• 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.
pbrauer said:
Actually Obama made things much better, here is a list of private sector gains and losses.

YearJanFebMarAprMayJunJulAugSepOctNovDec
2008 Gains/Loss4-128-87-186-240-217-265-317-434-491-787-636
2009 Gains/Loss-841-721-787-773-326-438-287-215-213-250-34-102
2010 Gains/Loss-42-21144229486593110109143128167
2011 Gains/Loss94261219241997515617
Click to expand...

and it cost over 800 billion dollars to generate thos numbers and still have a net job loss, higher unemployment than when he took office, a declining labor force when he took office, and miserable economic growth. Keep supporting the empty suit
 
Boo Radley said:
Knowing histroy is the best way to prevent it from happening again. if you think just having a republican in office ignores histroy, and assures we will continue to repeat history.
Click to expand...

Looks like we will find out of the Republicans learned their lesson as they retake the WH in 2012
 
Conservative said:
and it cost over 800 billion dollars to generate thos numbers and still have a net job loss, higher unemployment than when he took office, a declining labor force when he took office, and miserable economic growth. Keep supporting the empty suit
Click to expand...
Again most of those losses occurred just after taking office. Do you have a concept of what "inertia" is, Con?
 
Conservative said:
Looks like we will find out of the Republicans learned their lesson as they retake the WH in 2012
Click to expand...

We might. But history tells us they won't. The more secure they fell, the more they will spend, and partisans likely won't say a word.
 
AdamT said:
I think we premise success on how many people AREN'T living in poverty, period.
Click to expand...
That's a generality, the real debate is how that is achieved and always has been.
 
Conservative said:
Absolutely, do you know that debt service is paid on public debt PLUS Intergovt. holding debt? With SS fund having a debt because money for future obligations was spent that was more than the public debt surplus how was there a total surplus?
Click to expand...

Social Security gets their money back plus interest. None the less, the total budget of the U.S. was balanced in 1999 and 2000. Rephrase the bold, i have no idea what you are asking.
 
Conservative said:
Obama stimulus did nothing to create jobs but instead bailed out states which needed to solve their own problems and financial obligations. bailing out union pension funds may be stimulating for the unions but did nothing for the economy.
Click to expand...

Those jobs would have been lost though. So while we might fnd some agree with the second half of your statement, the first part is clearly false. If that money helped keep those jobs, and it did, he did save jobs with the money, factually.
 
pbrauer said:
Again most of those losses occurred just after taking office. Do you have a concept of what "inertia" is, Con?
Click to expand...

There is a reason that 70% of the public have no confidence in Obama's handling of the economy but apparently those reasons escape brilliant people like you.
 
Conservative said:
Obama stimulus did nothing to create jobs but instead bailed out states which needed to solve their own problems and financial obligations. bailing out union pension funds may be stimulating for the unions but did nothing for the economy.
Click to expand...

Nonsense. U.S. GDP would have been lower by the exact amount spent + multipliers from stimulus on a per year basis.
 
Boo Radley said:
Those jobs would have been lost though. So while we might fnd some agree with the second half of your statement, the first part is clearly false. If that money helped keep those jobs, and it did, he did save jobs with the money, factually.
Click to expand...

How do you know those jobs would have been lost? You continue to buy the leftwing rhetoric and ignore logic and common sense. Someone comes to you and offers you money that doesn't have to be paid back and money that will prevent you from paying your monthly expenses, what would you do?
 
Boo Radley said:
No where have I made excuses. That is simply a projection on your part. I say quite clearly that both spend, that it is not a republican or democrat issue.

And no Obama was not elected to fix our economy. Anyone on either side who thought that was and is misguided. No president can "FIX" our economy. They don't have the power to do anything like that. Obama was just the better choice in the election.

And while you prefer to speak to what is now, when a republican takes office and spending continues, as it has repeatedly in the past, you'll likely be as silent as many were during the Bush years. Do you really think Conservative will be denouncing conservatives for their spending should that happen? Really?

:lamo :lamo
Click to expand...

Okay, seeing "no president" can fix the economy, because they don't have the power to do so ...... then it should be safe to say that "no president" can destroy the economy right ?
 
Conservative said:
How do you know those jobs would have been lost? You continue to buy the leftwing rhetoric and ignore logic and common sense. Someone comes to you and offers you money that doesn't have to be paid back and money that will prevent you from paying your monthly expenses, what would you do?
Click to expand...

Research Okun's law. There is an empirically verified relationship between unemployment gains and aggregate output (GDP).
 
Goldenboy219 said:
Nonsense. U.S. GDP would have been lower by the exact amount spent + multipliers from stimulus on a per year basis.
Click to expand...

That is your opinion which you are entitled to, I disagree. The Obama stimulus program did absolutely nothing to improve the economy, create net job gains, but it did increase debt service which today is at record low interest rates. Imagine what inflation is going to do with debt service interest?
 
The Barbarian said:
Okay, seeing "no president" can fix the economy, because they don't have the power to do so ...... then it should be safe to say that "no president" can destroy the economy right ?
Click to expand...

Deficit spending when unemployment is near historic lows is a sure-fire way to destroy an economy. Look at the Greeks! They were running deficits because they believed their superior Eurozone growth would last forever. Now the yield on a 1 year Greek note is over 80%.
 
Goldenboy219 said:
Research Okun's law. There is an empirically verified relationship between unemployment gains and aggregate output (GDP).
Click to expand...

Again, you assume that jobs saved would have been lost but you have no way of knowing that. What I know is that there were no net job gains, there is higher debt service, and lower economic growth. I also know the misery index is higher and Obama's JAR lower. It is easy making claims that no one can prove, i.e. that the jobs would have been lost.
 
Goldenboy219 said:
Deficit spending when unemployment is near historic lows is a sure-fire way to destroy an economy. Look at the Greeks! They were running deficits because they believed their superior Eurozone growth would last forever. Now the yield on a 1 year Greek note is over 80%.
Click to expand...

Then glad to hear you won't be supporting the Obama jobs' plan which is nothing more than deficit spending although unemployment isn't at record lows but debt is at record high.
 
Last edited:
The Barbarian said:
Okay, seeing "no president" can fix the economy, because they don't have the power to do so ...... then it should be safe to say that "no president" can destroy the economy right ?
Click to expand...

Largely speaking. Together, congress and the president have limited power to hurt or help, but it is limited. Other factors play a much larger role, which is why politicians have been unable to stop an economy from going bad. If they had that kind of power, it would never be bad so incumbants could stay in power for ever.
 
Boo Radley said:
Those jobs would have been lost though. So while we might fnd some agree with the second half of your statement, the first part is clearly false. If that money helped keep those jobs, and it did, he did save jobs with the money, factually.
Click to expand...

Factually you may be somewhat right, but it's also a fact to say that is the reason that he is having trouble with his job reports now .. The money given to those states, to bail them out of their problems a year ago ... is now coming back to haunt this country. Now without the government "stimulus" those very same saved jobs, are now being lost.
 
Boo Radley said:
Largely speaking. Together, congress and the president have limited power to hurt or help, but it is limited. Other factors play a much larger role, which is why politicians have been unable to stop an economy from going bad. If they had that kind of power, it would never be bad so incumbants could stay in power for ever.
Click to expand...

Sheik and Adam aren't going to like your post since everything today is Bush's fault
 
The Barbarian said:
Factually you may be somewhat right, but it's also a fact to say that is the reason that he is having trouble with his job reports now .. The money given to those states, to bail them out of their problems a year ago ... is now coming back to haunt this country. Now without the government "stimulus" those very same saved jobs, are now being lost.
Click to expand...

Exactly, the Federal Govt. gave money to states in reward for bad performance and decisions. Now liberals want to give more money to the govt. to do the same thing, reward bad behavior
 
Conservative said:
Then glad to hear you won't be supporting the Obama jobs' plan which is nothing more than deficit spending.
Click to expand...

You missed the part about not doing deficit spending when unemployment is low. This is how it works: you run a surplus or very low deficits when times are good; that allows you to run deficits when times are bad without overly stressing the economy. It ain't rocket science.
 
Conservative said:
That is your opinion which you are entitled to, I disagree.
Click to expand...

If the government does not borrow that money and spend it, it would not have been spent! Remember... A: {C+I+G+NX=Y} B: {C+I+G(1-stimulus)+NX=Y-stimulus.} With these identities in mind, which is higher; A or B?

The Obama stimulus program did absolutely nothing to improve the economy, create net job gains, but it did increase debt service which today is at record low interest rates. Imagine what inflation is going to do with debt service interest?
Click to expand...

The average issuance of total U.S. debt is roughly 5.7 years. Debt service as a % of GDP is at its lowest levels in history! Now, do you have any idea when it was the highest?
 
AdamT said:
You missed the part about not doing deficit spending when unemployment is low. This is how it works: you run a surplus or very low deficits when times are good; that allows you to run deficits when times are bad without overly stressing the economy. It ain't rocket science.
Click to expand...

As I corrected but you and Sheik seem to be sitting there waiting for my posts, we have record debt today which is almost equal to GDP but with low interest rates manageable debt service. Deficit spend today driving up debt, increasing inflation will create high interest rates and that will be devastating.
 
Conservative said:
Then glad to hear you won't be supporting the Obama jobs' plan which is nothing more than deficit spending although unemployment isn't at record lows but debt is at record high.
Click to expand...

I support fiscal stimulus when interest rates are near the zero bound and unemployment is persistently high. I know you cannot understand why, so let's just agree to disagree.
 
Goldenboy219 said:
If the government does not borrow that money and spend it, it would not have been spent! Remember... A: {C+I+G+NX=Y} B: {C+I+G(1-stimulus)+NX=Y-stimulus.} With these identities in mind, which is higher; A or B?



The average issuance of total U.S. debt is roughly 5.7 years. Debt service as a % of GDP is at its lowest levels in history! Now, do you have any idea when it was the highest?
Click to expand...

Or the govt. can do nothing and let the market correct itself instead of driving up debt, driving up inflation, and thus driving up interest rates which will hurt us all. Debt service is a result of record low interest rates which inflation will certainly change.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom