• 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!

Jobless rate rises to 8.3 percent, hiring picks up but still falling short

Last edited:
Extending tax cuts on the wealthy changes nothing that is in place now.


So, I'm bad at unemployment statistics. Why did the number go up if we added jobs?

because the number of unemployed increased and the labor force decreased

the unemployment percentage is the number of unemployed divided by the labor force

In June the labor force was 142.4 and in July it was 142.2 million
 
Lower taxes create an atmosphere for positive economic growth. What do you do when you get more spendable income? Does more spendable income translate into more economic activity?
It is not taxes that are limiting the spending of folks, it is debt burden and lowered incomes.
 
I am not a big 'tax cuts for the rich' supporter. I am for lower taxes across the board for everyone, equally.

But tell me how raising taxes on the rich will help consumer spending?

Imo, the more you tax ANY 'class' of taxpayer, the less disposable income available to that economy which then hurts that economy - especially if it is consumer-spending driven, like America's is.

As I see it - it is IMPOSSIBLE that raising the taxes of the wealthy will do anything but hurt the economy, to some extent.


See I think this is where I personally believe the disconnect is. Nobody is saying that eliminating the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy will stimulate the economy. The president is saying they don't need it as bad as the middle class do. This is a way of "trimming" the fat off the program for the purposes of lowering the budget. We can't afford to finance all the Bush tax cuts. If we continued all the bush tax cuts then that means the poor will get impacted and I personally believe that we a moral obligation to take care of the poor.

This is just my two cents.
 
Which would those be....and can they read a chart?

Apparently they forgot how bad it was under Bush.

Okay - let's remind 'them'.

- the unemployment rate was 1.1% lower compared to GWB's last month in office.
- the participation rate was much better (meaning tons of people have simply given up looking for work)
- the average house price is lower now then when Obama took over
- food stamp usage is FAR higher now then when Obama took over
- the national debt is FAR higher now then when Obama took over

So now there is much more debt, less jobs, more starving Americans and their houses are worth less.


You are right - it WAS bad under GWB; I think he was a lousy POTUS.

And now America is worse under Obama.
 
It is not taxes that are limiting the spending of folks, it is debt burden and lowered incomes.

Whose debt burden? How does raising taxes on the rich lower their debt burden? Let me see if I have this correct, in 2011 Obama said that raising taxes on anyone during 2.5% economic growth wasn't a good idea but now that that GDP growth is 1.5% it is a good thing? You people just keep showing how foolish you and your ideology is
 
See I think this is where I personally believe the disconnect is. Nobody is saying that eliminating the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy will stimulate the economy. The president is saying they don't need it as bad as the middle class do. This is a way of "trimming" the fat off the program for the purposes of lowering the budget. We can't afford to finance all the Bush tax cuts. If we continued all the bush tax cuts then that means the poor will get impacted and I personally believe that we a moral obligation to take care of the poor.

This is just my two cents.

But this will only save (apparently) $85 billion from the budget - trimming the deficit by about 1/14th.

And that argument does not wash from Obama's WH.

They have run up the national debt by about 40% since they took office...and now they claim fiscal responsibility by proposing to trim the massive deficit by about 7%?

My two cents is that this is NOTHING to do with the deficit.

This move is strictly to curry favor with the voters who are pissed off at the rich and want some way to hurt them.

And this was the best thing Obama/Dems could come up with.
 
Yes, we have to keep blaming Bush for the Obama economic numbers today, 3 years after the end to the recession. Nice diversion
Really...a comparison to the 2000's in job growth......is "blaming Bush"? Is that really how you see it? See, I think your comment is the diversion, since it has no relationship to what I posted, I think again it is your way of changing the subject. The subject was "this is the worst recovery", I show that the payroll recovery is better than the 2000's.....and you think this is a comment on blaming Bush.....for an economy doing better, in this measure, than the Bush years.
It just amazes me how twisted some ideas are.
 
Really...a comparison to the 2000's in job growth......is "blaming Bush"? Is that really how you see it? See, I think your comment is the diversion, since it has no relationship to what I posted, I think again it is your way of changing the subject. The subject was "this is the worst recovery", I show that the payroll recovery is better than the 2000's.....and you think this is a comment on blaming Bush.....for an economy doing better, in this measure, than the Bush years.
It just amazes me how twisted some ideas are.

The month before the recession began the employment number in this country was 146 million and today it is 142 million. That seems to be an economic success to a liberal. You think that the 23 million unemployed/ under employed Americans are concerned about what the employment situation was in 2000? Obama results will be on the ballot, not what Bush did or didn't do in your opinion.

By the way, liberals keep claiming this was the worst recession since the Great Depression. By what standards did this recession exceed th 81-82 recession? Employment-NO, Unemployment-NO, Misery Index-NO. At least we know intellectual honesty isn't a strong suit of an Obama supporter
 
Lower taxes create an atmosphere for positive economic growth. What do you do when you get more spendable income? Does more spendable income translate into more economic activity?

Sure, and lower taxes can create more demand, which in turn creates jobs.

Lowering taxes would be a good idea, but that would in turn lower tax revenue. In the current climate with the TP playing deficit hawks, I don't know that it's possible. Now is the wrong time to worry about deficits, that time was when the economy was growing.
 
Whose debt burden?
Average Americans..."folks".

How does raising taxes on the rich lower their debt burden?
I wasn't addressing that, that is not what I was commenting on. The comments were that taxes were limiting spending on "you". I don't think the person you made that comment to is "rich", and I am not either. My comment was for the vast middle class who are the main "spenders", those who have cut back on spending which has lowered overall demand.

Let me see if I have this correct, in 2011 Obama said that raising taxes on anyone during 2.5% economic growth wasn't a good idea but now that that GDP growth is 1.5% it is a good thing? You people just keep showing how foolish you and your ideology is
He is not talking about raising taxes on the middle/lower classes.....which AGAIN is who I am addressing. FOLKS.....not the "rich"......which I guess is you.
 
On the other hand, we have stuff to pay for. Nobody would suggest that lowering taxes is always good. Eventually you don't have enough revenue to pay for things. Similarly, nobody would suggest that raising taxes always raises revenue.

Unless they're stupid, anyway. The economy is very complicated, absolute statements are universally wrong. Wait, that was an absolute statement...

I would also add that there is no economic model that suggests this is the time to increase the tax rate on anyone.
 
This has to be a joke from the right. It has to be. You can't demand more tax cuts then complain about the deficit.
 
The month before the recession began the employment number in this country was 146 million and today it is 142 million. That seems to be an economic success to a liberal. You think that the 23 million unemployed/ under employed Americans are concerned about what the employment situation was in 2000? Obama results will be on the ballot, not what Bush did or didn't do in your opinion.
You seem to think that even after i corrected you on what the subject of my comment was, that you have discovered what it is now. No, you still have it wrong, my comment is about "economists who think this is the worst recovery".

You still are way off target about MY comment.

By the way, liberals keep claiming this was the worst recession since the Great Depression. By what standards did this recession exceed th 81-82 recession? Employment-NO, Unemployment-NO, Misery Index-NO. At least we know intellectual honesty isn't a strong suit of an Obama supporter
There you go again, you once again are using this as an opportunity to go off on your favorite tale of how bad it was....but then when I or anyone else brings up the massive spending by Reagan to get the economy going, you throw a tantrum and knock your toys out of the pram.....and complain to the mods.

Go tell your tale to someone else, someone who is interested, otherwise....just for once....read what I post and directly respond....for once in your life.
 
This has to be a joke from the right. It has to be. You can't demand more tax cuts then complain about the deficit.

No one is asking for a tax cut. The idea is to leave the taxes as they are, not raise them.
 
Sure, and lower taxes can create more demand, which in turn creates jobs.

Lowering taxes would be a good idea, but that would in turn lower tax revenue. In the current climate with the TP playing deficit hawks, I don't know that it's possible. Now is the wrong time to worry about deficits, that time was when the economy was growing.

Since you stated that lowering taxes creates jobs don't those employed people pay taxes? Why is it liberals never understand what economic growth does to tax revenue? Do you even know what makes up tax revenue? Only FIT? Did you know that Reagan tax cuts led to 16 million new taxpayers and an increase in tax revenue by 60%? U.S. Treasury Data
 
Average Americans..."folks".

I wasn't addressing that, that is not what I was commenting on. The comments were that taxes were limiting spending on "you". I don't think the person you made that comment to is "rich", and I am not either. My comment was for the vast middle class who are the main "spenders", those who have cut back on spending which has lowered overall demand.

He is not talking about raising taxes on the middle/lower classes.....which AGAIN is who I am addressing. FOLKS.....not the "rich"......which I guess is you.

Don't see an answer to the question, how does raising taxes on the rich benefit the economy?
 
You seem to think that even after i corrected you on what the subject of my comment was, that you have discovered what it is now. No, you still have it wrong, my comment is about "economists who think this is the worst recovery".

You still are way off target about MY comment.

There you go again, you once again are using this as an opportunity to go off on your favorite tale of how bad it was....but then when I or anyone else brings up the massive spending by Reagan to get the economy going, you throw a tantrum and knock your toys out of the pram.....and complain to the mods.

Go tell your tale to someone else, someone who is interested, otherwise....just for once....read what I post and directly respond....for once in your life.

Massive spending? So you think that tax cuts are an expense and thus spending by the govt? How much did the spending go up during the Reagan term and what effect did 16 million new taxpayers have on govt. revenue?

You are obviously not interested in history or actual results as you ignore history and distort actual results. Keep beating that Obama drum.
 
Don't see an answer to the question, how does raising taxes on the rich benefit the economy?
Because That wasn't what i commented on, you still refuse to see what you commented on, how my comment addressed your comment....and then respond in kind. If you continue to not read and go off on your meme, we won't get anywhere.

I don't see you addressing what I responded to.
 
Because That wasn't what i commented on, you still refuse to see what you commented on, how my comment addressed your comment....and then respond in kind. If you continue to not read and go off on your meme, we won't get anywhere.

I don't see you addressing what I responded to.

"Your" President said in 2011 when the economic growth was 2.5% that raising taxes on anyone at this time was not a good idea but now with GDP at 1.5% it is? Keep diverting and beating the Obama drum. You made a mistake in 2008 and now will compound it in 2012.
 
Massive spending? So you think that tax cuts are an expense and thus spending by the govt? How much did the spending go up during the Reagan term and what effect did 16 million new taxpayers have on govt. revenue?

You are obviously not interested in history or actual results as you ignore history and distort actual results. Keep beating that Obama drum.
See, once again, you don't correct yourself, you don't limit your comment to what was said before.....you continue to go off on the tangent you created.

There is no communicating with you, you are only interested in your own meme no matter what the subject was. The subject is not Reagan, the subject is not "blaming Bush".
 
Back
Top Bottom