• 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!

Republicans block Obama jobs bill

Status
Not open for further replies.
It really is a shame, doubt that the 25 million unemployed and under employed Americans are laughing.

My point had nothing to do with laughing about unemployed or underemployed people anywhere. I was laughing at the tit for tat. But if you couldn't see that, well then you are blind. Thanks for taking my comment out of context.
 
How did I show my "inability go do research?" when I post numbers, I give people verifiable links instead of "(bls.gov)"

I keep going back to the Reagan FIT as it proves you are a liar.

If you are going to talk context then practice what you preach.
 
My point had nothing to do with laughing about unemployed or underemployed people anywhere. I was laughing at the tit for tat. But if you couldn't see that, well then you are blind. Thanks for taking my comment out of context.

Then read what you post before hitting the enter key. How will your words be interpreted by others?
 
Just a reminder related to B/O's promises to create jobs. First he promised that the stimulus would be spent immediately to create shovel ready jobs, building bridges, roads - they even spent a few million tax dollars putting up signs near road jobs-, but only a few weeks ago B/O laughed with his progressive friends and said that there weren't really any shovel ready jobs, the money went to union member employed by the federal and local governments.

Much of the stimulus money is already back in the dem campaign coffers ready to do progressive things to our country.

Why would a Republican vote for more spending when B/O took money under false pretenses and gave it to his friends? The people that he propped up with the big stimulus need more money to keep their employment going.

Giving federal tax dollars to local police, firefighters, and teachers is crazy. The teachers have failed to teach, the police beat every black person who dares go out at night and the firefighters will strike for more pay and burn your house down if you can't raise the money to pay them
 
Since you weren't around during the Reagan term or were too young guess that is what I would expect from the liberal education you are receiving today. Recession began in July 1981 so what economic policy did Reagan have in place and passed by Congress to generate those numbers? Reagan economic policy wasn't passed until the fourth qtr of 1981 so of course he is responsible for everything prior to that right? That seems to be liberal logic. I know this is hard for you to understand but the recession ended in November 1982 which is the first quarter of fiscal year 1983. Hard for a liberal to understand so take notes

Fiscal year of the United States runs from October 1 to September 30. See if you can put those results into proper context.

It's not even the same type of recession! Look at those unemployment numbers! They aren't even close. Also:

http://www.bls.gov/opub/mlr/1985/08/art2full.pdf
The international array of unemployment rates underwent some major changes in rankings in the late 1970's to early 1980's

The teenage-to-adult unemployment ratio also narrowed steadily between 1980 and 1983 in all countries studied except Italy and Sweden .

That's a positive trend that started before he became president.

In the United States, the number of persons working part time for economic reasons (persons on reduced hours as well as persons employed in part-time jobs who want fulltime work) rose between 1980 and 1983 .

That's a positive trend that started before he became president.

Joblessness in the United States rose steadily from 1980 through the end of 1982 . The unemployment rate peaked in the fourth quarter of 1982 at 10 .6 percent, the highest quarterly rate recorded in the post-World War II era. At the beginning of 1983, joblessness began moving downward

Oh, look, the rate rose from 1980 - not mid 1981 - until the fourth quarter of 1982. That's from 1980 until October of 1982.

And wouldn't you know, unemployment really began to rise in this recession in Jan 2008 and hit its peak in Nov of 2010. Wow, Obama took one extra month in a decidedly worse recession.
 
It's not even the same type of recession! Look at those unemployment numbers! They aren't even close. Also:

http://www.bls.gov/opub/mlr/1985/08/art2full.pdf

That's a positive trend that started before he became president.

That's a positive trend that started before he became president.

Oh, look, the rate rose from 1980 - not mid 1981 - until the fourth quarter of 1982. That's from 1980 until October of 1982.

And wouldn't you know, unemployment really began to rise in this recession in Jan 2008 and hit its peak in Nov of 2010. Wow, Obama took one extra month in a decidedly worse recession.

Nice spin and again out of context. Try thinking about the economic conditions would have affected you had you been living during that period of time, inflation, interest rates, and rising unemployment. The misery index was 19.33 when Obama took office and rose due to the fact that the Reagan economic plan wasn't implemented until the first qtr of fiscal year 1982 something you want to ignore. How would you like paying 17.5% home interest rates? How would you like paying high inflation rates for everything you bought? The American people were hurt a lot more by the economy that Reagan inherited than the economy that Obama helped create and the results are quite different as well. Reagan ended up creating 17 million jobs and had a net job growth two years after the recession ended. Obama has a net job loss two years after the end of the recession

That is reality
 
Nice spin and again out of context. Try thinking about the economic conditions would have affected you had you been living during that period of time, inflation, interest rates, and rising unemployment. The misery index was 19.33 when Obama took office and rose due to the fact that the Reagan economic plan wasn't implemented until the first qtr of fiscal year 1982 something you want to ignore. How would you like paying 17.5% home interest rates? How would you like paying high inflation rates for everything you bought? The American people were hurt a lot more by the economy that Reagan inherited than the economy that Obama helped create and the results are quite different as well. Reagan ended up creating 17 million jobs and had a net job growth two years after the recession ended. Obama has a net job loss two years after the end of the recession

That is reality

Blah, blah blah. By the way:

http://www.innlightmarketing.com/recessionary_marketing/pdf/List%20of%20US%20Recessions.pdf
Early 1980s recession 1980–1982 2 year
The Iranian Revolution sharply increased the
price of oil around the world in 1979, causing
the 1979 energy crisis. This was caused by the
new regime in power in Iran, which exported oil
at inconsistent intervals and at a lower volume,
forcing prices to go up. Tight monetary policy
in the United States to control inflation led to
another recession. The changes were made
largely because of inflation that was carried
over from the previous decade due to the 1973
oil crisis and the 1979 energy crisis

Please explain how that crisis is similar to what Obama faced, and what policies Reagan put into place, why he put them into place, what they did to help the economy, and what Obama should have done as well. Also, how is my post out of context when it shows that it took each recession the same amount of time to hit its peak in unemployment rates?
 
Last edited:
Blah, blah blah. By the way:

http://www.innlightmarketing.com/recessionary_marketing/pdf/List%20of%20US%20Recessions.pdf
Early 1980s recession 1980–1982 2 year


Please explain how that crisis is similar to what Obama faced, and what policies Reagan put into place, why he put them into place, what they did to help the economy, and what Obama should have done as well.

Obama is blaming the Arab Spring and other world events as a reason his economic policies haven't produced the results promised. Reagan took charge and changed the attitude of the American people. That is leadership, something liberals don't understand.
 
Oh, look, the rate rose from 1980 - not mid 1981 - until the fourth quarter of 1982. That's from 1980 until October of 1982.

And wouldn't you know, unemployment really began to rise in this recession in Jan 2008 and hit its peak in Nov of 2010. Wow, Obama took one extra month in a decidedly worse recession.

Something that Reagan did inherit from Carter was an increase in private sector employment:

65636
6593166341666556695767281675376774668129683316865868870
689846927769730703667067571099713047159071799720967249772763
728747310773524734417380074063740647406774195743447440174489
745997465374695742637396173654734147368273875740997435074563
74671
7475274910750167508875323754197544875440753027508474811

YearJanFebMarAprMayJunJulAugSepOctNovDecAnnual
1977
1978
1979
1980
1981


This is not the case going from Bush 43 to the Obama Presidency.
 
Obama is blaming the Arab Spring and other world events as a reason his economic policies haven't produced the results promised. Reagan took charge and changed the attitude of the American people. That is leadership, something liberals don't understand.

Regan traded arms with a terrorist nation.
 
Obama is blaming the Arab Spring and other world events as a reason his economic policies haven't produced the results promised. Reagan took charge and changed the attitude of the American people. That is leadership, something liberals don't understand.

That didn't answer ****. Look, if you are going to compare Reagan's policies and his recession to Obama's policies and our recession, then you need to show some correlation. In what ways were they similar? In what ways did Reagan implement policies that positively affected the economy? In what ways would those policies have affected this economy? Why does the time Reagan took to curb unemployment positive for you, but when it took the same under Obama it is spin?
 
Regan traded arms with a terrorist nation.

Your fixation on Reagan and Bush is interesting but won't divert from the Obama record

Obama economic results in 2011,
.4% GDP and 1.3% GDP growth in 2011(bea.gov)
25+ million unemployed or under employed Americans in 2011(bls.gov)
2.6 million fewer jobs(bls.gov)
4.2 trillion added to the debt in less than 3 years(U.S. Treasury Site)
Downgrade of the U.S. credit rating(S&P)
Rising Misery index 7.83 to 12.97 (The United States Misery Index By Year)
38-41% JAR and well over 50-55% disapproval ratings(Gallup)
 
Since you weren't around during the Reagan term or were too young guess that is what I would expect from the liberal education you are receiving today. Recession began in July 1981 so what economic policy did Reagan have in place and passed by Congress to generate those numbers? Reagan economic policy wasn't passed until the fourth qtr of 1981 so of course he is responsible for everything prior to that right? That seems to be liberal logic. I know this is hard for you to understand but the recession ended in November 1982 which is the first quarter of fiscal year 1983. Hard for a liberal to understand so take notes

You left out the fact that Reagan had to get his economic policy passed in a Democratically held Congress. BHO had the benefit of a Congress that was held by his party, and a filibuster-proof Senate until Ted passed.
 
That didn't answer ****. Look, if you are going to compare Reagan's policies and his recession to Obama's policies and our recession, then you need to show some correlation. In what ways were they similar? In what ways did Reagan implement policies that positively affected the economy? In what ways would those policies have affected this economy? Why does the time Reagan took to curb unemployment positive for you, but when it took the same under Obama it is spin?

The correlation is in the growth in jobs during the Reagan administration and the reduction of jobs in the Obama Administration for the same period of time. Leadership, leadership, leadership!! Obama doesn't even know how to spell the word.
 
You left out the fact that Reagan had do get his economic policy passed in a Democratically held Congress. BHO had the benefit of a Congress that was held by his party, and a filibuster-proof Senate until Ted passed.

Exactly, thus the Obama policies were passed as you pointed out I believe in February 2009 whereas Reagan didn't get his policies passed until August 1981 which is the final quarter of fiscal year 1981 something liberals don't understand. Reagan had zero impact on fiscal year 1981 whereas Obama had half of fiscal year 2009 to implement his policies which his Administration would keep unemployment from exceeding 8%
 
The correlation is in the growth in jobs during the Reagan administration and the reduction of jobs in the Obama Administration for the same period of time. Leadership, leadership, leadership!! Obama doesn't even know how to spell the word.

This is like talking with a child. Can I assume you have no idea then? I don't know any other conclusion to draw from someone who says, "If this guy had done what that guy did the economy would be fine right now", and then asked what that is you can't even provide a straight answer. Do 30 minutes of research and come back with a canned response, and then I'll dismantle it when I get home, just like I do with all of your other rhetoric.

You left out the fact that Reagan had to get his economic policy passed in a Democratically held Congress. BHO had the benefit of a Congress that was held by his party, and a filibuster-proof Senate until Ted passed.

If it was filibuster proof, then why did he get filibustered on multiple occasions? Here is a google search of "Obama Filibuster 2009". Also, what policies are you referring to that Reagan passed that aided the economy that Obama did not?
 
Last edited:
Your fixation on Reagan and Bush is interesting but won't divert from the Obama record

You are the one always bringing up Reagan. I'm just looking into the myth making surrounding the man.
 
Obama had half of fiscal year 2009 to implement his policies which his Administration would keep unemployment from exceeding 8%

I thought they did implement a policy. Spend 1 trillion dollars and ram health care down our throats. I just don't think the policy worked.
 
This is like talking with a child. Can I assume you have no idea then? I don't know any other conclusion to draw from someone who says, "If this guy had done what that guy did the economy would be fine right now", and then asked what that is you can't even provide a straight answer. Do 30 minutes of research and come back with a canned response, and then I'll dismantle it when I get home, just like I do with all of your other rhetoric.



If it was filibuster proof, then why did he get filibustered on multiple occasions? Here is a google search of "Obama Filibuster 2009". Also, what policies are you referring to that Reagan passed that aided the economy that Obama did not?

Why? Because he couldn't sell his own party and had to have some democrats support the Republicans. When did Reagan or Bush have the overwhelming numbers that Obama had?

What amazes me is that you seem too support the Obama record yet ignore the costs to generate that record
 
Why? Because he couldn't sell his own party and had to have some democrats support the Republicans. When did Reagan or Bush have the overwhelming numbers that Obama had?

What amazes me is that you seem too support the Obama record yet ignore the costs to generate that record

What amazes me is that you if Obama was like Reagan we'd be out of this recession, but you can't name one policy that Reagan implemented that helped.
 
I thought they did implement a policy. Spend 1 trillion dollars and ram health care down our throats. I just don't think the policy worked.

That is true, when the problem was the economy and jobs they implemented Obamacare which is a great job destroyer. No small employer is going to hire anyone until Obamacare is repealed
 
If it was filibuster proof, then why did he get filibustered on multiple occasions? Here is a google search of "Obama Filibuster 2009". Also, what policies are you referring to that Reagan passed that aided the economy that Obama did not?

Thanks for an example of how Google works. I opened the FIRST result and it was a story about how 'BHO was the First president to filibuster a supreme court nomination', obviously when he was a senator. Thanks for the help...try again.
 
What amazes me is that you if Obama was like Reagan we'd be out of this recession, but you can't name one policy that Reagan implemented that helped.

If Obama had any private sector or leadership skills, yes we would be growing today and out of the recession. The Reagan economic policy was centered around the tax rate cuts of 25% over three years. That showed the American people he believed in them and the results speak for themselves.
 
If Obama had any private sector or leadership skills, yes we would be growing today and out of the recession. The Reagan economic policy was centered around the tax rate cuts of 25% over three years. That showed the American people he believed in them and the results speak for themselves.

The top marginal rate under Reagan was 70%. That is not true today!

On top of that the federal government has more obligations today

The aging of the population and increases in per-person costs throughout the U.S. health care system (in both the public and private sectors) will increase the cost of meeting longstanding federal commitments to seniors and people with disabilities. Together, these factors will drive up spending for the three largest domestic programs — Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security. Limiting total federal spending to 21 percent of GDP despite these developments would have enormous implications for those programs as well as the rest of government.
The federal government’s responsibilities have grown since 2000, with developments at home and abroad pushing spending above the average for earlier decades. These responsibilities include homeland security (in the aftermath of September 11, 2001​); aid to veterans of the Iraq and Afghanistan wars (many of whom need health care and income support); education (with the federal government providing more resources to improve educational quality and outcomes); the Medicare prescription drug benefit (which Congress added in 2003); and health reform (which extends health coverage to tens of millions of Americans who would otherwise be uninsured and will increase federal spending, even though it will reduce the deficit).
Spending for interest on the federal government’s debt also will be substantially higher in coming decades than it was during the past 40 years. By the end of 2010 — largely as a result of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, the large Bush-era tax cuts, and the current severe recession — debt held by the public will be nearly twice as large (as a percentage of GDP) as in 2001, with a commensurate increase in interest costs.

http://www.cbpp.org/cms/index.cfm?fa=view&id=3246
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom