• 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!

US economy creates 243,000 jobs in January

Status
Not open for further replies.
First, the recession ended 3 years ago. Second, as Sheik Yerbuti pointed out, much of the decline in the labor force is baby boomers retiring. That has the duel impact of lowering income tax revenues while increasing the drain on the treasury. What we have is a structural problem where a declining work force will have to support a growing population that has retired and living off of SS and Medicare. The trillion dollar annual budget deficit is something that may never go away. Unless, someone steps forward and leads on the issue. And I see no presidential candidate in either party ready to step forward and lead on that issue.

Because of economic conditions retirements have been postponed by many baby boomers and the reality is 1.059 million discouraged workers weren't counted last month and that is after spending trillions and trillions of dollars to stimulate and grow the economy. That is a disaster. This country cannot afford trillion dollar deficits for ever as the value of our dollar is going to be worthless. We are seeing now what happens when you create a unified budget and put SS/Medicare on budget and spend that money on social programs that have failed. We are broke and Obama is stepping on the gas
 
First, the recession ended 3 years ago. Second, as Sheik Yerbuti pointed out, much of the decline in the labor force is baby boomers retiring. That has the duel impact of lowering income tax revenues while increasing the drain on the treasury. What we have is a structural problem where a declining work force will have to support a growing population that has retired and living off of SS and Medicare. The trillion dollar annual budget deficit is something that may never go away. Unless, someone steps forward and leads on the issue. And I see no presidential candidate in either party ready to step forward and lead on that issue.

The recession ended but we are still a ways from being fully recovered. As the economy gets stronger deficits will naturally come down. But I agree that there is plenty more we need to do. Taxes will have to be raised, military and other spending must come down, and Medicare badly needs to be reformed.
 
We are talking about the GM/Chrysler buyout and the cost benefit of doing that. Taxpayers are losing billions on this deal all because of Obama's desire to save union contracts and keep money coming into the DNC coffers. You certainly can do a cost benefit analysis of the GM/Chrysler takeover but you choose to buy the rhetoric from Obama

No, we WERE talking about GM/Chrysler, then you moved the goal posts because that's a clear loser for you, and now you're trying to move them back because you hit another wall.

The bottom line is that taxpayers would have lost many more billions if GM and Chrysler cratered than they will lose as a result of saving them.
 
No, we WERE talking about GM/Chrysler, then you moved the goal posts because that's a clear loser for you, and now you're trying to move them back because you hit another wall.

The bottom line is that taxpayers would have lost many more billions if GM and Chrysler cratered than they will lose as a result of saving them.

You again are claiming something that you do not know, projections from people you want to believe normally trump reality. We are still talking GM/Chrysler but you want to ignore the cost of that takeover as well as the cost benefit analysis of that takeover. You believe what you are told but are incapable of thinking about the fact that millions of GM/Chrysler vehicles will have to be maintained and that will create demand for new businesses and new jobs. Further the facilities are of value to another auto manufacturer so the loss would have been much much less if any at all.

As is stands now, Michigan is losing workers, Michigan is losing population, and amazingly experienced union auto workers aren't being retained by others states and other auto companies. Ford did it alone and survived. GM/Chrysler could have done it as well or should have gone through the entire managed bankruptcy process. Even the people of Michigan know that according to the exit polls yesterday.

I asked you a question and you ran from it, do you support the European style economic model that is failing all over Europe and why do you think it will work here?
 
We are talking about the GM/Chrysler buyout and the cost benefit of doing that. Taxpayers are losing billions on this deal all because of Obama's desire to save union contracts and keep money coming into the DNC coffers. You certainly can do a cost benefit analysis of the GM/Chrysler takeover but you choose to buy the rhetoric from Obama

10 billion out of 4.6 trillion is what percentage, Con?
 
Because of economic conditions retirements have been postponed by many baby boomers and the reality is 1.059 million discouraged workers weren't counted last month and that is after spending trillions and trillions of dollars to stimulate and grow the economy. That is a disaster. This country cannot afford trillion dollar deficits for ever as the value of our dollar is going to be worthless. We are seeing now what happens when you create a unified budget and put SS/Medicare on budget and spend that money on social programs that have failed. We are broke and Obama is stepping on the gas

Are you forgetting that there has been a net gain of over 3 million jobs over the last 2 years in the private sector?
 
Err, you can't really do a cost benefit analysis that way, particularly in view of the fact that much of the deficit is the result of lower revenue due to the recession.

Isn't Obama quoted for saying pass the stimulus and it will bring unemployment to 6%? Or is that a talking point?
 
Are you forgetting that there has been a net gain of over 3 million jobs over the last 2 years in the private sector?

Have you forgotten that is still a net private sector job loss? Doesn't matter to you, does it? You have a job so the hell with those that don't. Just like you did well in the stock market forgetting that most of those 23 Plus million unemployed aren't as fortunate as you. Doesn't really matter to a liberal who says they care about compassion but never generates compassionate results.
 
Exactly. They don't. Which is why I was slamming Veritis and Conservative for trying to establish a connection between the two where none exists.

That was the nuance which eluded you for skipping to the end of the thread.

Excuse me sir, I call that being lazy. Thanks.

lol
 
Last edited:
You again are claiming something that you do not know, projections from people you want to believe normally trump reality. We are still talking GM/Chrysler but you want to ignore the cost of that takeover as well as the cost benefit analysis of that takeover. You believe what you are told but are incapable of thinking about the fact that millions of GM/Chrysler vehicles will have to be maintained and that will create demand for new businesses and new jobs. Further the facilities are of value to another auto manufacturer so the loss would have been much much less if any at all.

As is stands now, Michigan is losing workers, Michigan is losing population, and amazingly experienced union auto workers aren't being retained by others states and other auto companies. Ford did it alone and survived. GM/Chrysler could have done it as well or should have gone through the entire managed bankruptcy process. Even the people of Michigan know that according to the exit polls yesterday.

I asked you a question and you ran from it, do you support the European style economic model that is failing all over Europe and why do you think it will work here?

I can only advise you to read up on the subject so you have some basis to discuss it. There are at least two good books about this and I've read both of them. Just pulling stuff out of your butt isn't helping.

First of all, GM and Chysler new hires are being paid at the same rate as non-union workers elsewhere in the country.

Second, you can't compare Ford to GM and Chrysler. Ford had the foresight to take out massive loans -- literally putting the enire company, down to the blue Ford oval trademark -- in hock just before the Great Recession hit. That gave them the capital they needed to weather the storm. If they had waited another six months to do that they would have been in exactly the same boat as GM and Chrysler because private financing dried up completely.

Third, you want to argue that parts workers would have maintained employment, but you don't understand that Delphi -- GM's primary supplier -- was in even worse shape than GM, and only survived because of the bailouts. Delphi and other suppliers would have gone under, which would have been a major problem for Ford. That's why Ford supported the bailout of two of its biggest rivals. They didn't support the bailouts just because they're nice guys.

Fourth, you are of course wrong about Michigan's unemployment. It is down about 5% from a high of 14.1% in early 2009. It's now at 9.3%, or not much higher than the national average.
 
Last edited:
Isn't Obama quoted for saying pass the stimulus and it will bring unemployment to 6%? Or is that a talking point?

No, he isn't quoted as saying that, and it is a talking point.
 
No, he isn't quoted as saying that, and it is a talking point.

Actually he said he would keep it under 8% after doing a little research.

He is the same guy who said adding 4 Trillion to the national debt was irresponsible and unpatriotic. Of course he was talking about an 8 year term. Not 4.

 
Have you forgotten that is still a net private sector job loss? Doesn't matter to you, does it? You have a job so the hell with those that don't. Just like you did well in the stock market forgetting that most of those 23 Plus million unemployed aren't as fortunate as you. Doesn't really matter to a liberal who says they care about compassion but never generates compassionate results.

That 23 million was 21 and a half million when Bush left office. It increased 11 million during his 8 year reign and that never mattered to you. Now it's up 1.4 million (and dropping) under Obama and suddenly you care. Go sell your feigned outrage to someone stupid enough to fall for it.

And by the way, just about everyone vested in the market while Obama has been president has made money, even the 23 million you became "concerned" about since Obama became president.
 
Last edited:
I can only advise you to read up on the subject so you have some basis to discuss it. There are at least two good books about this and I've read both of them. Just pulling stuff out of your butt isn't helping.

First of all, GM and Chysler new hires are being paid at the same rate as non-union workers elsewhere in the country.

Second, you can't compare Ford to GM and Chrysler. Ford had the foresight to take out massive loans -- literally putting the enire company, down to the blue Ford oval trademark -- in hock just before the Great Recession hit. That gave them the capital they needed to weather the storm. If they had waited another six months to do that they would have been in exactly the same boat as GM and Chrysler because private financing dried up completely.

Third, you want to argue that parts workers would have maintained employment, but you don't understand that Delphi -- GM's primary supplier -- was in even worse shape than GM, and only survived because of the bailouts. Delphi and other suppliers would have gone under, which would have been a major problem for Ford. That's why Ford supported the bailout of two of its biggest rivals. They didn't support the bailouts just because they're nice guys.

Fourth, you are of course wrong about Michigan's unemployment. It is down about 5% from a high of 14.1% in early 2009. It's now at 9.3%, or not much higher than the national average.

What you are continuing to ignore is the drop in the labor force not only in Michigan but nationally and in Michigan that coincides with the drop in the population. Figures don't seem to be your friend nor is your ability to answer the questions. Do you support the European economic model that Obama is implementing here? GM/Chrysler should have been allowed to fail and IMO we would be better off today.
 
That 23 million was 21 and a half million when Bush left office. It increades 11 million during his 8 year reign and that never mattered to you. Now it's up 1.4 million (and dropping) under Obama and suddenly you care. Go sell your feigned outrage to someone stupid enough to fall for it.

And by the way, just about everyone vested in the market while Obama has been president has made money, even the 23 million you became "concerned" about since Obama became president.

Obviously this is going nowhere, you aren't going to convince me that Obama is doing a good job nor do the results show it therefore:

So tell me, Sheik, since Adam won't answer the question do you support the Obama economic policies and attempts to change this economy into a European style economy?

I made a lot of money when Bush was in office so what is your point?
 
Quote Conservative


So tell me, Sheik, since Adam won't answer the question do you support the Obama economic policies and attempts to change this economy into a European style economy?

What policies has Obama attempted to change that you consider to be "European style economy "? :2wave:
 
Obviously this is going nowhere, you aren't going to convince me that Obama is doing a good job nor do the results show it therefore:

So tell me, Sheik, since Adam won't answer the question do you support the Obama economic policies and attempts to change this economy into a European style economy?

I made a lot of money when Bush was in office so what is your point?

You've already asked me that amd I've already answered. It's not my fault you don't pay attention in class.
 
Actually he said he would keep it under 8% after doing a little research.

He is the same guy who said adding 4 Trillion to the national debt was irresponsible and unpatriotic. Of course he was talking about an 8 year term. Not 4.

The 8% figure was an estimate that was always known -- and stated -- to have a wide margin of error. The main point was that the stimulus would keep unemployment several points below what it would have been without it, and in that respect it was a success.
 
What you are continuing to ignore is the drop in the labor force not only in Michigan but nationally and in Michigan that coincides with the drop in the population. Figures don't seem to be your friend nor is your ability to answer the questions. Do you support the European economic model that Obama is implementing here? GM/Chrysler should have been allowed to fail and IMO we would be better off today.

Of course I've already addressed the drop in the labor force. In fact the civilian labor force is bigger now then it was when Obama took office. It's smaller as a percentage of the population due to the aging of the baby boomers, discouraged workers, and others who left to get different or additional job training. The bottom line is that the economy is improving almost across the board. The remaining friction is mostly the result of foreclosed properties which are hurting property values and depressing the construction industry. There isn't much Obama can do about that, short of forcing banks to eat the bad loans. Would you support that?

AFAIK Obama isn't following any European economic model. If GM and Chrysler had been allowed to fail it would have been an epic disaster ... which is why I suppose you support it. No one cheers for bad news or is repulsed by good news like you.
 
Actually he said he would keep it under 8% after doing a little research.

He is the same guy who said adding 4 Trillion to the national debt was irresponsible and unpatriotic. Of course he was talking about an 8 year term. Not 4.

The 8% figure was an estimate that was always known -- and stated -- to have a wide margin of error. The main point was that the stimulus would keep unemployment several points below what it would have been without it, and in that respect it was a success.

It is impossible to say that it served us well. We don't know what would have happened if we let the market correct itself. It was a huge investment from a guy who said it was an unpatriotic act. It didn't make his estimate.
 
Drop in labor:


High quality global journalism requires investment. Please share this article with others using the link below, do not cut & paste the article. See our Ts&Cs and Copyright Policy for more detail. Email ftsales.support@ft.com to buy additional rights. America’s incredible shrinking labour force | Gavyn Davies | Insight into macroeconomics and the financial markets from the Financial Times



^alot more intereting than con's political fodder

Not a bad article.
 
Drop in labor:


High quality global journalism requires investment. Please share this article with others using the link below, do not cut & paste the article. See our Ts&Cs and Copyright Policy for more detail. Email ftsales.support@ft.com to buy additional rights. America’s incredible shrinking labour force | Gavyn Davies | Insight into macroeconomics and the financial markets from the Financial Times



^alot more intereting than con's political fodder

Thanks, Winston, for the article about the shrinking labor force, hopefully Adam and Sheik actually read it
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom