• 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%

Conservative said:
You think it isn't an ideologue that supports someone who has been in office 3 years adding 4.5 trillion to the debt, a declining labor force, net job loss, less than 2% GDP growth, and rising misery index? Think that any true ideologue ignores the results to always focus on something else? Sad, very sad
Click to expand...

No, my idea of an ideologue is a hypocrite that rales on about someone (President Obama)while ignoring/defending the policies (reagan) that led to the recession.:2wave:
 
treedancer said:
No, my idea of an ideologue is a hypocrite that rales on about someone (President Obama)while ignoring/defending the policies (reagan) that led to the recession.:2wave:
Click to expand...

LOL, so Reagan who left office in 1989 caused the recession that Obama inherited? I certainly understand how tough it must be on your looking at the 17 million jobs Reagan created and the doubling of GDP when "your" President has added 4.5 trillion to the debt, has a net job loss, declining labor force, less than 2% GDP growth, and a rising misery index. Anyone that supports this President is truly a leftwing ideologue for those results apparently are outstanding and exactly what the liberals want
 
AdamT said:
Who said anything about discouraging foreign investment? Did you forget that Chrysler was taken over by Fiat?
Click to expand...


You said
Sure, other companies would have picked up the slack, eventually. But a lot of that slack would have been taken up by foreign brands.
Click to expand...

Which foreign brands were you thinking of? And if Fiat bought Chrysler why bail them out? Wouldn't it be better for foreign buyers to purchase these white elephants than the US taxpayer?

While it's true that car manufacturing is international, Detroit still leads over all in U.S. production
Click to expand...


How can you tell? When the government gets involved in the manufacture of automobiles the entire economy gets distorted. How can other companies compete against the government?

Barrak Obama has given the American people the Voltswagen. Isn't that great?

The Voltswagen, as in the case of another famous world leader who got himself involved in the automobile industry, will be BHO's legacy.

Get a subsidized one now because it will be a valuable collectors item later.
 
Last edited:
Which foreign brands were you thinking of? And if Fiat bought Chrysler why bail them out? Wouldn't it be better for foreign buyers to purchase these white elephants than the US taxpayer?

How can you tell? When the government gets involved in the manufacture of automobiles the entire economy gets distorted. How can other companies compete against the government?

Barrak Obama has given the American people the Voltswagen. Isn't that great?

The Voltswagen, as in the case of another famous world leader who got himself involved in the automobile industry, will be BHO's legacy.

Get a subsidized one now because it will be a valuable collectors item later.
Click to expand...

I think we're getting a bit confused here. The argument was that America wouldn't lose any jobs if GM and Chrysler failed because people would just buy other cars. My response was that yes, they would, but on the whole other cars support fewer American jobs.

I'm not seeing how the whole economy has been distorted. In fact it was the distorted economy that brought GM and Chrysler to their knees.

The GM Volt was planned long before Obama was even a glimmer in America's eye. It was the vision of Rick Wagoner -- that guy y'all think should never have been fired.
 
AdamT said:
Yes, I think it would be foolish to ignore the amazing success of companies like Samsung and Kia/Hyndai. And I think the attitude that American can't learn a thing from the rest of world is beyond dumb.
Click to expand...

So what you've learned from South Korea is that the American government should be involved in the Automobile industry? An American Trabant, perhaps, learned from the East Germans and the Voltswagen, inspired by you-know-who.

Perhaps there are are lessons to be learned from the outside world that can be avoided at home. Or perhaps some people never learn.
 
AdamT said:
I think we're getting a bit confused here. The argument was that America wouldn't lose any jobs if GM and Chrysler failed because people would just buy other cars. My response was that yes, they would, but on the whole other cars support fewer American jobs.
Click to expand...

How so? The American people will continue to drive cars and the dealers will sell thm and they'll be maintained by mechanics. Whats the difference? Just which foreign brands are of a concern to you?

I'm not seeing how the whole economy has been distorted. In fact it was the distorted economy that brought GM and Chrysler to their knees.
Click to expand...

It was bad business decisions and bad union contracts. The American economy would have survived without any bailouts to these companies.

The GM Volt was planned long before Obama was even a glimmer in America's eye. It was the vision of Rick Wagoner -- that guy y'all think should never have been fired.
Click to expand...

I never mentioned Rick Wagoner one way or the other so have no idea who you're referring to here. It's my guess though that he had more experience in the industry than BHO and, as in the case of George Bush, BHO seems to be complaining a lot yet carrying on with the same policies.
 
Conservative said:
I have a different memory than you, the Reagan budgets were less than the Congress wanted and because of the increase in revenue that Congress expanded social spending thus were more than Reagan requested. Riders were placed on military spending bills were increased to fund social spending. Regardless what many want to ignore is that GDP doubled during the Reagan term and after two years of lost jobs Reagan ended up with a net increase of almost 17 million jobs at a cost of 1.7 trillion added to the debt.

Today we have a net job loss and 4.5 trillion added to the debt since January 21, 2009
Click to expand...

When you compare what was actually spent with what was proposed, then the former is a little bit more:

Fiscal Year Proposed Actual % Difference (Cumulative)
1982 695.3 745.8 7.3
1983 773.3 808.4 4.5 (12.1)
1984 862.5 851.8 -1.2 (10.8)
1985 940.3 946.4 0.7 (11.6)
1986 973.7 990.3 1.7 (13.5)
1987 994.0 1003.9 1.0 (14.6)
1988 1024.3 1064.1 3.9 (19.1)
1989 1094.2 1144.2 4.6 (24.5)
______________________________________
Totals $7,357.6 $7,554.9 Avg 2.8 (3.1)
Click to expand...

However:

What supply-siders are doing with the above chart, then, is comparing what was spent in the real world with what Reagan proposed in 8 Rosy Scenarios. They then blame the difference on Congressional action -- despite the fact that Congress didn't act on these increases.

The ruse is akin to a President proposing to spend one dollar on the budget next year, and blaming Congress for (inevitably) exceeding this proposal. Even if it turns out that Congress cuts the real budget, and the economy does better than normal!
Click to expand...

This site does have some other interesting stats as well:

(Growth of government spending)
Average Annual Growth:
President Before servicing debt After servicing debt
Nixon 4.2% 4.2%
Ford 3.3 3.1
Carter 3.4 2.6
Reagan (82-87) 1.8 1.1
Reagan (82-89) 2.0 1.3
Bush 1.0 1.2
Clinton 1.0 0.4
Click to expand...

So, Reagan and Obama are two peas in a pod, right?
 
Dittohead not! said:
When you compare what was actually spent with what was proposed, then the former is a little bit more:



However:



This site does have some other interesting stats as well:

(Growth of government spending)


So, Reagan and Obama are two peas in a pod, right?
Click to expand...

i don't see the Obama spending in your chart but with regard to results it only be the rabid hatred for Reagan that ignores the 17 million jobs created during his term as well as the doubling of GDP. in addition FIT increased after the Reagan Tax cuts because of 17 million new taxpayers. Seems results regarding Reagan focus on the debt and not the job creation and economic growth whereas the results of obama are focused on what happened during the Reagan and Bush years.
 
Grant said:
How so? The American people will continue to drive cars and the dealers will sell thm and they'll be maintained by mechanics. Whats the difference? Just which foreign brands are of a concern to you?
Click to expand...

This is not complicated -- try to think about it. On average a car sold by the big three supports more American jobs than a car sold by other manufacturers. Therefore, if GM and Chrysler go out of business, the economy loses jobs. Just math and common sense.

It was bad business decisions and bad union contracts. The American economy would have survived without any bailouts to these companies.
Click to expand...

It was bad decisions and contracts, coupled with the Great Recession. GM was already restructuring and probably would have pulled through if the economy hadn't tanked when it did. Chrysler probably would have merged with Fiat either way, though on more favorable terms.

I never mentioned Rick Wagoner one way or the other so have no idea who you're referring to here. It's my guess though that he had more experience in the industry than BHO and, as in the case of George Bush, BHO seems to be complaining a lot yet carrying on with the same policies.
Click to expand...

It's a frequent charge by conservatives that Wagoner shouldn't have been fired, notwithstanding the fact that the company performed miserably under his stewardship. Of course Obama has never had a role in running the company. That task was given to two very competent CEOs with vast experience turning around large corporations.
 
Conservative said:
i don't see the Obama spending in your chart but with regard to results it only be the rabid hatred for Reagan that ignores the 17 million jobs created during his term as well as the doubling of GDP. in addition FIT increased after the Reagan Tax cuts because of 17 million new taxpayers. Seems results regarding Reagan focus on the debt and not the job creation and economic growth whereas the results of obama are focused on what happened during the Reagan and Bush years.
Click to expand...

Do you think that the growth of federal spending under Reagan was responsible for creating all those jobs?

If not, the what could it have been?
 
Conservative said:
LOL, so Reagan who left office in 1989 caused the recession that Obama inherited? I certainly understand how tough it must be on your looking at the 17 million jobs Reagan created and the doubling of GDP when "your" President has added 4.5 trillion to the debt, has a net job loss, declining labor force, less than 2% GDP growth, and a rising misery index. Anyone that supports this President is truly a leftwing ideologue for those results apparently are outstanding and exactly what the liberals want
Click to expand...


Well shooter evidently was a disciple of voodoo/Reagan economics when he made this quote “Reagan proved deficits don't matter “.

But the post that you quoted was about “ideologues “. I can understand your reason for wanting to get off of that subject though.:mrgreen:
 
AdamT said:
This is not complicated -- try to think about it. On average a car sold by the big three supports more American jobs than a car sold by other manufacturers. Therefore, if GM and Chrysler go out of business, the economy loses jobs. Just math and common sense.
Click to expand...

For the third time now, can you name these 'foreign brands' that have you concerned?

What jobs are lost in one area will be gained in another. There would only be a slump in the auto industry if people stopped buying cars.
It was bad decisions and contracts, coupled with the Great Recession.
Click to expand...

Yes, bad decisions and bad union contracts. Let's not eras the union pa
rt.

GM was already restructuring and probably would have pulled through if the economy hadn't tanked when it did.
Click to expand...

Then why did BHO fire Wagoner when BHO had no business experience whatsoever? BHO wants the patience of the American peole for an economic recovery that he did not offer to the President of GM. Isn't that true? Applying Obama's own rules, he should be fired at the nd of his term.

Chrysler probably would have merged with Fiat either way, though on more favorable terms.
Click to expand...

It seems that since BHO left Chicago for DC and became an expert in Detroit, everyone has become a professional in the auto industry. But I guess if BHO can catch on in weeks just whats wrong in an international corporation then anyone can. We're all geniuses now.

It's a frequent charge by conservatives that Wagoner shouldn't have been fired, notwithstanding the fact that the company performed miserably under his stewardship. Of course Obama has never had a role in running the company. That task was given to two very competent CEOs with vast experience turning around large corporations.
Click to expand...

Well I never mentioned Wagoner so am not part of the y'all. Who were these two very competent experts hired by Obama?
Click to expand...
 
Dittohead not! said:
Do you think that the growth of federal spending under Reagan was responsible for creating all those jobs?

If not, the what could it have been?
Click to expand...

Not nearly as much as many think, the tax cuts which spurred spending was more responsible for the economic growth and job creations
 
Grant said:
For the third time now, can you name these 'foreign brands' that have you concerned?

What jobs are lost in one area will be gained in another. There would only be a slump in the auto industry if people stopped buying cars.


Yes, bad decisions and bad union contracts. Let's not eras the union pa

Then why did BHO fire Wagoner when BHO had no business experience whatsoever? BHO wants the patience of the American peole for an economic recovery that he did not offer to the President of GM. Isn't that true? Applying Obama's own rules, he should be fired at the nd of his term.



It seems that since BHO left Chicago for DC and became an expert in Detroit, everyone has become a professional in the auto industry. But I guess if BHO can catch on in weeks just whats wrong in an international corporation then anyone can. We're all geniuses now.



Well I never mentioned Wagoner so am not part of the y'all. Who were these two very competent experts hired by Obama?
Click to expand...

How is it a president can use tax money to take over a corporation, then fire the CEO?

Is that power covered somewhere in the Constitution?

or was it an experiment in socialism, real socialism, not just a government program that is being called that by its opponents? The government taking over an automaker, firing the CEO, mandating (was it a mandate?) that the company produce certain sorts of vehicles, doesn't that describe government control of the means of production?
Click to expand...
 
treedancer said:
Well shooter evidently was a disciple of voodoo/Reagan economics when he made this quote “Reagan proved deficits don't matter “.

But the post that you quoted was about “ideologues “. I can understand your reason for wanting to get off of that subject though.:mrgreen:
Click to expand...

Results matter but they don't to a liberal where ideology trumps actual results. Reagan added 1.7 trillion to the debt and created 17 million jobs and doubled GDP. Obama has added 4.5 trillion to the debt and has a net job loss, declining labor force, and fewer people employed. live with it
 
Conservative said:
Results matter but they don't to a liberal where ideology trumps actual results. Reagan added 1.7 trillion to the debt and created 17 million jobs and doubled GDP. Obama has added 4.5 trillion to the debt and has a net job loss, declining labor force, and fewer people employed. live with it
Click to expand...

1st, presidents don't have control. Congress has more, but still limited and not able to fix the problems we ahve. Government is not the answer, especially limited government. If you want to hold government responsible, you have to give government control. I don't advise that. You seem to be arguing for government control, and I don't think you realize it.

Second, it's not a bad thing to be smart. So, criticising Obama for being smart is kind of silly. That said, being smart doesn't mean you do things outside your ability or what is allowed by law.

Just saying.. . . :coffeepap
 
For the third time now, can you name these 'foreign brands' that have you concerned?
Click to expand...

Seriously, are you dense? I'm talking about brands other than the big three.

What jobs are lost in one area will be gained in another. There would only be a slump in the auto industry if people stopped buying cars.
Click to expand...

Sure, but a lot of the jobs lost in the U.S. would be jobs gained in Japan, S. Korea, and Germany. Not sure how I can make that any clearer....

Then why did BHO fire Wagoner when BHO had no business experience whatsoever? BHO wants the patience of the American peole for an economic recovery that he did not offer to the President of GM. Isn't that true? Applying Obama's own rules, he should be fired at the nd of his term.
Click to expand...

He fired Wagoner because the turnaround expert he brought in to study the company determined that Wagoner was detrimental to the turnaround. That expert was Steve Rattner, formerly of the Quadrangle Group -- a private equity firm Rattner helped grow from $1 billion in capital to $6 billion in capital over a period of eight years. When Rattner left they brought in Ed Whitacre, the former CEO of AT&T. As far as giving Wagoner a chance, he was CEO of GM for eight years, during which time the company lost $85 billion. I think that's enough time to draw conclusions.

It seems that since BHO left Chicago for DC and became an expert in Detroit, everyone has become a professional in the auto industry. But I guess if BHO can catch on in weeks just whats wrong in an international corporation then anyone can. We're all geniuses now.
Click to expand...

I guess the results speak for themselves. Even in the down economy GM is more profitable now than it's been in many years. In any case, Obama didn't force this on GM & Chrysler. They came to him because they had no other options. If you come to the government on bended knee begging them to save your ass I think it's fair to expect that the government may impose some conditions, don't you?
 
Last edited:
Boo Radley said:
1st, presidents don't have control. Congress has more, but still limited and not able to fix the problems we ahve. Government is not the answer, especially limited government. If you want to hold government responsible, you have to give government control. I don't advise that. You seem to be arguing for government control, and I don't think you realize it.

Second, it's not a bad thing to be smart. So, criticising Obama for being smart is kind of silly. That said, being smart doesn't mean you do things outside your ability or what is allowed by law.

Just saying.. . . :coffeepap
Click to expand...

Leadership matters and a President can show leadership with his words as well as his actions. Obama lacks basic leadership skills and has a do as I say not as I do attitude. The results speak for themselves just like the rhetoric.

Reagan v. Obama from iOwnTheWorld.com - YouTube
 
Boo Radley said:
1st, presidents don't have control. Congress has more, but still limited and not able to fix the problems we ahve. Government is not the answer, especially limited government. If you want to hold government responsible, you have to give government control. I don't advise that. You seem to be arguing for government control, and I don't think you realize it.

Second, it's not a bad thing to be smart. So, criticising Obama for being smart is kind of silly. That said, being smart doesn't mean you do things outside your ability or what is allowed by law.

Just saying.. . . :coffeepap
Click to expand...

Well, you know how liberals think. Everything depends on the government. It's up to the government to create jobs, so if there were jobs created, then it had to have been the government that did it, in particular, the executive branch. If the economy is bad, then it is the fault of government, and it's up to the government to fix the problem Big government is the solution to everything.

Yet, liberals think they're conservatives. Go figure.
 
Conservative said:
Leadership matters and a President can show leadership with his words as well as his actions. Obama lacks basic leadership skills and has a do as I say not as I do attitude. The results speak for themselves just like the rhetoric.

Reagan v. Obama from iOwnTheWorld.com - YouTube
Click to expand...

Yes, leadership is important, but not control. There are somethings beyond government. You need to ask yourself exactly what you want Obama to do.
 
Boo Radley said:
Yes, leadership is important, but not control. There are somethings beyond government. You need to ask yourself exactly what you want Obama to do.
Click to expand...

It would be great to have a President that stopped micro managing a private sector economy that he doesn't understand. he had no business taking over GM/Chrysler, he has no business imposing healthcare which is a personal responsibility issue on the American people, he has no business demonizing the rich and promoting redistribution of wealth, and he has no business promoting class warfare in his speeches. He cannot run on his record so he needs to demonize someone else and that isn't the kind of leadership this country needs.
 
Conservative said:
It would be great to have a President that stopped micro managing a private sector economy that he doesn't understand. he had no business taking over GM/Chrysler, he has no business imposing healthcare which is a personal responsibility issue on the American people, he has no business demonizing the rich and promoting redistribution of wealth, and he has no business promoting class warfare in his speeches. He cannot run on his record so he needs to demonize someone else and that isn't the kind of leadership this country needs.
Click to expand...

You realize, the less he does, the less control he has. Just think you should know that. But I don't think he is micro managing, and frankly your posts seem to suggest you don't either. And he is not running GM/Chrysler. That's more hype than reality.

And frankly, you folks demonize the poor and working people than he does the rich. It's kind of like a pot and kettle thing. And much more fantasy on your part.

But I asked what you wanted him to do to improve the economy. If you think he has control, give me something he controls.
 
Boo Radley said:
You realize, the less he does, the less control he has. Just think you should know that. But I don't think he is micro managing, and frankly your posts seem to suggest you don't either. And he is not running GM/Chrysler. That's more hype than reality.

And frankly, you folks demonize the poor and working people than he does the rich. It's kind of like a pot and kettle thing. And much more fantasy on your part.

But I asked what you wanted him to do to improve the economy. If you think he has control, give me something he controls.
Click to expand...

You think it is demonizing the poor to expect people that can take care of themselves to do so? Do you think it is demonizing the poor to expect something out of taxpayer dollars? What demonization of the poor can you point to and be specfic

As for control, he controls the executive orders he issues and he had total control of Pelosi and Reid thus the legislative and spending policies
 
Conservative said:
You think it is demonizing the poor to expect people that can take care of themselves to do so? Do you think it is demonizing the poor to expect something out of taxpayer dollars? What demonization of the poor can you point to and be specfic

As for control, he controls the executive orders he issues and he had total control of Pelosi and Reid thus the legislative and spending policies
Click to expand...

You think most don't? Say a lot about you.

Most people in this country work. That you think they don't, and speak only to a miniority, and apply to those who work, is demonizing.

And no excutive order actually does anything to control the economy. Nor does congress. This is my poitn you keep running around.
 
Dittohead not! said:
How is it a president can use tax money to take over a corporation, then fire the CEO?

Is that power covered somewhere in the Constitution?
Click to expand...

You got me there, Dittohead not!

It should have been pointed out by someone, I suppose, that this sort of action could eventually lead to a serious abuse of power, even if everyone does give Barrack Obama and his 'Czars' every benefit of the doubt. What is to stop them from doing the same to small companies, mom and pop stores, or any business whatsoever. All they have to do is claim it is the national interest, as also goes the argument here, and it becomes an easy sell. This seems seriously short sighted to me. That, to paraphrase Barrack Obama, is not the America I know.

And what is especially concerning in these similar areas is the fairly recent decision of the Supreme Court, as outlined here. Government Seizure of Private Assets: A Clear and Present Danger to America | Sensible Thought


or was it an experiment in socialism, real socialism, not just a government program that is being called that by its opponents? The government taking over an automaker, firing the CEO, mandating (was it a mandate?) that the company produce certain sorts of vehicles, doesn't that describe government control of the means of production?
Click to expand...

Hmmm, Government control of the means of production. For some reason that phrase seems foreign, yet oddly familiar.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom