• 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 adds 96K jobs, rate falls to 8.1 pct. [W:123]

Never mind that congress has the constitutional power and duty to raise taxes and enact programs that stimulate employment and the economy.

And putting aside the fact that they've gone on record saying that they will sit on their hands until Obama is out of the WH.

And erase from our heads all the relevant facts about spending...

And yes, that simple-mided talking point about Obama's policies feels good to conservative ears and doesn't strain the logic part of the brain.

Are you referring to the democrats who have had a majority in the Senate for the last 5 and a half years, or the democrats who held a majority in congress in 4 of the last 5 and a half years?
 
How do explain the 80s and 90s then where the federal economic policy was supply side? GDP doubled in the 80s, and again in the 90s. It even increased by 4 trillion in the 00s.

Here's a list of Presidents since Kennedy and the GDP growth in their terms. Carter did better than Reagan. Republicans since him have not managed to break 2%.


Kennedy/Johnson 5.2%

Clinton 3.7%

Carter 3.4%

Reagan 3.3%

Nixon/Ford 2.7%

Eisenhower 2.3%

GHW Bush 1.9%

Truman 1.8%

GW Bush 1.7%
 
I posted this on another thread, but it applys here as well:

Do you realize that there are only 86,000 more people employed today then there was the day he took office, while at the same time there are nearly 9 million more people in the eligible workforce?

To put that into perspective, lets assume that every person who was employed when he took office, is still employed today. That means that of the 8,827,000 people that have been added to the eligible workforce due to population growth since January 2009, less than 1% of them (0.97%) are employed?

Is this what you call a recovery?

Do you realize that when President Obama took office we were in a deep recession which wasn't officially over until June? :roll:


Employment, Hours, and Earnings from the Current Employment Statistics survey (National)
1-Month Net Change

Series Id: CES0000000001
Seasonally Adjusted
Super Sector: Total nonfarm
Industry: Total nonfarm
NAICS Code: -
Data Type: ALL EMPLOYEES, THOUSANDS
Years: 2009 to 2012

YearJanFebMarAprMayJunJulAugSepOctNovDec
2009-818-724-799-692-361-482-339-231-199-202-42-171
2010-40-35189239516-167-58-51-27220121120
201111022024625154849685202112157223
201227525914368874514196
 
Last edited:
But I will accept a modest gain over a significant loss given the parameters of reality.
And I will accept a significant gain over a modest one given the parameters of a reality without President Hope(less)
 
And I will accept a significant gain over a modest one given the parameters of a reality without President Hope(less)

Did we not already have this discussion with the millions of jobs, wings and playboy centerfolds throwing themselves at me?
 
Do you realize that when President Obama took office we were in a deep recession which wasn't officially over until June? :roll:


Employment, Hours, and Earnings from the Current Employment Statistics survey (National)
1-Month Net Change

Series Id: CES0000000001
Seasonally Adjusted
Super Sector: Total nonfarm
Industry: Total nonfarm
NAICS Code: -
Data Type: ALL EMPLOYEES, THOUSANDS
Years: 2009 to 2012

YearJanFebMarAprMayJunJulAugSepOctNovDec
2009-818-724-799-692-361-482-339-231-199-202-42-171
2010-40-35189239516-167-58-51-27220121120
201111022024625154849685202112157223
201227525914368874514196

Based on your data the President is still behind 1,079m jobs getting back to even...or was that your point?

Thank you for that...;)
 
Do you realize that when President Obama took office we were in a deep recession which wasn't officially over until June? :roll:


Employment, Hours, and Earnings from the Current Employment Statistics survey (National)
1-Month Net Change

Series Id: CES0000000001
Seasonally Adjusted
Super Sector: Total nonfarm
Industry: Total nonfarm
NAICS Code: -
Data Type: ALL EMPLOYEES, THOUSANDS
Years: 2009 to 2012

When are you ever going to take responsibility, I mean it's been 4 yrs now. What, you can't see failure when it's right in front of your nose. The liberal way borrow and spend as much as is needed to get some results, be damned what it cost. But liberals think there is an endless supply of money, however what you want hidden and you never talk about is the debt. Yes the debt it cost to get a few jobs. And you want to borrow and spend trillions more so you can say "see we created a thousand jobs.
 
One's opinion of whether there are enough well paying full time jobs available or not most likely depends on whether or not he has one.
 
Based on your data the President is still behind 1,079m jobs getting back to even...or was that your point?

Thank you for that...;)
The point is simply that we were in a deep recession that began when Bush was president. You should also note that Obama didn't become president until January 20. Also there were 3.9 million people who lost jobs between January until the official end of the recession in June. And one of biggest problems during those times was that credit markets were frozen.
 
Do you realize that when President Obama took office we were in a deep recession which wasn't officially over until June? :roll:

Pete, you can dance and spin around the numbers all you like, but they're still crap. Using your timeline, back in July 2009 (the first month of the so called "recovery") the percent of the eligible workforce that was employed (the Employment-Population Ratio) was 59.3%, while today it is only 58.3%.

That means that over $800 billion spent on the Obama stimulus and more than 3 years later, there's 1% fewer of our eligible workforce employed today than back then. That 1% translates into 2,435,660 people Pete.

I'm sorry, but there's no way any rational person can call those results "successful"
 
When are you ever going to take responsibility, I mean it's been 4 yrs now. What, you can't see failure when it's right in front of your nose. The liberal way borrow and spend as much as is needed to get some results, be damned what it cost. But liberals think there is an endless supply of money, however what you want hidden and you never talk about is the debt. Yes the debt it cost to get a few jobs. And you want to borrow and spend trillions more so you can say "see we created a thousand jobs.
Austerity is never the way out of a recession. Spend money, but spend it on things that are an investment in your country. Giving huge tax breaks will never cure an economy. In fact, when the Great Depression hit the tax rate was at 24%
 
The point is simply that we were in a deep recession that began when Bush was president. You should also note that Obama didn't become president until January 20. Also there were 3.9 million people who lost jobs between January until the official end of the recession in June. And one of biggest problems during those times was that credit markets were frozen.

Bush's fault...got it...;)

carry on...:lamo
 
Was the recession Obama's fault?

I saw what you did!

Now back to the point, the current administratin is 1,079m jobs behind...where are all these '4.5 million jobs created'? The numbers do not reflect them...
 
I saw what you did!

Now back to the point, the current administratin is 1,079m jobs behind...where are all these '4.5 million jobs created'? The numbers do not reflect them...

He does it all the time... It's the preferred tactic of dozens of folks around here.
 
Austerity is never the way out of a recession. Spend money, but spend it on things that are an investment in your country. Giving huge tax breaks will never cure an economy. In fact, when the Great Depression hit the tax rate was at 24%

Is that what Obama did, in your opinion anyway. Please correct me if I'm wrong, like telling me he spent money on stupid stuff and you would have spent it on __________
 
That economic collapse was decades in the making.

Fantastic.

Now that we've got that out of you.

Do you really think it can be solved in just a couple of years?

This meltdown was much more severe than most people realize, the fact there's any jobs being created at all is nothing short of a miracle, maybe because of Obamas policies... maybe not.

But I can garauntee you, bigger tax cuts for the wealthy and de-regulation are not gonna help anything.
 
Fantastic.

Now that we've got that out of you.

Do you really think it can be solved in just a couple of years?


This meltdown was much more severe than most people realize, the fact there's any jobs being created at all is nothing short of a miracle, maybe because of Obamas policies... maybe not.

But I can garauntee you, bigger tax cuts for the wealthy and de-regulation are not gonna help anything.

Obama said himself if he did not have it fixed in three yrs he would be a one term president, I believe him.
 
Obama said himself if he did not have it fixed in three yrs he would be a one term president, I believe him.

I distinctly remember him saying that if he couldn't turn things around, he didn't *deserve* a second term. Guess he was just kidding.
 
Moderator's Warning:
There have been enough personal attacks in this thread to last an entire week. Cease with the baiting, flaming and attacks or else.
 
Do you really think it can be solved in just a couple of years?

Solved, no... But substantial progress in recovering should have already taken place.

But I can garauntee you, bigger tax cuts for the wealthy and de-regulation are not gonna help anything.

Who's arguing for bigger tax cuts for the wealthy? I know I'm not. As for deregulation, that's a topic for another thread.
 
Pete, you can dance and spin around the numbers all you like, but they're still crap. Using your timeline, back in July 2009 (the first month of the so called "recovery") the percent of the eligible workforce that was employed (the Employment-Population Ratio) was 59.3%, while today it is only 58.3%.

That means that over $800 billion spent on the Obama stimulus and more than 3 years later, there's 1% fewer of our eligible workforce employed today than back then. That 1% translates into 2,435,660 people Pete.

I'm sorry, but there's no way any rational person can call those results "successful"

unless, of course, they maintain that only 50% would have been employed otherwise... or perhaps 45%... or if they have one of those jobs that were created by the stimulus and would otherwise be among the unemployed.
 
Back
Top Bottom