• 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!

U.S. Adds Only 88,000 Jobs; Jobless Rate Falls to 7.6%[W: 831]

Re: U.S. Adds Only 88,000 Jobs; Jobless Rate Falls to 7.6%

Nope, not wrong. I showed the bill. It contains the record. There was no filibuster. Period. No amount of demonstration of Democrats being against it is going to magically change the record into one which includes a filibuster.

LOL. I suggest you quote me where I used the phrase or word fillibuster in relation to what you are talking about.

Hint: I did not. You are creating argument not made.

My argument is that the dems were in opposition to GSE oversight in totality. Republicans were mostly for it. This would mean both sides bear responsibility because special interest groups bought and sold their vote---different interest groups to be sure, but the result was the same.
 
Re: U.S. Adds Only 88,000 Jobs; Jobless Rate Falls to 7.6%

15 people on a committe. 8 reps, 7 dems. 1 rep against, 7 dems against, 7 reps for. Yet reps are responsible for it not making it to a vote.

This is your logic. Your flawed, twisted logic.

Except that's not my logic. The bill made it out of committee. Where it died was Senate leadership not putting it to a full vote in the Senate. That:s my logic.
 
Re: U.S. Adds Only 88,000 Jobs; Jobless Rate Falls to 7.6%

It really isn't anyone's problem but your own that you can't understand that the misery index is not an economic indicator. You can keep pointing to it as though it is, but you only prove you don't know what you're talking about.

That is because like so many things you don't understand that unemployment and inflation are economic indicators.
 
Re: U.S. Adds Only 88,000 Jobs; Jobless Rate Falls to 7.6%

That is because like so many things you don't understand that unemployment and inflation are economic indicators.
Poor, Con. Can't win an argument, so he has to make up ****. :naughty:

I never said that inividually, those aren't economic indicators. Isaid when you blend them together to form the misery index, you're not using an economic indicator to measure the economy. I know you know this since you avoided the example I gave you.

Here's another one...

Let's take a misery index of 4. According to your illogic, that indicates a strong economy with low unemployment and low inflation. But since the misery index is not an indicator of the economy, it could also mean we have a crappy economy with 10% unemployment and 6% deflation.

Like I said, maybe some day you'll understand that. Unfortunately, today is not that day.
 
Re: U.S. Adds Only 88,000 Jobs; Jobless Rate Falls to 7.6%

That is because like so many things you don't understand that unemployment and inflation are economic indicators.
Is inflation ever a good thing, Con?
 
Re: U.S. Adds Only 88,000 Jobs; Jobless Rate Falls to 7.6%

Poor, Con. Can't win an argument, so he has to make up ****. :naughty:

I never said that inividually, those aren't economic indicators. Isaid when you blend them together to form the misery index, you're not using an economic indicator to measure the economy. I know you know this since you avoided the example I gave you.

Here's another one...

Let's take a misery index of 4. According to your illogic, that indicates a strong economy with low unemployment and low inflation. But since the misery index is not an indicator of the economy, it could also mean we have a crappy economy with 10% unemployment and 6% deflation.

Like I said, maybe some day you'll understand that. Unfortunately, today is not that day.

Blending them together? LOL, no adding them together is indeed an economic indicator but since you have no concept of the components of GDP just like you don't know that the civilian labor force are those eligible to work, the reality escapes you.

It is rather interesting that we have 143 million working Americans today after adding over 6 trillion dollars to the debt when 6 trillion dollars less we had 146 million. Yes, Obama is an economic genius and great leader.
 
Re: U.S. Adds Only 88,000 Jobs; Jobless Rate Falls to 7.6%

Ask the poor that you seem to care about
I asked you, but you don't seem to want to answer. Couldn't some inflation mean the economy is expanding?
 
Re: U.S. Adds Only 88,000 Jobs; Jobless Rate Falls to 7.6%

I asked you, but you don't seem to want to answer. Couldn't some inflation mean the economy is expanding?

Inflation = a good thing? Well, my limited understanding is that inflation is a way for the treasury to claw back in excess currency in circulation, so in a macro effect kind of way then good, or bad, it is a necessary function when too much currency has been introduced. As for the effect on an economy, I'd have to say hell no it isn't a good thing, unless you think that having less spending ability is good for a service based economy.
 
Re: U.S. Adds Only 88,000 Jobs; Jobless Rate Falls to 7.6%

I asked you, but you don't seem to want to answer. Couldn't some inflation mean the economy is expanding?

Artificially yes, it could expland but since you don't understand the components of GDP you have no idea the negative effect of inflation.
 
Re: U.S. Adds Only 88,000 Jobs; Jobless Rate Falls to 7.6%

Inflation = a good thing? Well, my limited understanding is that inflation is a way for the treasury to claw back in excess currency in circulation, so in a macro effect kind of way then good, or bad, it is a necessary function when too much currency has been introduced. As for the effect on an economy, I'd have to say hell no it isn't a good thing, unless you think that having less spending ability is good for a service based economy.
Too much currency can cause inflation an that is a bad thing, however high demand can also create inflation.
 
Re: U.S. Adds Only 88,000 Jobs; Jobless Rate Falls to 7.6%

Too much currency can cause inflation an that is a bad thing, however high demand can also create inflation.

We don't have high demand right now and haven't had high demand since Obama took office. Obama is doing his best to keep demand down by penalizing producers and that is impacting economic growth and job creation. You voted your heart instead of your brain although they be one and the same.

Obama is an economic idiot or truly a leftwing socialist transforming America into a European socialist economy of high unemployment, high debt, low economic growth, and massive govt. dependence. All you need to do is look at the dependence on the govt. in Europe to see what is happening here. A very high percentage of GDP in Europe is govt. spending and when austerity is tried there are riots in the street because their dependence on govt. is threatened. Is that what you really want here?
 
Re: U.S. Adds Only 88,000 Jobs; Jobless Rate Falls to 7.6%

Too much currency can cause inflation an that is a bad thing, however high demand can also create inflation.

Yes, but in different ways....For instance, if you have too much currency in circulation that is artificial, and doesn't necessarily increase anyone's buying power. But, if you have inflation caused by high demand then that is an indicator of pent up private wealth, and business can increase easily to accommodate the demand, thus providing increased opportunity.
 
Re: U.S. Adds Only 88,000 Jobs; Jobless Rate Falls to 7.6%

Blending them together? LOL, no adding them together is indeed an economic indicator but since you have no concept of the components of GDP just like you don't know that the civilian labor force are those eligible to work, the reality escapes you.

It is rather interesting that we have 143 million working Americans today after adding over 6 trillion dollars to the debt when 6 trillion dollars less we had 146 million. Yes, Obama is an economic genius and great leader.

I dragged you to water -- that's all I can do.

That you can't understand how a misery index of 4 doesn't necessarily indicate a strong economy reveals how little you know about economics.

At any rate, no matter how much you bitch and moan, the misery index will never be an indicator of the economy.

And the leading economic indicator, GDP, which is a true indicator of the economy, you avoid like the plague. Why? Here's why...

Reagan's recession: -1.5% GDP
Bush's Great Recession: -4.7%
 
Re: U.S. Adds Only 88,000 Jobs; Jobless Rate Falls to 7.6%

I dragged you to water -- that's all I can do.

That you can't understand how a misery index of 4 doesn't necessarily indicate a strong economy reveals how little you know about economics.

At any rate, no matter how much you bitch and moan, the misery index will never be an indicator of the economy.

And the leading economic indicator, GDP, which is a true indicator of the economy, you avoid like the plague. Why? Here's why...

Reagan's recession: -1.5% GDP
Bush's Great Recession: -4.7%

So, I wonder why it is that in the 5th year of the Obama presidency you only choose to highlight republicans to chastise for GDP....

Bureau of Economic Analysis’ (BEA) advanced Gross Domestic Product (GDP) figures painted a picture of a dull economy, with the annualized Q/Q growth rate coming in at about 2%. When looking at the above chart, the dull economy is represented by the fact that year over year GDP growth rate has been hovering around 2% for around three years. This hovering of the GDP growth rate around 2% is something more akin to slow growth European economies than it is of the American experience.

snip

Under Ronald Reagan’s watch, businesses expanded operations by enough to boost GDP per capita by about $5,400 per capita, about a 25% improvement over the Jimmy Carter experience.

snip

So far, business expansion under Barack Obama’s watch has been poor, expanding by about $1,600 over the past four years. The average of about $400 per person through the first four years of a presidency is second worst in recent history, ahead of only Bush I’s first four years.

http://www.valuewalk.com/2012/10/gdp-growth-by-president-how-does-barack-obama-compare/


Second worst in recent history under Obama....Is that why you only want to focus on republicans?
 
Re: U.S. Adds Only 88,000 Jobs; Jobless Rate Falls to 7.6%

I dragged you to water -- that's all I can do.

That you can't understand how a misery index of 4 doesn't necessarily indicate a strong economy reveals how little you know about economics.

At any rate, no matter how much you bitch and moan, the misery index will never be an indicator of the economy.

And the leading economic indicator, GDP, which is a true indicator of the economy, you avoid like the plague. Why? Here's why...

Reagan's recession: -1.5% GDP
Bush's Great Recession: -4.7%

Is this an act or are you really this poorly educated and informed? There are four components to GDP, figure them out and how inflation and unemployment affect the biggest component. Obama and liberalism love this kind of ignorance and loyalty. The high misery index on the recession inherited from Carter is what shows that that recession was much worse than this one inherited by Obama. The fact also remains that we were coming out of recession when Obama took office and going into recession when Reagan took office.

The measurement as to the severity of a recession is the effect on the American people. Since there was no inflation, low interest rates working Americans weren't affected nearly as much as the high interest rates and inflation of the 81-82 recession topped off by high unemployment.

You are either a leftwing ideologue or playing a game here. Which is it?

By the way judging Bush on one year of his Presidency is what liberals love to do but the reality is the entirety kicks Obama's ass
 
Re: U.S. Adds Only 88,000 Jobs; Jobless Rate Falls to 7.6%

Seriously, do you think posting a lot of unrelated information is going to make up for your inability to prove that bill was filibustered?

The fact is, it wasn't -- and I gave a link to the bill which proves that it wasn't. Anything else you post is mere deflection on your part because you don't want to blame Republicans for dropping the ball over GSE oversight.

Seriously are you on drugs?

There can't be any other explanation. No bill in the Senate can be voted on unless it passes cloture . Democrats (down a party line vote) had the 41 votes they needed to block cloture. No bills in the Senate got an up or down vote unless Democrats voted to stop debate on the bill (Yes Democrats had plenty of power, even though they were the minority party in the senate at the time). Democrats had no intention of stopping debate of the bill. This happens ALL the time in the Senate. With no chance at getting 60 votes on the bill because of Democrat opposition, the bill was pulled (twice).

Either you don't understand how the Senate works, or you're a liar. I don't care which.
 
Re: U.S. Adds Only 88,000 Jobs; Jobless Rate Falls to 7.6%

Seriously are you on drugs?

There can't be any other explanation. No bill in the Senate can be voted on unless it passes cloture . Democrats (down a party line vote) had the 41 votes they needed to block cloture. No bills in the Senate got an up or down vote unless Democrats voted to stop debate on the bill (Yes Democrats had plenty of power, even though they were the minority party in the senate at the time). Democrats had no intention of stopping debate of the bill. This happens ALL the time in the Senate. With no chance at getting 60 votes on the bill because of Democrat opposition, the bill was pulled (twice).

Either you don't understand how the Senate works, or you're a liar. I don't care which.

You are wrong, a cloture vote is only required if cloture is invoked. The fact is that S.190 was not supported by the Republicans. You can clearly establish this by seeing the number of cosponsors(3) it had. Please notice John McCain sponsored the bill 16 months after it was introduced. And that was because he was running for president.

Bill Summary & Status - 109th Congress (2005 - 2006) - S.190 - THOMAS (Library of Congress)
 
Re: U.S. Adds Only 88,000 Jobs; Jobless Rate Falls to 7.6%

So, I wonder why it is that in the 5th year of the Obama presidency you only choose to highlight republicans to chastise for GDP....




Second worst in recent history under Obama....Is that why you only want to focus on republicans?

Of course Reagan recovered faster than Obama. His recession was nowhere near as bad as Bush's Great Recession and the economy wasn't structurally broken like it was when Bush left office.
 
Re: U.S. Adds Only 88,000 Jobs; Jobless Rate Falls to 7.6%

Of course Reagan recovered faster than Obama. His recession was nowhere near as bad as Bush's Great Recession and the economy wasn't structurally broken like it was when Bush left office.

Then you would think the economy would have been his top priority since coming into office, but it doesn't appears that it has been. If he had surrounded himself with competent advisers, maybe we wouldn't just be muddling along...
 
Re: U.S. Adds Only 88,000 Jobs; Jobless Rate Falls to 7.6%

Is this an act or are you really this poorly educated and informed? There are four components to GDP, figure them out and how inflation and unemployment affect the biggest component. Obama and liberalism love this kind of ignorance and loyalty. The high misery index on the recession inherited from Carter is what shows that that recession was much worse than this one inherited by Obama. The fact also remains that we were coming out of recession when Obama took office and going into recession when Reagan took office.

The measurement as to the severity of a recession is the effect on the American people. Since there was no inflation, low interest rates working Americans weren't affected nearly as much as the high interest rates and inflation of the 81-82 recession topped off by high unemployment.

You are either a leftwing ideologue or playing a game here. Which is it?

By the way judging Bush on one year of his Presidency is what liberals love to do but the reality is the entirety kicks Obama's ass
Suuuuure. If you ignore the fact that things got worse under Bush from what he inherited while things have gotten better under Obama from the mess he inherited.
 
Re: U.S. Adds Only 88,000 Jobs; Jobless Rate Falls to 7.6%

Seriously are you on drugs?

There can't be any other explanation. No bill in the Senate can be voted on unless it passes cloture . Democrats (down a party line vote) had the 41 votes they needed to block cloture. No bills in the Senate got an up or down vote unless Democrats voted to stop debate on the bill (Yes Democrats had plenty of power, even though they were the minority party in the senate at the time). Democrats had no intention of stopping debate of the bill. This happens ALL the time in the Senate. With no chance at getting 60 votes on the bill because of Democrat opposition, the bill was pulled (twice).

Either you don't understand how the Senate works, or you're a liar. I don't care which.

Holy ****ing ****! :doh

The irony of this post is astonishing.

Just so ya know ... there is no cloture vote on bills that are not fillibustered. There was no cloture vote on either of those bills because Democrats didn't filibuster either one of them. They didn't have to -- Republican leadership in the Senate didn't send either bill to the floor for a full vote by the Senate.
 
Re: U.S. Adds Only 88,000 Jobs; Jobless Rate Falls to 7.6%

Of course Reagan recovered faster than Obama. His recession was nowhere near as bad as Bush's Great Recession and the economy wasn't structurally broken like it was when Bush left office.

Your opinion noted as I am sure your parents didn't have any problem at all paying the high interest rates during that period of time. Sounds like you are part of that liberal elite who talks about compassion but never shows any compassion.
 
Re: U.S. Adds Only 88,000 Jobs; Jobless Rate Falls to 7.6%

Suuuuure. If you ignore the fact that things got worse under Bush from what he inherited while things have gotten better under Obama from the mess he inherited.

Certainly leadership isn't something you understand at all. Tell the millions of Americans unemployed/under employed/discouraged, the millions on food stamps or other taxpayer funded welfare programs, the taxpayers that are actually paying the debt service on the addition 6 trillion that Obama has added, those small business owners and contract workers not counted as being unemployed? Yes, things are better in the comfort of your own home where you are out of touch with reality.
 
Re: U.S. Adds Only 88,000 Jobs; Jobless Rate Falls to 7.6%

Then you would think the economy would have been his top priority since coming into office, but it doesn't appears that it has been. If he had surrounded himself with competent advisers, maybe we wouldn't just be muddling along...

It was, which is why one of the first things he did in office was to pass a stimulus bill.
 
Back
Top Bottom