• 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!

U.S. Jobless Rate Unexpectedly Declines to 8.6%

the tax-rate on the wealthy was not repealed until 2003.

Tax rates were cut on ALL taxpayers and were extended in the Democrat controlled lame duck Congress in December 2010. Let "your" President run on higher taxes for all taxpayers and see what happens.
 
Tax rates were cut on ALL taxpayers and were extended in the Democrat controlled lame duck Congress in December 2010. Let "your" President run on higher taxes for all taxpayers and see what happens.

why would u want to raise taxes on the middle-class? they are the ones who drive this economy.
 
why would u want to raise taxes on the middle-class? they are the ones who drive this economy.

Why would you want to raise taxes on anyone. Still waiting for you to explain how tax cuts are an expense to the Govt?
 
Tax rates were cut on ALL taxpayers and were extended in the Democrat controlled lame duck Congress in December 2010. Let "your" President run on higher taxes for all taxpayers and see what happens.

You cannot raise taxes with unemployment @ 8.6%; this should be intuitive. The mass layoffs that occurred between 2008 and 2009 were a result of a demand deficiency (which can be identified using sales figures). Lowering taxes any further will have little if any impact because businesses are definitely not cost constrained. If they were, we would see productivity and profits at record lows instead of record highs.
 
Better check your history, Clinton lost the Congress in 1994 and much of the Clinton tax increases were repealed.
Stop lying, Con. You've been challenged on this in the past to show even one tax Clinton imposed that was repealed and you couldn't cite even one. All you could do was post a link to an article about how some taxes were cut in 1997 -- but none of them were the taxes Clinton raised in 1993.
 
What I find hypocritical is that you and others ignore the cost of what you call an improving economy so apparently 24 plus million unemployed and under employed Americans at a cost of 4.5 trillion dollars is the sign that things are improving. The American people are going to ask themselves are they better off in 2012 than they are today and if the results are as they are today the answer will be no and your community organizer President will be a one termer.

I think what the american people are going to ask is why did the republicans they voted into office take a pledge to support a lobbyist, don't you think that if they wanted Grover to represent them they would have voted for Grover?
 
Why would you want to raise taxes on anyone. Still waiting for you to explain how tax cuts are an expense to the Govt?
XD

Do you even know the purpose of taxes? They're the government's way of acquiring funds. Naturally, cutting taxes would mean less money for the government. Sheesh.
 
Let's see if I have this right, you as a consumer believe that you keeping more of what you earn is an expense to the govt? "Your" President approved the extension of the Bush tax cuts and if you feel like you should pay the govt. more, just do it. What is stopping you?

What President Bush did not realize is that you have to prime the middle class if you expect to promote job creation, it's the middle class consumer that energises the creation of jobs or maybe he just wanted to create the wealth divide we see today. At any rate it is apparent that the republican conservative base is anti job creation, well maybe I am wrong maybe they are pro job creation as long as the jobs created are not jobs for AMERICANS.
 
I think what the american people are going to ask is why did the republicans they voted into office take a pledge to support a lobbyist, don't you think that if they wanted Grover to represent them they would have voted for Grover?

I think the majority of the American people are as dumb as most liberals here knowing that keeping more of their own money is a good thing. Noticed how this is a real hot button for you so apparently you are sending into the govt. more than the taxes collected?
 
Your opinions are the result of countless hours of engaging in partisan talking points that neglect the quantitative analysis required to substantiate them.

If you are looking for a proper interpretation of the data (and not the lame repetitive copy paste), look no further. I guarantee you will find nothing that compares to the analytics provided by Moody's.

End of the Great Recession

A potpourri of temporary spending increases were also included in the fiscal stimulus. Additional unemployment insurance beyond the regular 26-week benefit period has been far and away the most costly type of stimulus spending, with a total price tag now approaching $300 billion. The high rate and surprisingly long duration of unemployment—well over half the jobless have been out of work more than 26 weeks—have added to the bill.

Yet UI benefits are among the most potent forms of economic stimulus available. Additional unemployment insurance produces very high economic activity per federal dollar spent (see Table 11).23 Most unemployed workers spend their benefits immediately; and without such extra help, laid-off workers and their families have little choice but to slash their spending. The loss of benefits is debilitating not only for unemployed workers, but also for friends, family, and neighbors who may have been providing financial help themselves.

The fiscal stimulus also provided almost $50 billion in other income transfers, including Social Security, food stamps, and COBRA payments to allow unemployed workers to retain access to healthcare. Food stamps are another particularly powerful form of stimulus, as such money flows quickly into the economy. COBRA and Social Security

snip

Funds for infrastructure projects generally do not generate spending quickly, as it takes time to get projects going. That is not a bad thing: rushing raises the risks of financing unproductive projects. But infrastructure spending does pack a significant economic punch, particularly to the nation’s depressed construction and manufacturing industries. Almost $150 billion in ARRA infrastructure spending is now flowing into the economy, and is particularly welcome, as the other stimulus fades while the economy struggles.
 
XD

Do you even know the purpose of taxes? They're the government's way of acquiring funds. Naturally, cutting taxes would mean less money for the government. Sheesh.

Is that right? So you believe a retail sale costs business profits? You don't have a clue how our economy works and understand that a growing economy means more jobs thus more taxpayers. Just like drawing people into a retail store to get them to buy something other than the sales item
 
What President Bush did not realize is that you have to prime the middle class if you expect to promote job creation, it's the middle class consumer that energises the creation of jobs or maybe he just wanted to create the wealth divide we see today. At any rate it is apparent that the republican conservative base is anti job creation, well maybe I am wrong maybe they are pro job creation as long as the jobs created are not jobs for AMERICANS.

So those evil rich people don't spend any money, don't hire anyone, and don't contribute to economic growth? Instead of promoting class warfare why aren't you promoting total economic growth? Why is it that the govt. needs the money more than the taxpayer?
 
Your opinions are the result of countless hours of engaging in partisan talking points that neglect the quantitative analysis required to substantiate them.

If you are looking for a proper interpretation of the data (and not the lame repetitive copy paste), look no further. I guarantee you will find nothing that compares to the analytics provided by Moody's.

End of the Great Recession

Is that why economic growth in 2011 is under 2% and unemployment is higher than it was when Obama took office? you can cite textbooks all day long and remain out of touch with reality. What exactly have you don't to improve the employment situation in this country as well as economic activity?
 
Is that why economic growth in 2011 is under 2% and unemployment is higher than it was when Obama took office? you can cite textbooks all day long and remain out of touch with reality. What exactly have you don't to improve the employment situation in this country as well as economic activity?

GDP was CONTRACTING at a rate of 7% when Obama took over. That's an improvement of almost 10%. Pretty damned good.
 
So those evil rich people don't spend any money, don't hire anyone, and don't contribute to economic growth? Instead of promoting class warfare why aren't you promoting total economic growth? Why is it that the govt. needs the money more than the taxpayer?

Rich people have a cost of living that is typically greater than the "non-rich", but also just a fraction of total income. Tax cuts on the wealthy will do little promote economic growth because increases in personal savings (a spike in savings), typically coincides with a severe economic downturn.

fredgraph.png


fredgraph.png


fredgraph.png
 
GDP was CONTRACTING at a rate of 7% when Obama took over. That's an improvement of almost 10%. Pretty damned good.

GDP growth is less this year than in 2010 and Obama was in charge in 2010. Pretty damn good? Less than 2% GDP growth in 2011? 24 plus million unemployed/under employed? 4.5 trillion added to the debt? If a Republican generated these numbers you would be going ballistic
 
Rich people have a cost of living that is typically greater than the "non-rich", but also just a fraction of total income. Tax cuts on the wealthy will do little promote economic growth because increases in personal savings (a spike in savings), typically coincides with a severe economic downturn.

fredgraph.png


fredgraph.png


fredgraph.png

Economic growth less than 2% in 2011, unemployment higher, labor force lower, 4.5 trillion added to the debt. Put those numbers into your chart
 
Is that why economic growth in 2011 is under 2% and unemployment is higher than it was when Obama took office? you can cite textbooks all day long and remain out of touch with reality. What exactly have you don't to improve the employment situation in this country as well as economic activity?

I sited the most inclusive quantitative analysis provided by a private sector financial research firm. Growth is sluggish for a plethora of reason, e.g. the strains in Europe are estimated to shave 10% of off economic growth for the year or net wealth is still lower than 2008 levels (people spend less when their wealth decreases in a rather dramatic fashion).

Why the desire to get personal? Debate the topic and not the participants!
 
GDP growth is less this year than in 2010 and Obama was in charge in 2010. Pretty damn good? Less than 2% GDP growth in 2011? 24 plus million unemployed/under employed? 4.5 trillion added to the debt? If a Republican generated these numbers you would be going ballistic

If not for the massive recession that Obama inherited from Republicans the numbers would obviously be MUCH MUCH better. So far Obama has managed to avoid a full-on depression, which was a very real possibility, and a double dip recession -- another very real possibility.
 
Economic growth less than 2% in 2011, unemployment higher, labor force lower, 4.5 trillion added to the debt. Put those numbers into your chart

The charts provided go a long way in explaining exactly why the situation is where it is. Maybe you should be willing to take on some analysis since you are so adamant on discussing such topics. I notice you failed to address my statement and instead settled for empty talking points that are heavily favored by those who have no idea what they are talking about!
 
Last edited:
If not for the massive recession that Obama inherited from Republicans the numbers would obviously be MUCH MUCH better. So far Obama has managed to avoid a full-on depression, which was a very real possibility, and a double dip recession -- another very real possibility.

Keep carrying that argument into the 2012 elections. apparently in the liberal world poor results are always someone else's responsibility.
 
Keep carrying that argument into the 2012 elections. apparently in the liberal world poor results are always someone else's responsibility.

The facts are the facts. Pretending that they aren't isn't going to win Republicans a lot of votes.
 
If not for the massive recession that Obama inherited from Republicans the numbers would obviously be MUCH MUCH better. So far Obama has managed to avoid a full-on depression, which was a very real possibility, and a double dip recession -- another very real possibility.

Please tell me what legislation Obama proposed and then signed which kept us out of a depression?
 
Keep carrying that argument into the 2012 elections. apparently in the liberal world poor results are always someone else's responsibility.

Irrational pontification is not a valid substitute for discussing the topic.
 
The facts are the facts. Pretending that they aren't isn't going to win Republicans a lot of votes.

Aw, yes, the Obama results are to be ignored and certainly aren't facts. Guess those non facts are why Obama is doing so well in the JAR polls
 
Back
Top Bottom