• 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!

Employers add no net jobs in Aug.; rate unchanged

Status
Not open for further replies.
It's more of a "don't throw stones when your house is made of glass" thing.

I think the country ( and this site) would be better if we did more looking forward, while understanding our past than debating who is worse Bush or Obama. Both pretty bad in my view.
 
You telling me that politicians controlling 3.7 trillion dollars of our money don't impact the private sector? Policy affects incentive and private sector growth thus job creation and when you have the power of the purse that is huge control.

Not as much as you like to think. They do not control the private sector and can only have limited effect. Business is not sitting around waiting for government to incentize them. They actually have plenty of incentive no matter what government does. You believe too much in the power of government and seem to what them to have the control more oppressive governments have.
 
You're right that it won't treat bush well. Like not Obama either overall. But too many forget Bush's role in things. If we accept Bush played a role, I think we can move on from there.


I think that just as soon as Obama and his sycophantic followers start dealing with the reality that the past 2 1/2 years have been a series of failed policies of the Obama administration, then and only then could you have a reasonable conversation as to the problems. But as long as you have the utterly laughable that failure seen today are the result of a past administration all the way out to include the entire first term as though Obama did nothing to massively balloon debt, and drive business into a hunker down situation through bypassing congressional authority in regulation, then you are not being honest at all.

j-mac
 
Well the weak dollar policy we are following will over time drive people to want to hold less dollars.

The short term weakness of the dollar is more indicative of our current account imbalance. In terms of consumption, a weaker dollar should only impact exports....

If we had a policy to harness our natural gas and shale oil that would greatly decrease the dollars we pay for energy.

U.S. productive capacity of petro and natural gas is simply incapable of bringing the price down. Daily oil consumption (in the U.S.) as a function of time is on a downward slope where as the emerging world is continuing to demand more and more global supply.

We could attempt to give some sort of benefit to companies that onshore versus offshore their manufacturing.

Do you believe that similar "beggar-thy-neighbor" tax policies will not arise from nations that have a heavy U.S. manufacturing presence?

The Fed with with QEs seem to be trying to backdoor inflation and you may see a new target. Something I have read talked about nominal GDP or NGDP targeting. So if that target stays in the 5-6% range, and growth is downgraded to an expected rate of 1.5% then the Fed would target inflation of 3.5-4.5%. Their current target being about 2%.

Targeting inflation at 4% instead of 2% will surely lead to an increase in inflation expectations. The question remains how do we recognize a specific target when the overnight Fed Funds rate trades below the target? Strictly speaking, what more can the monetary authorities do given that a great deal of their ammunition is used up?
 
I think the country ( and this site) would be better if we did more looking forward, while understanding our past than debating who is worse Bush or Obama. Both pretty bad in my view.

Agreed.

However, given that Conservative attempts to convert every discussion he engages into an "Obama is horrible" thread, to expect anything different is simply naive.
 
Not as much as you like to think. They do not control the private sector and can only have limited effect. Business is not sitting around waiting for government to incentize them. They actually have plenty of incentive no matter what government does. You believe too much in the power of government and seem to what them to have the control more oppressive governments have.

Control is a strong word although what do you think Federal Regulations do? When you talk about business you ignore the 80% of small businesses that create most of the employment and are influenced greatly by regulations and tax policy.
 
Agreed.

However, given that Conservative attempts to convert every discussion he engages into an "Obama is horrible" thread, to expect anything different is simply naive.

Or you could break his argument.

j-mac
 
Agreed.

However, given that Conservative attempts to convert every discussion he engages into an "Obama is horrible" thread, to expect anything different is simply naive.

Unlike many here results matter a lot more than rhetoric. Obama is horrible is a given but not unexpected by those who look at his resume. The economic policies of this Adminstration continue to promote the nanny state and who pays for that?
 
Or you could break his argument.

j-mac

Break his argument? Repeating yourself until you are blue in the face is not an argument nor can it be considered productive to the discussion.
 
Break his argument? Repeating yourself until you are blue in the face is not an argument nor can it be considered productive to the discussion.

Unfortunately for the Obama minions posting results aren't trumped by feelings and rhetoric
 
Unlike many here results matter a lot more than rhetoric. Obama is horrible is a given but not unexpected by those who look at his resume. The economic policies of this Adminstration continue to promote the nanny state and who pays for that?

The economic policies of this administration have been restrained from day one. Instead of a $1.5 trillion stimulus we get $800 billion. Instead of massive public works, we get tax cuts/breaks. Instead of real health care reform, we get a watered down version of what Massachusetts implemented. etc, etc....

None the less, it is typical of those harnessed by ideology to point fingers rather than create a productive discussion.
 
Break his argument? Repeating yourself until you are blue in the face is not an argument nor can it be considered productive to the discussion.

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
 
The economic policies of this administration have been restrained from day one. Instead of a $1.5 trillion stimulus we get $800 billion. Instead of massive public works, we get tax cuts/breaks. Instead of real health care reform, we get a watered down version of what Massachusetts implemented. etc, etc....

None the less, it is typical of those harnessed by ideology to point fingers rather than create a productive discussion.

So the stimulus didn't work because it wasn't big enough? Good luck with that one.

j-mac
 
The economic policies of this administration have been restrained from day one. Instead of a $1.5 trillion stimulus we get $800 billion. Instead of massive public works, we get tax cuts/breaks. Instead of real health care reform, we get a watered down version of what Massachusetts implemented. etc, etc....

None the less, it is typical of those harnessed by ideology to point fingers rather than create a productive discussion.

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. The stimulus amount was enough but the way it was spent wasn't. 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.

With the economy declining and instead of focusing on growing that economy he came up with a job killer in the form of healthcare. 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?
 
Unfortunately for the Obama minions posting results aren't trumped by feelings and rhetoric

Posting raw data without the proper context (or analysis) is of a knuckle-dragger's mentality. It is impossible to have a debate with someone who believes raw data, it and of itself, is a fact. Econometric analysis required to produce facts from the data you routinely present. Given you do not even understand the meaning of the term, do not expect anyone to take your statements you claim as fact with anything other than a grain of salt.
 
Posting raw data without the proper context (or analysis) is of a knuckle-dragger's mentality. It is impossible to have a debate with someone who believes raw data, it and of itself, is a fact. Econometric analysis required to produce facts from the data you routinely present. Given you do not even understand the meaning of the term, do not expect anyone to take your statements you claim as fact with anything other than a grain of salt.

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

What I see from you are personal attacks that never address the results or the economic policy implemented.
 
So the stimulus didn't work because it wasn't big enough? Good luck with that one.

j-mac

That is nothing more than liberal arrogance who always claim that the previous groups of liberals never spent enough money. The Liberal Obama Administration and Congress created a 800+ billion stimulus plan that liberals today say wasn't enough or spent in the right areas. That is what liberals always do and have done throughout history
 
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.

:lamo Perhaps you could show some specifics on your rhetoric?
 
Sorry, but 30 years of tax cuts, deregulation and excessive greed by our financial sector did that...not to mention two unfunded wars and a prescription drug benefit, both of which went unpaid for. And then you have the issue of this country shifting from being a nation of manufacturers to a nation of consumers hooked on credit and debt. I've said it before and I'll say it again, this nation has had three Republican presidents for 20 of the last 30 years. If Republicans truly believed there was a disparity between taxation and our manufacturing base that was driving businesses abroad, why didn't they do something about this sooner?

Well said. ..
 
:lamo Perhaps you could show some specifics on your rhetoric?

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!
 
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?
 
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?
 
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.
 
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!
 
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:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom