U.S. Jobless Rate Unexpectedly Declines to 8.6%

Conservative · Dec 12, 2011

EarlzP said:
In our conversations it has become apparent to me that you may not understand what real leadership skills are. Let me explain a little, real leaders are willing to compromise in order to reach an agreement that best meets the needs of everyone involved I have not seen any indication from you that you are willing to compromise at all nor have I seen any indication from the Grover Norquist pledged and led conservatives that they are willing to compromise.

I could pick apart your talking points but it would not matter at all to you, some where you formed the opinion that you know it all and it appears that nothing and no one will ever convince you to look at things from a different point of view.

I will say this again it is impossible to compare the President Reagan presidency with the President Obama presidency for a number of reasons one and perhaps the most important distinctions is that President Reagan did not have to deal with an opposition party that refuses to compromise. Good leadership skills require idealogical give and take President Obama has shown that he willing to compromise and for that reason if none other he will be re-elected in 2012 and the American people will give him both houses and a opportunity to salvage the American economy

Real leaders don't blame others for their own mistakes. Real leaders do compromise but you don't compromise with a liberal, you defeat them as Reagan did.

Your ignorance of what went on in the 80's is quite telling. Reagan's budgets and economic policies were DOA according to Tip O'Neil but that fact escapes you just like the net 17 million job increase during his term. If you believe liberal economic policy will save the American economy then you are indeed hopeless and ignore the actual Obama results generated with a Democrat Congress with overwhelming numbers. Neither Reagan or Bush had those kind of numbers. Reagan took his policies to the American people and Bush implemented his policies from 2003-2006 and the results are there for all to see. Stop ignoring them.

Blue_State · Dec 12, 2011

AdamT said:
Grant 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. In the meantime, instead of peaking at an unemployment rate a little over 10%, we'd have been looking at UP of 11 - 12%. The markets would have puked, revenues would have fallen even farther, and tax expenditures would have risen to pay all those UP benefits. In other words, it was going to cost the government billions one way or the other.

Click to expand...

Those factories would still be located in the US. Those workers and engineers would still be located in the US. Another business, entrepreneur would buy the assets and employ workers/engineers to make a new product. The weak parts would be left to rot. The strong and good parts would go back into production. It makes our country stronger, faster and more competitive. What the government did was promote buggy whips in the day of the car. They tried to pick another winner...and lost.

AdamT · Dec 12, 2011

Conservative said:
Real leaders don't blame others for their own mistakes. Real leaders do compromise but you don't compromise with a liberal, you defeat them as Reagan did.

Reagan would have accomplished little or nothing if he hadn't been willing to work with Tip O'Neill.

Reagan had a basic philosophy: Cut taxes, cut the size of government and beat the Soviets. Tip believed that Social Security had alleviated the fear millions once had of old age, and that the GI Bill and other government programs built the American middle class. Yet, occasionally, the two found common ground.

"Tip had the last word and it was good one," Reagan jotted in his diary after one meeting. Another entry: "I'm having more luck with Demos than Repubs. Asked O'Neill if I could address a joint session next week. He agreed."

Chris Matthews - What Ronald Reagan and Tip O'Neill could teach Washington today

Conservative · Dec 12, 2011

AdamT said:
Reagan would have accomplished little or nothing if he hadn't been willing to work with Tip O'Neill.

Chris Matthews - What Ronald Reagan and Tip O'Neill could teach Washington today

You can re-write history but you cannot change history. Tip O'Neill called the Reagan budgets DOA. You need to do better reserach or at least some. Stop buying what you are told and verify the rhetoric.

AdamT · Dec 12, 2011

Blue_State said:
AdamT said:

Those factories would still be located in the US. Those workers and engineers would still be located in the US. Another business, entrepreneur would buy the assets and employ workers/engineers to make a new product. The weak parts would be left to rot. The strong and good parts would go back into production. It makes our country stronger, faster and more competitive. What the government did was promote buggy whips in the day of the car. They tried to pick another winner...and lost.

Click to expand...

Some of the factories would be in the US and some wouldn't. Some of the engineers would be in the US and some wouldn't. Clearly there would have been a net loss of US jobs.

As far as other companies buying up their assets -- there were no takers. The big three had been contracting for several years prior to the metldown and no one was moving into or buying their shuttered facilities. And it wasn't for lack of trying. All of the big three were aggressively seeking deals with other manufacturers.

What the government did was accelerate the restructuring process that the big three had already undertaken. The controlled bankruptcies allowed them to shed failing brands and models, lose excess dealership capacity, jettison much of their legacy labor costs, and continue with a workforce being paid competitive wages. As a consequence, all three of them are now profitable.

AdamT · Dec 12, 2011

Conservative said:
You can re-write history but you cannot change history. Tip O'Neill called the Reagan budgets DOA. You need to do better reserach or at least some. Stop buying what you are told and verify the rhetoric.

They were rivals, and had very different ideas, but in the end they worked together and the budgets got passed. With a Democratic Congress. That is what leadership is about: fighting for you ideas but recognizing that you need to find common ground if want to get anything done.

Conservative · Dec 12, 2011

AdamT said:
They were rivals, and had very different ideas, but in the end they worked together and the budgets got passed. With a Democratic Congress. That is what leadership is about: fighting for you ideas but recognizing that you need to find common ground if want to get anything done.

Tip O'Neill was forced by the electorate to work with Reagan. Obama has made zero effort to work with the Republicans. Obama hasn't been transparent, hasn't been a uniter, but has been a total disaster as his results show

Dittohead not! · Dec 12, 2011

Conservative said:
Real leaders don't blame others for their own mistakes.

True.

Conservative said:
Real leaders do compromise but you don't compromise with a liberal,

That attitude sums up one big reason why Congress is dysfunctional, particularly when "liberal" means "Democrat", or "anyone who disagrees with my point of view."

Conservative said:
you defeat them as Reagan did.

So, it was Reagan who supported the amnesty bill. All this time I thought it was the "liberals".

Conservative said:
Your ignorance of what went on in the 80's is quite telling. Reagan's budgets and economic policies were DOA according to Tip O'Neil but that fact escapes you just like the net 17 million job increase during his term.

It was a time of economic growth, to be sure, along with growth of the federal government, fueled by deficit spending. Do you remember that the budgets Reagan proposed were often more than what Congress passed?

AdamT · Dec 12, 2011

Conservative said:
Tip O'Neill was forced by the electorate to work with Reagan. Obama has made zero effort to work with the Republicans. Obama hasn't been transparent, hasn't been a uniter, but has been a total disaster as his results show

I guess I missed the crowds with torches and pitchforks marching towards Tip's office. :lol:

Reagan hardly had a massive mandate in his first term. Obama had a bigger percentage of the popular vote ... and Reagan was running against Carter! And Reagan's approval rating followed a course eerily similar to Obama's.

The fact is that Reagan and O'Neill worked together. Otherwise Reagan never would have gotten his economic plan through Congress.

Conservative · Dec 12, 2011

Dittohead not! said:
True.

That attitude sums up one big reason why Congress is dysfunctional, particularly when "liberal" means "Democrat", or "anyone who disagrees with my point of view."

So, it was Reagan who supported the amnesty bill. All this time I thought it was the "liberals".

It was a time of economic growth, to be sure, along with growth of the federal government, fueled by deficit spending. Do you remember that the budgets Reagan proposed were often more than what Congress passed?

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

Conservative · Dec 12, 2011

AdamT said:
I guess I missed the crowds with torches and pitchforks marching towards Tip's office. :lol:

Reagan hardly had a massive mandate in his first term. Obama had a bigger percentage of the popular vote ... and Reagan was running against Carter! And Reagan's approval rating followed a course eerily similar to Obama's.

The fact is that Reagan and O'Neill worked together. Otherwise Reagan never would have gotten his economic plan through Congress.

Guess you missed the landslide victory Reagan won in 1984 too or the flooding of calls and letters to Congress supporting the Reagan agenda to get us out of the Carter malaise. You seem to be again focused on diverting to the past to keep from talking about the Obama results. Let me remind you, in 8 years Reagan had a net job increase of almost 17 million and added 1.7 trillion to the debt. In Three years Obama has a 4.5 trillion increase in the debt and a net job loss. Quite telling that you support the Obama results

AdamT · Dec 12, 2011

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

And in today's dollars Reagan ran up a $3 trillion deficit. What's worse, the structural changes he made to the tax code contributed to all the deficits that followed.

Conservative · Dec 12, 2011

AdamT said:
And in today's dollars Reagan ran up a $3 trillion deficit. What's worse, the structural changes he made to the tax code contributed to all the deficits that followed.

We didn't pay debt service in the 80's in today's dollars nor did we spend money or take in revenue in the 80's in today's dollars.

AdamT · Dec 12, 2011

Conservative said:
Guess you missed the landslide victory Reagan won in 1984 too or the flooding of calls and letters to Congress supporting the Reagan agenda to get us out of the Carter malaise. You seem to be again focused on diverting to the past to keep from talking about the Obama results. Let me remind you, in 8 years Reagan had a net job increase of almost 17 million and added 1.7 trillion to the debt. In Three years Obama has a 4.5 trillion increase in the debt and a net job loss. Quite telling that you support the Obama results

Very different economic conditions then versus now. And Reagan had a Congress that did not oppose his every proposal in lock-step fashion.

The misery index during Reagan's first three years FAR exceeded the misery index during Obama's first three years. We'll see how Obama compares over all after his second term.

AdamT · Dec 12, 2011

Conservative said:
We didn't pay debt service in the 80's in today's dollars nor did we spend money or take in revenue in the 80's in today's dollars.

Dude, wake up. You can't compare dollar amounts across a three decade span without converting them into constant dollars. That would be ridiculously dishonest.

Conservative · Dec 12, 2011

AdamT said:
Very different economic conditions then versus now. And Reagan had a Congress that did not oppose his every proposal in lock-step fashion.

The misery index during Reagan's first three years FAR exceeded the misery index during Obama's first three years. We'll see how Obama compares over all after his second term.

Just goes to show that you have very little knowledge of the 80's. Reagan inherited a 19.33 misery index and reduced it, Obama inherited a 7.87 misery index and increased it. Yes, I see the difference. Reagan increased employment by almost 17 million, Obama has lost jobs. Reagan doubled GDP and Obama has 2% GDP growth

Conservative · Dec 12, 2011

AdamT said:
Dude, wake up. You can't compare dollar amounts across a three decade span without converting them into constant dollars. That would be ridiculously dishonest.

You count the dollar amount in the debt service paid by the electorate and the results generated by the spending. Results matter, not your rhetoric and ignoring the Obama results.

whysoserious · Dec 12, 2011

AdamT said:
Dude, wake up. You can't compare dollar amounts across a three decade span without converting them into constant dollars. That would be ridiculously dishonest.

You are barking up the wrong tree. I gave him a tutorial on that a few months ago.

http://www.debatepolitics.com/2012-...n-obama-grows-strongly-21.html#post1059892931

me said:
For Conservative, here is a tutorial in inflation adjusted dollars:

It's year one, and guess what buddy? You have one whole dollar in your pocket! Year one has a nice inflation rate of 2%. Year 2 has an inflation rate of 3%, and year 3 has an inflation rate of 5%. In year 1, you earned 5 cents, nice job! In year two, you earned 10 cents! Wow, way to go! In year 3, you earned nothing. You're a sad panda.

Money You Earned With Inflation
Jan 1 Year 1: 1
Jan 1 Year 2: 1.02 + .05 = 1.07
Jan 1 Year 3: (1.07)(1.03) + .1 = 1.20
Jan 1 Year 4: (1.2)(1.05) + 0 = 1.26

Percent Change Without Adjusting For Inflation
Year 1: 7%
Year 2: 10.83%
Year 3: 4.76%

But in reality, you didn't earn **** in year 3. It should be a zero, but because of inflation, you netted positive. So, adjusting for inflation:

Year 1: (1.07)/(1.02) = 1.05
Year 2: (1.20)/[(1.03)(1.02)] = 1.14
Year 3: (1.26)/[(1.05)(1.03)(1.02)] = 1.14

Percent Change In Dollars Adjusted For Inflation
Year 1: 5%
Year 2: 7.89%
Year 3: 0%

His response:

Conservative said:
Guess what, Buddy, it is three years into the Obama Administration and there are more unemployed, fewer jobs, higher debt, and a higher misery index. that is reality as is his Job Approval rating. Still supporting this President?

What can you do about it?

AdamT · Dec 12, 2011

Conservative said:
You count the dollar amount in the debt service paid by the electorate and the results generated by the spending. Results matter, not your rhetoric and ignoring the Obama results.

No, you convert the sums to constant dollars or you don't bother with the exercise, period.

From WWII until 1980, the debt as a percentage of GDP consistently fell. Reagan blew that up and put in effect economic policies that have led directly to the current debt crisis. If the top effective tax rate had remained the same from 1986 until today, the total debt would stand around $2 trillion instead of $15 trillion. And that is according to Bruce Bartlett -- senior advisor to Ronald Reagan.

Donc · Dec 12, 2011

AdamT said:
No, you convert the sums to constant dollars or you don't bother with the exercise, period.

From WWII until 1980, the debt as a percentage of GDP consistently fell. Reagan blew that up and put in effect economic policies that have led directly to the current debt crisis. If the top effective tax rate had remained the same from 1986 until today, the total debt would stand around $2 trillion instead of $15 trillion. And that is according to Bruce Bartlett -- senior advisor to Ronald Reagan.

It kinda hard to argue with an ideologue Adam. So sad.

Grant · Dec 12, 2011

AdamT 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. In the meantime, instead of peaking at an unemployment rate a little over 10%, we'd have been looking at UP of 11 - 12%. The markets would have puked, revenues would have fallen even farther, and tax expenditures would have risen to pay all those UP benefits. In other words, it was going to cost the government billions one way or the other.

So now we move on to the "foreign brands" stance? Did the American taxpayers spend billions of dollars in taxpayers money to avoid foreign investment in the United States? Believe it or not but many countries are encouraging foreign investment, Canada among many others. Meanwhile evidence is that the United States is discouraging foreign business and investments.

There is no evidence, apart from the word from the distributors of Kool Aid, that there would have been any unemployment in those measures at all, athough there undoubtedly will be if the Democrats continue to discourage foreign investment. All we have to do is look at the Keystone Project to see that that genuine blue collar jobs are of little interest to present day Democrats. Joe the Plumber working class people are always a mystery to the faculty lounge in this New America.

Conservative · Dec 12, 2011

treedancer said:
It kinda hard to argue with an ideologue Adam. So sad.

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

Grant · Dec 12, 2011

AdamT said:
I don't necessarily see government assistance to industry as bad, let alone catastrophic. It has certainly been invaluable to the S. Korean industrial giants who are kicking ass and taking names.

You feel South Korea should be an example and an inspiration to the United States?

Perhaps Barrack Obama should base his ongoing election campaign on that idea.

AdamT · Dec 12, 2011

Grant said:
So now we move on to the "foreign brands" stance? Did the American taxpayers spend billions of dollars in taxpayers money to avoid foreign investment in the United States? Believe it or not but many countries are encouraging foreign investment, Canada among many others. Meanwhile evidence is that the United States is discouraging foreign business and investments.

There is no evidence, apart from the word from the distributors of Kool Aid, that there would have been any unemployment in those measures at all, athough there undoubtedly will be if the Democrats continue to discourage foreign investment. All we have to do is look at the Keystone Project to see that that genuine blue collar jobs are of little interest to present day Democrats. Joe the Plumber working class people are always a mystery to the faculty lounge in this New America.

Who said anything about discouraging foreign investment? Did you forget that Chrysler was taken over by Fiat?

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

Still, Detroit automakers build a majority of the nameplates with high domestic content. For the 2011 model year, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration reports 37 models have domestic parts content of 75 percent or higher. Twenty-eight of them are from a Detroit-based brand. A year ago, Detroit brands were responsible for 35 of the 47 models rated 75 percent or higher.

AdamT · Dec 12, 2011

Grant said:
You feel South Korea should be an example and an inspiration to the United States?

Perhaps Barrack Obama should base his ongoing election campaign on that idea.

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.

U.S. Jobless Rate Unexpectedly Declines to 8.6%

master political analyst