley View Post
    Again, read what I said. You're being dishonest to say I said Bush spent more. I said both spent, a lot. You merely seem to think republican spending is fine. And no, you have not shown Obama's spending was spending on steroids. You need to do a lot more to support that claim.
    I think when you spend on national security it is indeed fine but when you spend on social programs that is over the line even though politicians have that right. I would call spending 500 billion more a year is putting spending on steroids but guess liberals have a different opinion. Liberals have never seen a dollar that they wouldn't spend creating dependence.

  6. #776
    Sage
    Boo Radley's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Last Seen
    11-22-17 @ 04:22 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    36,858

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Conservative View Post
    I think when you spend on national security it is indeed fine but when you spend on social programs that is over the line even though politicians have that right. I would call spending 500 billion more a year is putting spending on steroids but guess liberals have a different opinion. Liberals have never seen a dollar that they wouldn't spend creating dependence.
    First, iraq had little to nothing to do with national security. Imperialism is not equal to national security. Secondly, all his spending was not war spending. Personally, I would prefer spending that help our people, and not spending which is thrown down a rat hole. Now, that's another issue, so please no more squirrels. Focus. Admit that Bush spent plenty. That you really won't run around bad mouthing a republican for no other reason than he is a republican.

    AUSTAN GOOLSBEE: I think the world vests too much power, certainly in the president, probably in Washington in general for its influence on the economy, because most all of the economy has nothing to do with the government.

  7. #777
    Sage
    Conservative's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Houston, TX
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 12:10 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    67,270

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Boo Radley View Post
    First, iraq had little to nothing to do with national security. Imperialism is not equal to national security. Secondly, all his spending was not war spending. Personally, I would prefer spending that help our people, and not spending which is thrown down a rat hole. Now, that's another issue, so please no more squirrels. Focus. Admit that Bush spent plenty. That you really won't run around bad mouthing a republican for no other reason than he is a republican.
    That is your opinion but not the opinion of both Democrats and Republicans. Funding, harboring, and supporting terrorism is a threat to our country. Like all liberals you prefer being attacked and losing thousands of lives so that you feel good about then reacting. I prefer being proactive and preventing an attack but that is for another thread and not this one.

    Focus on what you posted, the Bush tax cuts were extended by the Lame Duck Democrat Congress and Bush's last budget was 3.1 trillion dollars and Obama is spending over 3.6 billion dollars. To me that is putting spending on steroids.

    When the alternative is Al Gore, John Kerry, or Barack Obama, you bet I will defend the Republican

  8. #778
    Banned
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Last Seen
    08-14-12 @ 11:44 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    3,928

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Conservative View Post
    I was talking about the total results of the Bush Administration, not just the job creation since you only mentioned Wolffe not his jobs' chart, but I do thank the Democrat Congress for their help in 2007-2008. They were awesome in their efforts especially Frank, Dodd, Obama, and of course Geithner.
    But I thought we had all agreed that the president isn't responsible for the economy, congress is as they have the purse strings? In that case, everything on that chart in 2007 and 2008 is in the democrats lap. That's pretty ugly.

    Note: I actually didn't quote the right post here. I quoted the post that was replying to the one that I was speaking of. Too many degrees of separation going on here. Sorry about that.
    Last edited by dontworrybehappy; 09-07-11 at 10:24 AM.

  9. #779
    I'm not-low all the time
    Kushinator's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    West Loop
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:52 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    16,257

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Michael H View Post
    You must have been right ... it was all a conspiracy ... conspiracy ... conspiracy ... rest now ... you are getting sleepy ... sleepy ... sleepy.

    I'm anti - FED
    You make a statement about $16 trillion in secret loans yet were unable to provide an adequate source that put the Fed's various lending facilities into context. When i explain to you why the $16 trillion figure was intellectually dishonest (via the use of inconsistent counting techniques), you now want to side step the the issue and pretend like it never happened.

    Here's the deal. If you have an agenda to post low-brow propaganda, i am going to call you out on it. In the future, it will be helpful to have a clear understanding of the content of your post
    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

  10. #780
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Last Seen
    08-25-16 @ 08:31 PM
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    11,265

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Conservative View Post

    I would call spending 500 billion more a year is putting spending on steroids but guess liberals have a different opinion. Liberals have never seen a dollar that they wouldn't spend creating dependence.
    That, I would call you a lie since spending in 2010 was $600 billion less in 2010, not more. How many times do I need to show this to you until you understand that spending dropped in 2010?



Posting Permissions

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