• 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

The private sector isn't creating the jobs necessary to keep up with population growth and won't until Obama is fired. cutting the public sector is the right thing to do, states are doing it because they have to balance their budget, Obama isn't doing much of that at the Federal Level and you should know that
LOL....the private sector is not keeping up with current public employment cuts....and you want more of that....on top of federal employment cuts....and yet....you complain about the unemployment numbers!

This make absolutely no sense.
 
LOL....the private sector is not keeping up with current public employment cuts....and you want more of that....on top of federal employment cuts....and yet....you complain about the unemployment numbers!

This make absolutely no sense.

Are there more or less Federal Employees today than when Obama took office?
 
Don't leap all around. The growth is in the private sector and the losses in the public sector. Isn't this what you want? Recoveries take time, and when you shrink government, adding to the unemployed numbers, it takes more time. But, it is what you want, correct?

Not correct. The gov't job loss is comming at the state/local levels due to the tax base dropping BECAUSE of Obamanomics, decreasing THEIR property and income tax revenue. Borrow and spend (Obamanomics) has SOARED at the federal level. Federal gov't has had job growth and HUGE spending increases (20% over that of Bush) and has DOUBLED the deficit, that Obama promised to cut in HALF. Cuts in FEDERAL spending are required, as well as the endless "unfunded mandates" like PPACA and EPA regulations that destroy opportunity for private job growth. Obama has NEVER been up for "shrinking gov't" as you could plainly see from where the "stimulus" money ACTUALLY went, to unions, both public and private, with a whopping 6% for those ALWAYS mentioned "shovel ready" infrastructure jobs.
 
Are there more Federal govt. employees today than when Obama took office, simple question?

Don't know, but as of today, it doesn;t seem like it. It was growing before he took office. There's an CNN article talking about it growing early in his presidency, and they note he largely took that over. However, recent:

On Friday, after the jobs report, we pointed out how the #1 killer of jobs in America is retrenched government spending, and we put up a chart showing how the number of government workers has declined under Obama.

chart.jpg

Read more: Here's The TRUTH About The Growing Federal Workforce Under Obama - Business Insider
 
If I gave you the answer then why did you ask the question
Because you said you would not hire the long term unemployed.....but now you are concerned about their number.

As usual, it makes no sense.
 
Apparently, the numbers released today are more positive than negative. The market rose 217 points today and futures are up 224 points. This means that what happened was good, not bad.
 
Not correct. The gov't job loss is comming at the state/local levels due to the tax base dropping BECAUSE of Obamanomics, decreasing THEIR property and income tax revenue. Borrow and spend (Obamanomics) has SOARED at the federal level. Federal gov't has had job growth and HUGE spending increases (20% over that of Bush) and has DOUBLED the deficit, that Obama promised to cut in HALF. Cuts in FEDERAL spending are required, as well as the endless "unfunded mandates" like PPACA and EPA regulations that destroy opportunity for private job growth. Obama has NEVER been up for "shrinking gov't" as you could plainly see from where the "stimulus" money ACTUALLY went, to unions, both public and private, with a whopping 6% for those ALWAYS mentioned "shovel ready" infrastructure jobs.

BY all means support that. But, you're saying you love large state government? And don't most government employees work at the state level? Decreasing federal influence means losing state jobs. Isn't that also correct?
 
Don't know, but as of today, it doesn;t seem like it. It was growing before he took office. There's an CNN article talking about it growing early in his presidency, and they note he largely took that over. However, recent:

On Friday, after the jobs report, we pointed out how the #1 killer of jobs in America is retrenched government spending, and we put up a chart showing how the number of government workers has declined under Obama.

View attachment 67132057

Read more: Here's The TRUTH About The Growing Federal Workforce Under Obama - Business Insider

So the answer is, yes there are more Federal Employees today than when Obama took office
 
Are there more or less Federal Employees today than when Obama took office?
You know the answer, that wasn't the point, the point was you want less of them, less state/local workers when the existing unemployed can't find jobs.

You are arguing for GREATER unemployment.
 
Are there more Federal govt. employees today than when Obama took office, simple question?

I answered you. Now I await you answering me.

The job loss is coming from the public sector. Something you want, smaller government. The job growth is in the private sector, also something you want. So under Obama. you're getting what you thinkis best. Right?
 
Apparently, the numbers released today are more positive than negative. The market rose 217 points today and futures are up 224 points. This means that what happened was good, not bad.

Of course it is good news for the investment community as it means that Bernanke is going to print more money
 
So the answer is, yes there are more Federal Employees today than when Obama took office

Not really, but now answer me.

The job loss is coming from the public sector. Something you want, smaller government. The job growth is in the private sector, also something you want. So under Obama. you're getting what you thinkis best. Right?
 
I answered you. Now I await you answering me.

The job loss is coming from the public sector. Something you want, smaller government. The job growth is in the private sector, also something you want. So under Obama. you're getting what you thinkis best. Right?

The economy is growing at 1.5% and that isn't enough to create employment and that is the responsibility of the Obama economic policies
 
Not really, but now answer me.

The job loss is coming from the public sector. Something you want, smaller government. The job growth is in the private sector, also something you want. So under Obama. you're getting what you thinkis best. Right?

Really? there aren't more Federal Employees today than when he took office? that is a lie if you say that isn't the case
 
Apparently, the numbers released today are more positive than negative. The market rose 217 points today and futures are up 224 points. This means that what happened was good, not bad.

Not really, the expectation was 100K. When #s exceed expectations day traders buy, if not they sell. I wish I could a hold of those about 20 minutes before they are released.
 
The economy is growing at 1.5% and that isn't enough to create employment and that is the responsibility of the Obama economic policies
Then that means the Bush economic policy is responsible for the 2008 crash.

Glad we have that sorted out.
 
BY all means support that. But, you're saying you love large state government? And don't most government employees work at the state level? Decreasing federal influence means losing state jobs. Isn't that also correct?

No that is not correct. State gov'ts must spend money providing services to Obama's dreamy illegals that get PARTIAL federal matching funds. States must survive on the crumbs left after the recession, and unlike the federal gov't can not simply borrow or print money, they actually must use TAXATION to pay for the labor, goods and services provided. Teachers, firefighters, police and infrastructure service workers at the state/local level NEED real private economic growth to support them, unlike Obama and his federal kingdom that may simply borrow and spend to grow ever larger. By all means YOU support that Obama has not borrowed and spent more to keep the federal gov't workforce completely intact, while state and local gov'ts are "on their own". I realize that Obama WANTS to borrow and spend EVEN MORE and that he will toss a bone to state and local GOV'Ts in his insane "jobs" stimulus deals, but that is meaningless in terms of any SUSTAINED private economic growth.
 
Really? there aren't more Federal Employees today than when he took office? that is a lie if you say that isn't the case

You miss the point. The growth was started before Obama, not related to his polices, and part of the recession. I told you I had a link on that:

Josh Gordon, policy director at the Concord Coalition, a fiscal policy group. "The aging of the population can't be blamed on the president."

Many safety net programs, such as Medicaid and food stamps, automatically expand during economic downturns. And in the face of prolonged high jobless rates, Congress has authorized extending federal unemployment benefits to a record 99 weeks. The initial extension was passed under President Bush.

The conservative Heritage Foundation, which advocates for a reduced government role in society, acknowledges that much of the increase in federal spending originates in laws passed by this Congress and previous ones, but feels that Obama could do more to rein it in.

"He didn't do it alone," said Patrick Louis Knudsen, a senior fellow at Heritage. "But he tends to do little to reduce spending. He is taking the size of government to new levels and he's keeping it there."

(snip)

Much of the hiring increases came in the departments of homeland security, justice, veterans and defense.

The federal payroll has been expanding since President Bush took office, after declining during the Clinton administration. But it's still a tad smaller than it was in 1992, said Craig Jennings, a federal budget expert at the progressive think tank OMB Watch.

Did Obama really make government bigger? - Jan. 25, 2012

So, Obama has been working to reduce the number despite the need. And you've criticized him for it.
 
The economy is growing at 1.5% and that isn't enough to create employment and that is the responsibility of the Obama economic policies

You just can't answer can you? Again: The job loss is coming from the public sector. Something you want, smaller government. The job growth is in the private sector, also something you want. So under Obama. you're getting what you thinkis best. Right?
 
No that is not correct. State gov'ts must spend money providing services to Obama's dreamy illegals that get PARTIAL federal matching funds. States must survive on the crumbs left after the recession, and unlike the federal gov't can not simply borrow or print money, they actually must use TAXATION to pay for the labor, goods and services provided. Teachers, firefighters, police and infrastructure service workers at the state level NEED real economic growth to support them, unlike Obama and his federal kingdom that may simply borrow and spend to grow ever larger. By all means YOU support that Obama has not borrowed and spent more to keep the federal gov't workforce completely intact, while state and local gov'ts are "on their own". I realize that Obama WANTS to borrow and spend EVEN MORE and that he will toss a bone to state and local GOV'Ts in his insane "jobs" stimulus deals, but that is meaningless in terms of any SUSTAINED private economic growth.

I'm afraid you're mistaken. You should read my links. ;)
 
I'm afraid you're mistaken. You should read my links. ;)

Here is a quote from YOUR "CNN" link:

"By many measures, the federal government has indeed grown during Obama's tenure. Spending as a share of the economy has gone up. The number of federal employees has risen. More Americans are relying on federal assistance."
 
Here is a quote from YOUR "CNN" link:

"By many measures, the federal government has indeed grown during Obama's tenure. Spending as a share of the economy has gone up. The number of federal employees has risen. More Americans are relying on federal assistance."

Yes, I know. read on. read on. And look at that date, and the more recent chart. Try to make meaning. Synthethsize.
 
Yes, federal employment is up.....a whooping 2%...since 2009.

And so many are whining about "keeping up with population"....except now.
 
Back
Top Bottom