• 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!

Job growth cools slightly, recovery grinds on [W:225]

Huh?

Just look at the numbers... They are horrible. Partisanship has nothing to do with it.

Positive job and GDP growth is not horrible.
 
Balance the budget tomorrow and the U.S. goes into a deeper recession than in 2009. This is not an opinion, it is simply a matter of fact.
 
Positive job and GDP growth is not horrible.

We haven't progressed at all since the recession ended in 2009, in spite of the more than $800 billion stimulus Obama sold us.

My God, how can you possibly see Obama's economic policies as anything but the miserable failure they are?
 
We haven't progressed at all since the recession ended in 2009, in spite of the more than $800 billion stimulus Obama sold us.

How was the U.S. growing at a real rate of 3.1% in Q3 2012?

My God, how can you possibly see Obama's economic policies as anything but the miserable failure they are?

I have a deep understanding of political economy.
 
Fun with graphs!

fredgraph.png
 
Tell the millions of people who are STILL out of work how great the economy is... Geez

WTF are you talking about? I never stated the economy is doing great. You stated the numbers are horrible; i was simply correcting you.
 
WTF are you talking about? I never stated the economy is doing great. You stated the numbers are horrible; i was simply correcting you.

Is this not a thread about the state of employment?
 
d
Is this not a thread about the state of employment?

Sure. Yet you continue (falsely i might add) to reply as though the U.S. economy is in the ****ter. When i provide concrete evidence that shows this is NOT the case, you continue to deflect. Fiscal deficits are a positive for economic growth, given our current environment. Nothing you have stated negates this fact.
 
They are trying this in Europe. Guess what?

Actually, they are not doing this in Europe.

What I mean by "reduce the size, scope and power" of the government means:

1. Reduce government spending drastically.
2. Cut or eliminate Departments and Agencies.
3. Reduce the regulatory burden placed on the country by the federal government.
4. Totally reworking the tax code...removing all social and behavior inducing provisions. It's okay to have a progressive system...but get rid of all deductions, credits, etc. Reduce or increase the percentages to generate the needed revenue to pay for government spending. This should be done after the above three items.

But...as I said...getting the government to reduce itself won't easily happen.
 
Sure it can. They average $75K a year and we have binders full of them.

Yes, and it does that by destroying jobs elsewhere. If I take a dollar from your pocket and put it in mine, I haven't created any wealth.
 
WTF are you talking about? I never stated the economy is doing great. You stated the numbers are horrible; i was simply correcting you.

To be fair here, "horrible" is a subjective term.
 
Stop making excuses Pete... What I stated is a FACT, which you obviously can't address,

He also stated a FACT, which you obviously can't address.
 
Just so I understand. Those who don't work are not unemployed and the libs depend on the military to increase job growth. Got it.
 
Obama has done EVERYTHING under the sun to help stimulate the economy. Sorry to burst your bubble, but cutting government expenditures with persistent levels of high unemployment is the worst thing you can do.

Just augmenting that, one of the causes of our failure to recover better was the fact that state and local governments shed jobs like crazy, further reducing demand and increasing unemployment.

Total government jobs were down under his first administration, if smaller government led to economic growth, we should be booming right now. Obviously, your assumption is not correct.
 
Just so I understand. Those who don't work are not unemployed and the libs depend on the military to increase job growth. Got it.

Those who don't work and aren't trying to work are not unemployed. The military has no effect on job growth as they are not included in any of the statistics.
 
Huh?

Just look at the numbers... They are horrible. Partisanship has nothing to do with it.

Yes, they have improved, and are still improving. Obviously we are headed in the right direction.
 
We haven't progressed at all since the recession ended in 2009, in spite of the more than $800 billion stimulus Obama sold us.

My God, how can you possibly see Obama's economic policies as anything but the miserable failure they are?

I don't have a timeline in front of me, but my memory tells me that the recession officially ended a month or two after the stimulous bill was passed, unemployment started to recover a few months after that.
 
Yes, and it does that by destroying jobs elsewhere. If I take a dollar from your pocket and put it in mine, I haven't created any wealth.

Jobs and wealth are not the same thing, and I was just pointing out that the government does create jobs. Whether one thinks they should or should not doesn't change the reality that a lot of people's jobs are government related.
 
Yes, and it does that by destroying jobs elsewhere. If I take a dollar from your pocket and put it in mine, I haven't created any wealth.

During Obama's first term, he didn't raise taxes, he cut taxes. for the most part, taxes under Obama were substantially the same as under Bush, and lower under bush than under Clinton when we had a better economy and a balanced budget.

You can't blame the slow recovery on high taxes.
 
There are people who are employed and people who are unemployed. It is important to understand the distinction between the two before we break them down into different groups and categories. The reason for that is because when one gets too high and the other gets too low then the entire economy could be in jeopardy.

And there are also people who are Not in the Labor Force and people Not in the Population.
The whole point of any definition is for it to be actually useful for your purposes. If you call everyone not working Unemployed than employment could rise, people looking for work could go down, and the unemployment would still be huge due to more babies and more retirees. That doesn't give a good picture of what the actual jobs market looks like.

By looking at how many people actually available to work are failing to get jobs, we can tell how the labor market is. Including people who can't work or don't want to work (or who face significant barriers to entry/exit) just distorts the picture.
 
Just so I understand. Those who don't work are not unemployed and the libs depend on the military to increase job growth. Got it.

Just a suggestion, but there is probably a community college in your area that offers an Econ 101 class. You might want to take it.
 
I don't have a timeline in front of me, but my memory tells me that the recession officially ended a month or two after the stimulous bill was passed, unemployment started to recover a few months after that.
The recession by all technical terms ended in June 2009, roughly four months after the ARRA was signed into law. Unemployment, however continued to rise, peaked in October, and began to decline as the major chunks of ARRA funding was actually put into play the following year.
 
The recession by all technical terms ended in June 2009, roughly four months after the ARRA was signed into law. Unemployment, however continued to rise, peaked in October, and began to decline as the major chunks of ARRA funding was actually put into play the following year.

Thanks for confirming me.
 
Back
Top Bottom