• 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:
So I have been told, wonder why the Democrats in control of Congress didn't do something about it?
Click to expand...
I noticed when Nancy Pelosi became Speaker, she didn't talk about the economic reason for the Democratic takeover of the House, but all about a victory for women, or at least women from the class that the daughter of the mayor of Baltimore belongs to. So, as now, the Demwits are only concerned with their private Limousine Liberal agenda and not the economy, except to evade responsibility for it by blaming Bush.
 
PrometheusBound said:
I noticed when Nancy Pelosi became Speaker, she didn't talk about the economic reason for the Democratic takeover of the House
Click to expand...

She didn't? Do you have a link to her speech?
 
PrometheusBound said:
I noticed when Nancy Pelosi became Speaker, she didn't talk about the economic reason for the Democratic takeover of the House, but all about a victory for women, or at least women from the class that the daughter of the mayor of Baltimore belongs to. So, as now, the Demwits are only concerned with their private Limousine Liberal agenda and not the economy, except to evade responsibility for it by blaming Bush.
Click to expand...
All in all, Nancy Pelosi was a very effective Speaker...she was the reason PPACA passed.
 
Conservative said:
You cannot not even get the quote right
Click to expand...
The only change, was substituting Bush for Obama in your quote. The principle has to hold true, if not then the policies do not create the results and responsibility cannot be assigned.

It is very basic logic.
 
Gimmesometruth said:
The only change, was substituting Bush for Obama in your quote. The principle has to hold true, if not then the policies do not create the results and responsibility cannot be assigned.

It is very basic logic.
Click to expand...

Bush is being held accountable for the results during his term and now even for results for the Obama term. Leadership is something you don't understand at all.
 
Conservative said:
Bush is being held accountable for the results during his term and now even for results for the Obama term. Leadership is something you don't understand at all.
Click to expand...
Therefore, it is Bush's policies that are responsible for his results, just as you hold Obama's policies responsible for his results.....that is, if you are going to be consistent with this principle.
 
Gimmesometruth said:
Therefore, it is Bush's policies that are responsible for the results, just as you hold Obama's policies responsible for his results.....that is, if you are going to be consistent with this principle.
Click to expand...

Waiting for those policies which you haven't done. He is definitely responsible for the results just like Obama is responsible for the results today. That is leadership, accepting responsibility. The difference between Bush and Obama is Bush had a Democrat Congress controlled the legislation and purse strings whereas Obama had a Democrat Congress.

You have noticed that Bush was blamed for the the 2009 deficit thus claims that Obama cut spending. Of course that ignored that the Bush Budget wasn't signed because it didn't spend enough for Democrats so they passed continuing resolutions until March when Obama signed the final budget and increased spending more. What is it about liberalism that creates the kind of loyalty you have?
 
Conservative said:
He is definitely responsible for the results just like Obama is responsible for the results today.
Click to expand...
You are separating the policy from the man. You previously stated that it is policy that creates the results, so that should hold true for both policies.
 
Gimmesometruth said:
You are separating the policy from the man. You previously stated that it is policy that creates the results, so that should hold true for both policies.
Click to expand...

Bush was unable to get anything done with a Democrat controlled Congress and that was his job thus the results are what he is responsible for. You seem to not understand the difference between responsibility and policies which are just two more things you don't understand.
 
Conservative said:
Bush was unable to get anything done with a Democrat controlled Congress and that was his job thus the results are what he is responsible for. You seem to not understand the difference between responsibility and policies which are just two more things you don't understand.
Click to expand...
That is funny, because economic policies are fairly independent of Congress. You seem to be the one confused about the relationship between legislation and policy.

PS...I seem to remember a certain GOP legislator last year saying he got 98% of what he wanted in the debt deal.
 
Last edited:
Gimmesometruth said:
That is funny, because economic policies are fairly independent of Congress. You seem to be the one confused about the relationship between legislation and policy.
Click to expand...

Sure they are because we elect a king in this country. Is that what you are saying? Economic policy has to be passed before it becomes law. Looks like you need to take a civics class.
 
Conservative said:
Sure they are because we elect a king in this country. Is that what you are saying? Economic policy has to be passed before it becomes law. Looks like you need to take a civics class.
Click to expand...
Hmm...not so much, since policy such as the control of interest rates, money supply...that is via the fed and treasury...cabinet level. The appointment of exec dept heads, is a President's prerogative. It is only when it comes to budget that the POTUS has to work with Congress.
 
Gimmesometruth said:
Hmm...not so much, since policy such as the control of interest rates, money supply...that is via the fed and treasury...cabinet level. The appointment of exec dept heads, is a President's prerogative. It is only when it comes to budget that the POTUS has to work with Congress.
Click to expand...

Good lord, you really don't have a clue, the Fed Chairman isn't a cabinet member and the Sec. of Treasury doesn't set interest rates. This is another time I feel sorry for you thus the liberalism in me comes out
 
Conservative said:
Good lord, you really don't have a clue, the Fed Chairman isn't a cabinet member
Click to expand...
I did not say that.

and the Sec. of Treasury doesn't set interest rates.
Click to expand...
I did not say that either.

This is another time I feel sorry for you thus the liberalism in me comes out
Click to expand...
You should feel sorry for yourself, since you got both of your positions wrong AND you still avoided the whole policy/responsibility issue AGAIN.
 
Gimmesometruth said:
I did not say that.

I did not say that either.

You should feel sorry for yourself, since you got both of your positions wrong AND you still avoided the whole policy/responsibility issue AGAIN.
Click to expand...

Kind of like you haven't posted the policies that Bush signed that put us into the recession you blame him for. Still waiting for that so its hard for reasonable people to place blame but not hard for the liberal robots.
 
Conservative said:
Kind of like you haven't posted the policies that Bush signed that put us into the recession you blame him for. Still waiting for that so its hard for reasonable people to place blame but not hard for the liberal robots.
Click to expand...
I know you keep waiting for that, but we are still trying to get through the basic principle, a principle whereby you say:

"Economic policy is responsible for the results".

If that is true for any President, then it is true for BOTH Bush and Obama. No caveats, no parsing...just straight up.
 
Gimmesometruth said:
I know you keep waiting for that, but we are still trying to get through the basic principle, a principle whereby you say:

"Economic policy is responsible for the results".

If that is true for any President, then it is true for BOTH Bush and Obama. No caveats, no parsing...just straight up.
Click to expand...

You are right, I left out economic policies when passed by Congress are responsible for results, you know like the Obama stimulus plan that was presented by Obama and passed by Congress that was to provide for shovel ready jobs? Today over 3 years later the results speak for themselves, 8.3% official unemployment, 15% U-6, 5.4 trillion added to the debt, and still a 4 million net job loss from when the recession started. Keep drinking that liberal kool-ade
 
Why do I have this feeling, that if this were a right wing administration, the right wing on this debate, and even the libertarians, wouldn't be scrambling to show the worse aspects of the economy? And then in that case, the left wing would be doing what the right wing is doing now with Obama, painting the worse picture imaginable.

The economy is better then it was at the start of the crash right? Would the libertarians and conservatives agree with that or not? This gets into the taxes and regulation argument if I'm not mistaken, I'm sure thats already been mentioned and debated here a thousand times over, so I'll just say for the businesses that have large profits, I fail to see how some added taxes and or some new regulations are going to kill them? Either they lose a little profit, or they refuse to hire workers they might need, and cut workers pay and or fire some altogether. If they go that route, then they look like a bunch of assholes. Literally, thats the best way I can say it, sorry for the language. (I'm not looking back through endless pages of debate to see for myself what they'd say, so I'll just wait for one of ya to answer me here)
 
Last edited:
Crossroads said:
Why do I have this feeling, that if this were a right wing administration, the right wing on this debate, and even the libertarians, wouldn't be scrambling to show the worse aspects of the economy? And then in that case, the left wing would be doing what the right wing is doing now with Obama, painting the worse picture imaginable.

The economy is better then it was at the start of the crash right? Would the libertarians and conservatives agree with that or not? This gets into the taxes and regulation argument if I'm not mistaken, I'm sure thats already been mentioned and debated here a thousand times over, so I'll just say for the businesses that have large profits, I fail to see how some added taxes and or some new regulations is going to kill them? Either they lose a little profit, or they refuse to hire workers they might need, and cut workers pay and or fire some altogether. If they go that route, then they look like a bunch of assholes. Literally, thats the best way I can say it, sorry for the language. (I'm not looking back through endless pages of debate to see for myself what they'd say, so I'll just wait for one of ya to answer me here)
Click to expand...

No, the economy isn't better than at the start of the crash when there were 146 million people working and today that is 142 million. Is that better? At the start of the crash the debt was 10.6 trillion and today it is almost 16 trillion, is that better? at the beginning of the crash there were 115 million private sector jobs whereas today that is 111 million is that better?

As for taxes, how does increasing taxes on anyone benefit the U.S. economy which is 70% consumer driven? How did any rich person make someone else poor? This isn't a zero sum economy where someone wins and someone else loses. Anyone that takes personal responsibility, works hard, takes risk shouldn't be penalized for generating positive results. A good leader doesn't punish success, he tries to spread that success to everyone else. Obama is the most devisive President ever and promotes class warfare. That along with the results make him a failure.
 
Conservative said:
You are right, I left out economic policies when passed by Congress are responsible for results, you know like the Obama stimulus plan that was presented by Obama and passed by Congress that was to provide for shovel ready jobs? Today over 3 years later the results speak for themselves, 8.3% official unemployment, 15% U-6, 5.4 trillion added to the debt, and still a 4 million net job loss from when the recession started. Keep drinking that liberal kool-ade
Click to expand...

So is that a yes..or a no....that "Economic policy is responsible for the results".

You keep wobbling.
 
Conservative said:
You are right, I left out economic policies when passed by Congress are responsible for results, you know like the Obama stimulus plan that was presented by Obama and passed by Congress that was to provide for shovel ready jobs? Today over 3 years later the results speak for themselves, 8.3% official unemployment, 15% U-6, 5.4 trillion added to the debt, and still a 4 million net job loss from when the recession started. Keep drinking that liberal kool-ade
Click to expand...

If you want to look at the effectiveness of of the Stimulus Package, I would suggest looking at the studies on how many jobs were created and or saved due to that legislation, not look at the overall increase in unemployment, which was bound to go up anyway. Also, as for the total jobs lost, even the most anti Obama person out there has to admit A CERTAIN level of space for Obama when it comes to his effect on the job numbers. As in, you obviously can't blame him for the jobs lost at the very beginning of the collapse, and at LEAST a year or so after, for the most part. So even if you say the recovery (or lack there of) is slower because of Obama, the use of that 4 million job loss number since the beginning of the recession is a bit misleading.
 
Gimmesometruth said:
So is that a yes..or a no....that "Economic policy is responsible for the results".

You keep wobbling.
Click to expand...

If the economic policies were implemented, yes they would be responsible for the results.

I know you want badly to continue to divert from the Obama results, maybe this will help get you back on track

Mourning in America - YouTube
 
Crossroads said:
If you want to look at the effectiveness of of the Stimulus Package, I would suggest looking at the studies on how many jobs were created and or saved due to that legislation, not look at the overall increase in unemployment, which was bound to go up anyway. Also, as for the total jobs lost, even the most anti Obama person out there has to admit A CERTAIN level of space for Obama when it comes to his effect on the job numbers. As in, you obviously can't blame him for the jobs lost at the very beginning of the collapse, and at LEAST a year or so after, for the most part. So even if you say the recovery (or lack there of) is slower because of Obama, the use of that 4 million job loss number since the beginning of the recession is a bit misleading.
Click to expand...

First of all show me any reputable source that calculates a saved job. BLS sure doesn't and as I pointed out which you want to ignore there are even more unemployed today than when Obama took office.

The four million is in response to your question, what were the numbers when the crash began, that was in December 2007. Why would that be misleading in a growing population and economy?
 
Conservative said:
No, the economy isn't better than at the start of the crash when there were 146 million people working and today that is 142 million. Is that better? At the start of the crash the debt was 10.6 trillion and today it is almost 16 trillion, is that better? at the beginning of the crash there were 115 million private sector jobs whereas today that is 111 million is that better?
Click to expand...

So what you're saying is that you would prefer an economy where we are losing better than half a million jobs every month, GDP growth clocks in at NEGATIVE 6.7%, the stock markets are crashing, the financial sector is crumbling, home values are plummeting, foreclosures are skyrocketing, and it's virtually impossible to get a loan....? I doubt it. :roll:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom