• 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.
I notice that conservative hasn't addressed this discrepancy as of yet Shiek. It must be hell...so sad.:(
No, he hasn't. But to his defense, I suppose it's not easy responding to a post which highlights such blatant dishonesty. It's much easier to complain that I'm off-topic and post what he believes are Obama's results than it is to accept that his integrity was hung out to dry for everyone to see like a sheet on a clothesline.
 
except that during that period revenues increased....See I think that originally the Bush administration thought that Afghanistan, and Iraq would be a cake walk, and initially removing Sadam was, it was the follow through that wasn't so clearly thought out. But that is really hindsight, armchair crap.

Anyway, with reports of the treasury, and headlines through that period constantly saying that revenues more than expected, why would you think that raising taxes would increase anything?

j-mac


Did revenues rise beyond three trillion dollars as of 2008?

Which Joseph Stiglitz chief economist at the World Bank whom also won the Nobel Prize in economics in 2001,says is the true cost, not including long term cost, such as taking care of our wounded which exceeds the cost of Nam and double the cost of Korea.:2wave:
 
What a pile of monkey turds, today's Republican party is not for "The People," they are for the giant mega corporations and the crooks on Wall Street and Banks that put our future in jeopardy by bringing us the worse recession since the Great Depression. Between Feb 2008 and the end of June 2009, the supposed end of the recession, 7.674 million private sector jobs were lost due to the Bush Recession.

Private sector jobs gains/losses

YearJanFebMarAprMayJunJulAugSepOctNovDec
2008 Gains/
Loss
4-128-87-186-240-217-265-317-434-491-787-636
2009 Gains/
Loss
-841-721-787-773-326-438-287-215-213-250-34-102
2010 Gains/
Loss
-42-21144229486593110109143128167
2011 Gains/
Loss
94261219241997515617

Now isn't that wonderful, sell that to the 25 million unemployed and under employed Americans! Keep spouting the rhetoric from the DNC which actually diverts from the Obama record TODAY!
 
Democrats in the House voted against giving Bush authority, i.e., if it had been solely up to Democrats, Bush would not have had the authority to use force in Iraq.

Yet the Democrat Senate Leader and enough Democrats voted for authorization. Keep diverting.
 
I notice that conservative hasn't addressed this discrepancy as of yet Shiek. It must be hell...so sad.:(

Aw but I did, what does that have to do with the Obama record today? Wrong chart? LOL, I even posted the BLS statement on jobs in August. Guess you missed that one. You didn't miss it, you just ignored it.
 
And that is the real reason you wanted a tax increase isn't it...You wanted more vocal disapproval of the war.

j-mac

??? I believe government should pay its way when the economy is not severely under-performing; the "pass the buck" generation does not.
 
QUOTE Conservative;

Aw but I did,

The only thing i have seen was this add hom you posted before you you bugged out yesterday.
Only the brainwashed, braindead, and clueless. No one in their right mind can blame Bush for what is going on 2 1/2 years after Obama took office.

what does that have to do with the Obama record today?


Nothing, just responding to one of your patented derailments.


Wrong chart?


If it wasn't the wrong chart, please clarify it for us.


LOL, I even posted the BLS statement on jobs in August. Guess you missed that one.


Just point at if for this ole man.


You didn't miss it, you just ignored it.


Kinda looks like you got the ole crystal ball back eh? :thumbs:
 
The only thing i have seen was this add hom you posted before you you bugged out yesterday.




Nothing, just responding to one of your patented derailments.





If it wasn't the wrong chart, please clarify it for us.





Just point at if for this ole man.





Kinda looks like you got the ole crystal ball back eh? :thumbs:

Kind of looks like more trolling on your part as once again you support another liberal without really saying anything or refuting what I posted. Neither you or any other liberal seems to understand that it is the Obama record that will be on the ballot in 2012 and even the liberal NY Times is getting worried. Obama faces a landslide defeat and is doing nothing to reverse that possibility because he has no leadership experience nor does his Administration and supporters.

You see neither Clinton or Bush results matter yet you continue to support someone who brings them up. All that does is divert from the Obama record which is a disaster. This thread is about Obama job performance in August and his cumulative performance which shows a net job LOSS, declining labor force, declining employment and some here want to tout Clinton's performance. Tell you what, write his name in on the 2012 ballot.
 
Kind of looks like more trolling on your part as once again you support another liberal without really saying anything or refuting what I posted. Neither you or any other liberal seems to understand that it is the Obama record that will be on the ballot in 2012 and even the liberal NY Times is getting worried. Obama faces a landslide defeat and is doing nothing to reverse that possibility because he has no leadership experience nor does his Administration and supporters.

You see neither Clinton or Bush results matter yet you continue to support someone who brings them up. All that does is divert from the Obama record which is a disaster. This thread is about Obama job performance in August and his cumulative performance which shows a net job LOSS, declining labor force, declining employment and some here want to tout Clinton's performance. Tell you what, write his name in on the 2012 ballot.


I guess this two paragraph post is telling me to pound sand as for as clarifying anything that you have posted eh? Not surprising though.:mrgreen:
 
Well, it seems that you're in the minority, because poll after poll shows that most Americans recognize that sad state of our economy is mostly attributable to the Bush recession and not Obama's effort to clean up the Republicans' spilled milk. Polls also show Obama leading Republican challengers, though it is obviously too early for that to matter.
 
I guess this two paragraph post is telling me to pound sand as for as clarifying anything that you have posted eh? Not surprising though.:mrgreen:


What do you want me to clarify, Obama's net job losses since taking office? Declining Labor market? Less people employed today than when he took office? U-6 unemployment rate of 16.2%? 16.7% unemployment rate for blacks? All this in 2011 2 1/2 years after Obama took office?

So what do you want me to clarify and when I do won't you just ignore it?
 
Well, it seems that you're in the minority, because poll after poll shows that most Americans recognize that sad state of our economy is mostly attributable to the Bush recession and not Obama's effort to clean up the Republicans' spilled milk. Polls also show Obama leading Republican challengers, though it is obviously too early for that to matter.

Most people today claim that Obama has done a very poor job on the economy. Most people today have an unfavorable view of Obama? Most people today claim that Obama doesn't deserve a second term. Keep holding to those polls showing Obama beating Republicans while there isn't one Republican candidate. Why do you support another term for Obama? The results aren't bad enough for you so you want more time to make things worse?
 
Most people today claim that Obama has done a very poor job on the economy. Most people today have an unfavorable view of Obama? Most people today claim that Obama doesn't deserve a second term. Keep holding to those polls showing Obama beating Republicans while there isn't one Republican candidate. Why do you support another term for Obama? The results aren't bad enough for you so you want more time to make things worse?

Most people today are responsible for the economic state of the United States. Who gives a **** about what the "most people" think.....
 
Most people today are responsible for the economic state of the United States. Who gives a **** about what the "most people" think.....

Your liberal arrogance is second only to the myth of how smart you think you are.
 
Most people today claim that Obama has done a very poor job on the economy. Most people today have an unfavorable view of Obama? Most people today claim that Obama doesn't deserve a second term. Keep holding to those polls showing Obama beating Republicans while there isn't one Republican candidate. Why do you support another term for Obama? The results aren't bad enough for you so you want more time to make things worse?

Most people think that the Republicans are a worse alternative, and that's all that matters as far as the election goes. The numbers will only improve for Obama when all of the attention is focused on one of the severely flawed republican candidates.

I support another term for Obama because I know that he is better for the country than any of the Republicans, who promise to:

1. move too quickly to austerity, thus ensuring a Japan-style lost decade;
2. shift the tax burden from the rich to the middle class, speeding the decline of the middle class and the rise of the rich/poor duality;
3. place politics before science, ignoring the threat of global warming and environmental protection;
4. weaken the social safety net, leading to increased poverty and ill health;
5. attack the separation of church and state;
6. generally stand for intolerance.
 
What do you want me to clarify, Obama's net job losses since taking office? Declining Labor market? Less people employed today than when he took office? U-6 unemployment rate of 16.2%? 16.7% unemployment rate for blacks? All this in 2011 2 1/2 years after Obama took office?

So what do you want me to clarify and when I do won't you just ignore it?
How much of the declining labor market do you suppose is attributable to baby boomers hitting the age of retirement?
 
except that during that period revenues increased....See I think that originally the Bush administration thought that Afghanistan, and Iraq would be a cake walk, and initially removing Sadam was, it was the follow through that wasn't so clearly thought out. But that is really hindsight, armchair crap.

Anyway, with reports of the treasury, and headlines through that period constantly saying that revenues more than expected, why would you think that raising taxes would increase anything?

j-mac

It's a good point to say that perhaps the B-Administration and Congress thought that the wars would be much more "in and out" initially.

However, my criticism is more towards year 3, 4, or 5 of the war when it became apparent that this thing was going to last for a long time. Why not let the cuts expire to get some short term revenue to help pay down the added military expenses?

We as a country have voted to raise taxes for every single war, why was Iraq & Afghanistan treated any different? Even the Civil War, before income tax, required that wealthier Americans help finance the extra money spent on troops, weaponry, ect.
 
Last edited:
Most people today claim that Obama has done a very poor job on the economy. Most people today have an unfavorable view of Obama? Most people today claim that Obama doesn't deserve a second term. Keep holding to those polls showing Obama beating Republicans while there isn't one Republican candidate. Why do you support another term for Obama? The results aren't bad enough for you so you want more time to make things worse?
And by a margin of almost 2 to 1, people polled blame Bush for the current economic conditions and not Obama.
 
AdamT;1059791863]Most people think that the Republicans are a worse alternative, and that's all that matters as far as the election goes. The numbers will only improve for Obama when all of the attention is focused on one of the severely flawed republican candidates.

I support another term for Obama because I know that he is better for the country than any of the Republicans, who promise to:

1. move too quickly to austerity, thus ensuring a Japan-style lost decade;

Too quickly to austerity? 10.6 trillion debt inherited and it is now 14.6? We cannot afford another 4 years of this

2. shift the tax burden from the rich to the middle class, speeding the decline of the middle class and the rise of the rich/poor duality;

As usual you think with your heart and feelings other than concrete facts and data. You continue to ignore actual data which shows that the tax burden hasn't been shifted to the middle class as 47% mostly middle class aren't paying any FIT

3. place politics before science, ignoring the threat of global warming and environmental protection;

You buy what liberal scientists claim but don't want any debate on the topic.

4. weaken the social safety net, leading to increased poverty and ill health;

That social safety net has trillions in IOU's and trillions more being created. You simply don't have a clue what you are talking about

5. attack the separation of church and state;

Show me in the Constitution Separate of Church and State, too many liberals called the Constitution statement about establishing a religion as separation of church and state but that isn't separation of church and state. Again you have been brainwashed.

6. generally stand for intolerance.

Right, intollerance on the part of the left is ok but challenging liberal's with logic and facts is? Got it.
 
And by a margin of almost 2 to 1, people polled blame Bush for the current economic conditions and not Obama.

Guess that is why the Obama poll numbers are so high and his handling of the economy showing massive support?
 
It's a good point to say that perhaps the B-Administration and Congress thought that the wars would be much more "in and out" initially.

However, my criticism is more towards year 3, 4, or 5 of the war when it became apparent that this thing was going to last for a long time. Why not let the cuts expire to get some short term revenue to help pay down the added military expenses?

We as a country have voted to raise taxes for every single war, why was Iraq & Afghanistan treated any different? Even the Civil War, before income tax, required that wealthier Americans help finance the extra money spent on troops, weaponry, ect.

It was actually more irresponsible than that. Recall that Bush and the Republicans passed the biggest part of their tax cuts in 2003, AFTER 9/11 and the invasion of Afghanistan and Iraq. Not only did they fail to raise taxes to pay for the wars -- they passed a huge tax CUT.
 
Now isn't that wonderful, sell that to the 25 million unemployed and under employed Americans! Keep spouting the rhetoric from the DNC which actually diverts from the Obama record TODAY!
Aren't you the one that claims that Bush inherited a recession from Clinton?:roll:
 
It was actually more irresponsible than that. Recall that Bush and the Republicans passed the biggest part of their tax cuts in 2003, AFTER 9/11 and the invasion of Afghanistan and Iraq. Not only did they fail to raise taxes to pay for the wars -- they passed a huge tax CUT.

Hope you are sending yours back. How do you explain the revenue from those tax cuts going up from 2003-2007?
 
Aren't you the one that claims that Bush inherited a recession from Clinton?:roll:

He did, March 2001 according to NBER so unless you can tell me what Bush implemented on January 21, 2001 with a Democrat Controlled Senate that created a recession that started in March it was an inherited recession?
 
It was actually more irresponsible than that. Recall that Bush and the Republicans passed the biggest part of their tax cuts in 2003, AFTER 9/11 and the invasion of Afghanistan and Iraq. Not only did they fail to raise taxes to pay for the wars -- they passed a huge tax CUT.

I don't mind lower taxes. In fact, I think lower taxes are generally a great thing for an economy.

However, when a Gov't needs short term cash (as in time of war) I don't think it ever makes sense to lower the taxes. I agree and would call this sort of fiscal policy very idealistic as opposed to realistic and responsible.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom