• 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

Conservative said:
Must be a novel concept for you since you obviously believe those 16 million people that weren't working were paying FIT
Click to expand...
So just to be clear....was Reagan's economic policies responsible for the job gains during his presidency?
 
Conservative said:
Yes, keep supporting that massive central govt. run by bureaucrats that created the current 16 trillion dollar debt and don't have to be fiscally responsible like state constitution's require. amazing what bureaucrats can do for being fiscally irresponsible and that fiscal irresponsibility is passed on to many states living above their means all to provide "compassionate" spending that never generates compassionate results.
Click to expand...
uh-huh....


Reagan Fed Jobs.JPG
 
cpwill said:
He's correct. It is the State and Local governments jobs to fun themselves. That's why they are given taxing authority.
Click to expand...
Hehe....don't tell that to those red states that take more in fed dollars than they contribute.
 
Gimmesometruth said:
So just to be clear....was Reagan's economic policies responsible for the job gains during his presidency?
Click to expand...



Let's see, the thread topic is jobless rate rises to 8.3%, hiring picks up but still falling short. What was Reagan's unemployment rate three years after the end of the 81-82 recession?
 
Conservative said:
Let's see, the thread topic is jobless rate rises to 8.3%, hiring picks up but still falling short. What was Reagan's unemployment rate three years after the end of the 81-82 recession?
Click to expand...
Weird..it was just a yes or no question:

Was Reagan's economic policies responsible for the job gains during his presidency?
 
Gimmesometruth said:
uh-huh....


View attachment 67132136
Click to expand...

Can you read the chart? What did Reagan inherit and what was it at the end of his term with 16 million jobs created? Looks to me like Govt employees grew from 2.9 million to 3.15 million which is still less than he inherited, correct me if I am wrong. That would be a 250,000 govt. employee growth in 8 years in an economy that grew 16 million jobs. your point?
 
Gimmesometruth said:
Weird..it was just a yes or no question:

Was Reagan's economic policies responsible for the job gains during his presidency?
Click to expand...

Start a new thread topic and I will be happy to join in but it is hard dealing with someone like you that apparently wasn't old enough to understand what the economy was like in 1981 and 82 thus claim this recession was worse.
 
Conservative said:
Can you read the chart? What did Reagan inherit and what was it at the end of his term with 16 million jobs created? Looks to me like Govt employees grew from 2.9 million to 3.15 million which is still less than he inherited, correct me if I am wrong. That would be a 250,000 govt. employee growth in 8 years in an economy that grew 16 million jobs. your point?
Click to expand...
Um, yes, let me correct you, fed employment GREW under Reagan.

Apparently, he did not agree with your ideology.
 
Gimmesometruth said:
Um, yes, let me correct you, fed employment GREW under Reagan.

Apparently, he did not agree with your ideology.
Click to expand...

Yet it was less than early 1980 and it was about 250,000 more from 1983 during a time when the economy created 16 million jobs. How is Obama doing in creating 16 net job increases
 
Conservative said:
Start a new thread topic and I will be happy to join in but it is hard dealing with someone like you that apparently wasn't old enough to understand what the economy was like in 1981 and 82 thus claim this recession was worse.
Click to expand...

It was so bad....that Reagan DOUBLED the debt....even with increased revenues...to revive the economy. Federal employment GREW in his term, federal spending....

"For the truth is that on at least one dimension, government spending, there was a large difference between the two presidencies, with total government spending adjusted for inflation and population growth rising much faster under one than under the other. I find it especially instructive to look at spending levels three years into each man’s administration — that is, in the first quarter of 1984 in Reagan’s case, and in the first quarter of 2012 in Mr. Obama’s — compared with four years earlier, which in each case more or less corresponds to the start of an economic crisis. Under one president, real per capita government spending at that point was 14.4 percent higher than four years previously; under the other, less than half as much, just 6.4 percent.

O.K., by now many readers have probably figured out the trick here: Reagan, not Obama, was the big spender."
 
Last edited:
Gimmesometruth said:
It was so bad....that Reagan DOUBLED the debt....even with increased revenues...to revive the economy. Federal employment GREW in his term, federal spending....

"For the truth is that on at least one dimension, government spending, there was a large difference between the two presidencies, with total government spending adjusted for inflation and population growth rising much faster under one than under the other. I find it especially instructive to look at spending levels three years into each man’s administration — that is, in the first quarter of 1984 in Reagan’s case, and in the first quarter of 2012 in Mr. Obama’s — compared with four years earlier, which in each case more or less corresponds to the start of an economic crisis. Under one president, real per capita government spending at that point was 14.4 percent higher than four years previously; under the other, less than half as much, just 6.4 percent.

O.K., by now many readers have probably figured out the trick here: Reagan, not Obama, was the big spender."
Click to expand...

No, actually he tripled the debt for a total of 1.7 trillion dollars in 8 years. Why don't you take that debt and put it into 2012 dollars? See what you come up with. Think the debt service on 1.7 trillion is the same as the debt service on 5.4 trillion even putting the 1.7 trillion into 2012 dollars? You really are desparate
 
Conservative said:
Yet it was less than early 1980 and it was about 250,000 more from 1983 during a time when the economy created 16 million jobs. How is Obama doing in creating 16 net job increases
Click to expand...

What?

That was census workers, a single event in his term, they were hired and let go....which actually helped temporarily with his employment numbers, but the point is, under Reagan, fed employment rose, directly against your ideology.
 
Conservative said:
No, actually he tripled the debt for a total of 1.7 trillion dollars in 8 years. Why don't you take that debt and put it into 2012 dollars? See what you come up with. Think the debt service on 1.7 trillion is the same as the debt service on 5.4 trillion even putting the 1.7 trillion into 2012 dollars? You really are desparate
Click to expand...
Debt is a 2 parts, spending and revenue, trying to compare it under 2 eras is apples and oranges. Reagan did not see the large drop in revenue.

The measure being used is spending per capitia, a standard using comparable data. I know you don't want to accept it, but Reagan spent more in real terms the Obama.
 
Last edited:
Gimmesometruth said:
What?

That was census workers, a single event in his term, they were hired and let go....which actually helped temporarily with his employment numbers, but the point is, under Reagan, fed employment rose, directly against your ideology.
Click to expand...

Reagan increased Govt. workers by 250,000 out of the 16 million total jobs created, when will Obama have policies that improve the unemployment rate?
 
Gimmesometruth said:
Debt is a 2 parts, spending and revenue, trying to compare it under 2 eras is apples and oranges. Reagan did not see the large drop in revenue.

The measure being used is spending per capitia, a standard using comparable data. I know you don't want to accept it, but Reagan spent more in real terms the Obama.
Click to expand...

Debt hasn't changed in definition but apparently 5.4 trillion and a 15% U-6 rate is worthy of your vote. Obama won't get mine although it won't matter here as he will lose TX by 3 million votes.
 
Conservative said:
Debt hasn't changed in definition but apparently 5.4 trillion and a 15% U-6 rate is worthy of your vote. Obama won't get mine although it won't matter here as he will lose TX by 3 million votes.
Click to expand...
You don't want to talk about Reagan's fed spending, that's cool....avoidance noted.

You want to vote for a guy who wants to decrease revenues and increase unemployment.
 
Gimmesometruth said:
You don't want to talk about Reagan's fed spending, that's cool....avoidance noted.

You want to vote for a guy who wants to decrease revenues and increase unemployment.
Click to expand...

I have no problem talking about Reagan's performance at all but find it typical that you would want to divert from the Obama economic record and the thread topic. Just think what govt. revenue would be if 23 million unemployed/under employed Americans today were working and working full time.
 
Just a reminder:

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

How about that Obama?

I'd love to have a beer with the guy - but what a crappy POTUS he has been.
 
Last edited:
Conservative said:
I have no problem talking about Reagan's performance at all but find it typical that you would want to divert from the Obama economic record and the thread topic. Just think what govt. revenue would be if 23 million unemployed/under employed Americans today were working and working full time.
Click to expand...
I know. imagine if we did not have the massive layoffs of state and local workers....they would all be paying taxes!

We would have more revenue, less unemployment!

The unemployment numbers....would be so much better!
 
Gimmesometruth said:
I know. imagine if we did not have the massive layoffs of state and local workers....they would all be paying taxes!

We would have more revenue, less unemployment!

The unemployment numbers....would be so much better!
Click to expand...

What massive layoff's? 9000 in July is massive in your world? 7000 state and 2000 Federal? Without those 9000 the unemployment would still be over 13 million in July
 
Conservative said:
What massive layoff's? 9000 in July is massive in your world? 7000 state and 2000 Federal? Without those 9000 the unemployment would still be over 13 million in July
Click to expand...
Try over 700,000 since 2009.
 
DA60 said:
Just a reminder:

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

How about that Obama?

I'd love to have a beer with the guy - but what a crappy POTUS he has been.
Click to expand...

Losing public sector employees ads to those figures. Sorry, but that is the cost of shrinking government. For the president to fix this, it would require more government hirings and not less. The president doesn't control this, and some will remember that when and if their guy ever gets elected.
 
Boo Radley said:
Losing public sector employees ads to those figures. Sorry, but that is the cost of shrinking government. For the president to fix this, it would require more government hirings and not less. The president doesn't control this, and some will remember that when and if their guy ever gets elected.
Click to expand...

spoken like a true big govt. liberal and obviously wrong, a growing private sector can support a growing govt. but not the other way around where you expect a growing public sector to create a bigger private sector.
 
Conservative said:
So instead of 13.5 million it would be 12.8 million unemployed? You seem to have problems with numbers, millions are bigger than thousands
Click to expand...

Unemployment by month. Let's subtract those govt. unemployed from these numbers and then tell us all how much better it would be?

2009 12049 12860 13389 13796 14505 14727 14646 14861 15012 15421 15227 15124
2010 14953 15039 15128 15221 14876 14517 14609 14735 14574 14636 15104 14393
2011 13919 13751 13628 13792 13892 14024 13908 13920 13897 13759 13323 13097
2012 12758 12806 12673 12500 12720 12749 12794
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom