Page 158 of 215 FirstFirst ... 58108148156157158159160168208 ... LastLast
Results 1,571 to 1,580 of 2145

Thread: U.S. Adds 195,000 Jobs; Unemployment Remains 7.6%

  1. #1571
    Sage
    Fenton's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Last Seen
    Today @ 11:45 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    26,281

    Re: U.S. Adds 195,000 Jobs; Unemployment Remains 7.6%

    Quote Originally Posted by Verax View Post
    I know all that and hate Larry Summers btw. I'm also well aware of Obama's ties to
    Wall street and how he has been very kind to them. Its the top reason I dislike Obama and I was strongly against him at first because of all this. However as time has gone on I've seen that he is only one part of the problem. You guys are even worse, you make him look good with how bad you are.

    So really get off your high horse and take a look in the mirror. Your own kind are 100% in Wall street's corner. You have done nothing to go after them and fix a broken system so I don't know what makes you think you're superior?
    How are we worse ? This should be good.

    Because the Government under Democrats did far more damage to this Country then those " eeebil banks and Wall street " have.

    We got left a 5 TRILLION dollar debt thanks to the Democrats who ran Freddie and Fannie into the ground and RIGHT now Bernake is piling up FannieMae's toxic Mortgage Backed Securities on the Federal Reserves Books.

    Your'e just the typical Low Information Democrat, who'll buy anything as long as it fits within the confines of the left wings talking points.

  2. #1572
    Sage
    Conservative's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Houston, TX
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:10 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    67,270

    Re: U.S. Adds 195,000 Jobs; Unemployment Remains 7.6%

    Quote Originally Posted by Verax View Post
    I know all that and hate Larry Summers btw. I'm also well aware of Obama's ties to Wall street and how he has been very kind to them. Its the top reason I dislike Obama and I was strongly against him at first because of all this. However as time has gone on I've seen that he is only one part of the problem. You guys are even worse, you make him look good with how bad you are.

    So really get off your high horse and take a look in the mirror. Your own kind are 100% in Wall street's corner. You have done nothing to go after them and fix a broken system so I don't know what makes you think you're superior?
    "You Guys are worse?" by what standards is it wrong to want to keep more of what one earns, to not want to create a 17 trillion dollar debt, to not have 21 million unemployed/under employed/discouraged workers, to not have 1.8% GDP growth after the end of a major recession? Wall Street isn't the problem, liberalism is. You demonize that which you don't have and are jealous of what others have. Therein lies the problem.

    You certainly aren't stupid, but you are very nave, gullible, and very poorly informed.

  3. #1573
    Professor
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Last Seen
    11-30-13 @ 07:05 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    1,293

    Re: U.S. Adds 195,000 Jobs; Unemployment Remains 7.6%

    Quote Originally Posted by Verax View Post
    I guess we're just inferior to you guys I wish I were as smart as you. If we could get one of you guys in the white house for 8 years, imagine the performance. I bet the end of that administration would leave the U.S. in an absolute golden position. A chicken in every pot, the average American making 30-40 bucks an hour without unions holding patriots back, it would be grand wouldn't it?
    Why yes, yes you are. But you don't have to be. This last election alone proved that people can smarten up as Obama received millions less votes this time around. To bad for America the GOP decided to run a non-conservative for the office again,

  4. #1574
    Pragmatic Idealist
    upsideguy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Rocky Mtn. High
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:19 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Progressive
    Posts
    10,104

    Re: U.S. Adds 195,000 Jobs; Unemployment Remains 7.6%

    Quote Originally Posted by Conservative View Post
    What studies? The studies of real life business and an honest look at reality. What do you do when you have more money in your paycheck and how does that affect the economy?

    Sorry, but the growth in spending caused the deficits to explode not tax cuts so if you have a problem keeping more of what you earn then do liberals proud and send it back. Just send the govt. a check and write on that check donation to the deficit.
    Just as I thought, you can not back up your statements. Sorry, but one of your fatal flaws is not understanding the difference between impressions and axioms. Just because you believe it to be true does not make it true. You think you can simply tell us that spending caused deficits and all of us are suppose say "two points, Conservative" for a brilliant argument?.... No, that poor argumentation.

    Again (and again)... the government, under the leadership of GW Bush, advocated and then implemented a tax cut that was originally designed to eliminate surplus (it was DESIGNED to affect the government coffers via revenue adjustment). Of course, when you implement a surplus buster when you don't have a surplus,. you get deficits... which is exactly what we got..... the cost to the government for this tax cut was somewhere between $1.2T and $2.9T, depending on how you look at it. If you just consider the tax revenue collection shortfall to GDP (8.7% before the cuts; $7.4 after)... I would calculate it at $1.9T to 2010 (see earlier chart posted by me).

    Bruce Bartlett: Are the Bush Tax Cuts the Root of Our Fiscal Problem? - NYTimes.com
    Does Anyone Still Remember Why We Have The Bush Tax Cuts? - Forbes
    The Bush tax cuts are here to stay | Economic Policy Institute
    The Economic Impact of President Bush's Tax Relief Plan

    At the front end of the Bush administration we have the government forgoing revenue; at the back end, we get a massive recession that immediately removes $400B annually from individual income tax receipts. As we did not get an immediate recovery, that revenue shortfall took a few years to earn back. Call it (and I am guessing) $1T in revenue cost from the recession. Add the two together, and about $3T of deficits of the past 12 years are caused by revenue shortfall (nothing to do with spending)... so, you are wrong to tell us its all spending.

    ...and I am not telling you its all revenue, as spending played a part, including expected increases in mandatory spending that had nothing to do with the prior administration and wars/occupations (and Medicare Part D) that had EVERYTHING to do with the previous administration. Those elective wars (Afghanistan was more of an elective occupation as the actual war was not really elective) now have an estimated cost of $4 to $6T, much of which is baked into future spending.

    Quote Originally Posted by Conservative View Post
    Amazing, isn't it, that GW Bush generated a 4.9 trillion dollar debt over 8 years, one trillion of it due to 9/11 and the world ended. The war in Iraq is over, Democrats controlled the congress and could have repealed Medicare Part D, defunded the War in Afghanistan but didn't but what they did do was increase the Bush budgets by over 500 billion dollars a year and implement policies that led to slow economic growth and stagnant job creation.

    The data supports my statements but your lack of knowledge of how the govt. works seems to be the issue here. Responsibility for poor choices only appears to apply to Republicans. Maybe you, like Kush, believes that debt doesn't matter and interest expenses on the budget is just a place holder. What economic policies has Obama implemented to spur private sector growth and a reduction in the deficit?
    No, what is amazing is you never tell us how Bush created deficits when we clearly went from a "balanced budget" to large deficits during his tenure, yet you want to tell us how Obama debt is so huge. The fact is, Presidents have some control over budgets during their administration; but debt is a function of deficits and budget infrastructure often set during previous administrations. Obama is not responsible for most of the cost infrastructure of government including the wars and mandatory spending, the obligations of which were set up well before he assumed office.

    Sorry, while the debt may "only" have risen $4.9T during the Bush presidency. The debt was $5.7 when Bush assumed office in 2001; it is $16.7T today, a change of $11T. Bush is pretty responsible for MOST of that change. Granted, Obama now owns the tax cuts, as the Bush cuts expired in 2010 (and were extended to 2012), and Obama owns part of the stimulus spending... but most of the rest of the government economic infrastructure (spending and revenue) has nothing to do with him.

    Feel free to refute this (with facts).... and spare yourself canned counter-argument 101 that its Congress' fault... that argument shows a lack of understanding of how government works... though the House is chartered with creating budgets, its meaningless without support of the Senate and Presidency.. if not, we would be living under the Ryan Budget. The President pretty much has to endorse the budget, or it don't happen... the veto pen is far too strong in today's fractured COTUS.... and, so we can all look at how our budget went from under control to out of control between 2001 and 2009 (the Bush years)... allow me to present, well, the budget (Table 1.1 thereof, anyway).

    Budget - Summary of Receipts, Expenditures and Deficits.jpg


    Sorry, the facts are not on your side, except in your own mind. Quite the contrary, in fact, as you have yet to produce any facts, much less refute any of mine. Look, the Bush Presidency, from an economic perspective, was a disaster... we are still digging out. You should accept that embarrassment of an economic leader and move on. It will help you blood pressure.
    Last edited by upsideguy; 07-23-13 at 11:36 AM.

  5. #1575
    Sage
    Conservative's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Houston, TX
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:10 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    67,270

    Re: U.S. Adds 195,000 Jobs; Unemployment Remains 7.6%

    Quote Originally Posted by upsideguy View Post
    Just as I thought, you can not back up your statements. Sorry, but one of your fatal flaws is not understanding the difference between impressions and axioms. Just because you believe it to be true does not make it true. You think you can simply tell us that spending caused deficits and all of us are suppose say "two points, Conservative" for a brilliant argument?.... No, that poor argumentation.

    Again (and again)... the government, under the leadership of GW Bush, advocated and then implemented a tax cut that was originally designed to eliminate surplus (it was DESIGNED to affect the government coffers via revenue adjustment). Of course, when you implement a surplus buster when you don't have a surplus,. you get deficits... which is exactly what we got..... the cost to the government for this tax cut was somewhere between $1.2T and $2.9T, depending on how you look at it. If you just consider the tax revenue collection shortfall to GDP (8.7% before the cuts; $7.4 after)... I would calculate it at $1.9T to 2010 (see earlier chart posted by me).

    Bruce Bartlett: Are the Bush Tax Cuts the Root of Our Fiscal Problem? - NYTimes.com
    Does Anyone Still Remember Why We Have The Bush Tax Cuts? - Forbes
    The Bush tax cuts are here to stay | Economic Policy Institute
    The Economic Impact of President Bush's Tax Relief Plan

    At the front end of the Bush administration we have the government forgoing revenue; at the back end, we get a massive recession that immediately removes $400B annually from individual income tax receipts. As we did not get an immediate recovery, that revenue shortfall took a few years to earn back. Call it (and I am guessing) $1T in revenue cost from the recession. Add the two together, and about $3T of deficits of the past 12 years are caused by revenue shortfall (nothing to do with spending)... so, you are wrong to tell us its all spending.

    ...and I am not telling you its all revenue, as spending played a part, including expected increases in mandatory spending that had nothing to do with the prior administration and wars/occupations (and Medicare Part D) that had EVERYTHING to do with the previous administration. Those elective wars (Afghanistan was more of an elective occupation as the actual war was not really elective) now have an estimated cost of $4 to $6T, much of which is baked into future spending.



    No, what is amazing is you never tell us how Bush created deficits when we clearly went from a "balanced budget" to large deficits during his tenure, yet you want to tell us how Obama debt is so huge. The fact is, Presidents have some control over budgets during their administration; but debt is a function of deficits and budget infrastructure often set during previous administrations. Obama is not responsible for most of the cost infrastructure of government including the wars and mandatory spending, the obligations of which were set up well before he assumed office.

    Sorry, while the debt may "only" have risen $4.9T during the Bush presidency. The debt was $5.7 when Bush assumed office in 2001; it is $16.7T today, a change of $11T. Bush is pretty responsible for MOST of that change. Granted, Obama now owns the tax cuts, as the Bush cuts expired in 2010 (and were extended to 2012), and Obama owns part of the stimulus spending... but most of the rest of the government economic infrastructure (spending and revenue) has nothing to do with him.

    Feel free to refute this (with facts).... and spare yourself canned counter-argument 101 that its Congress' fault... that argument shows a lack of understanding of how government works... though the House is chartered with creating budgets, its meaningless without support of the Senate and Presidency.. if not, we would be living under the Ryan Budget. The President pretty much has to endorse the budget, or it don't happen... the veto pen is far too strong in today's fractured COTUS.... and, so we can all look at how our budget went from under control to out of control between 2001 and 2009 (the Bush years)... allow me to present, well, the budget (Table 1.1 thereof, anyway).

    Budget - Summary of Receipts, Expenditures and Deficits.jpg


    Sorry, the facts are not on your side, except in your own mind. Quite the contrary, in fact, as you have yet to produce any facts, much less refute any of mine. Look, the Bush Presidency, from an economic perspective, was a disaster... we are still digging out. You should accept that embarrassment of an economic leader and move on. It will help you blood pressure.
    What I find quite bothering is how little you understand about leadership and personal responsibility. Obama has been in office for over 4 years and has shown zero leadership skills and generated worse economic results than Bush who you want to blame everything on. Most people realize that the Bush Presidency wasn't 2008 alone and that the Bush Presidency had a Democrat Controlled Congress his last two years and a divided Congress his first two years. Too bad you don't hold Obama to the same standards that you want to hold Bush.

    We can continue to debate the so called Clinton surplus but what purpose does it serve? Obama deficits are worse than anything Bush ever did as Bush never had a trillion dollar deficit and Obama's economic plan which consisted of the Stimulus and Obamacare are disasters yet you want to ignore that. The economic numbers today are the facts that I offer that you ignore.

    The facts are something that you don't seem to understand. You want badly to believe that tax cuts or you keeping more of what you earn is an expense to the govt. and creates deficits. You want badly to believe your ideology is a winning one. You want badly to believe Bush is responsible for the economic results today. What you show is just how little you understand about leadership as well as economic policies.

    Obama will never generate positive economic results with an anti growth economic policy. He will never create a reduction in the debt with 21 plus million unemployed/under employed/discourage workers. He will never show true leadership as long as he doesn't stand up to people like you who blame all the problems of today on someone else and not the poor leadership of Obama. And we will never dig out of the Obama hole until Obama leaves office or is fired.

    Oh by the way I am sure someone as intelligent as you understands that any so called surplus in off budget items isn't really a surplus at all because off budget items are offset with long term obligations. In other words that money is owed to others in the future. Just because less is spent than taken in doesn't generate a surplus when that money is promised to people like you in the future.
    Last edited by Conservative; 07-23-13 at 11:53 AM.

  6. #1576
    Professor
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Last Seen
    11-30-13 @ 07:05 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    1,293

    Re: U.S. Adds 195,000 Jobs; Unemployment Remains 7.6%

    Quote Originally Posted by upsideguy View Post
    Just as I thought, you can not back up your statements. Sorry, but one of your fatal flaws is not understanding the difference between impressions and axioms. Just because you believe it to be true does not make it true. You think you can simply tell us that spending caused deficits and all of us are suppose say "two points, Conservative" for a brilliant argument?.... No, that poor argumentation.

    Again (and again)... the government, under the leadership of GW Bush, advocated and then implemented a tax cut that was originally designed to eliminate surplus (it was DESIGNED to affect the government coffers via revenue adjustment). Of course, when you implement a surplus buster when you don't have a surplus,. you get deficits... which is exactly what we got..... the cost to the government for this tax cut was somewhere between $1.2T and $2.9T, depending on how you look at it. If you just consider the tax revenue collection shortfall to GDP (8.7% before the cuts; $7.4 after)... I would calculate it at $1.9T to 2010 (see earlier chart posted by me).

    Bruce Bartlett: Are the Bush Tax Cuts the Root of Our Fiscal Problem? - NYTimes.com
    Does Anyone Still Remember Why We Have The Bush Tax Cuts? - Forbes
    The Bush tax cuts are here to stay | Economic Policy Institute
    The Economic Impact of President Bush's Tax Relief Plan

    At the front end of the Bush administration we have the government forgoing revenue; at the back end, we get a massive recession that immediately removes $400B annually from individual income tax receipts. As we did not get an immediate recovery, that revenue shortfall took a few years to earn back. Call it (and I am guessing) $1T in revenue cost from the recession. Add the two together, and about $3T of deficits of the past 12 years are caused by revenue shortfall (nothing to do with spending)... so, you are wrong to tell us its all spending.

    ...and I am not telling you its all revenue, as spending played a part, including expected increases in mandatory spending that had nothing to do with the prior administration and wars/occupations (and Medicare Part D) that had EVERYTHING to do with the previous administration. Those elective wars (Afghanistan was more of an elective occupation as the actual war was not really elective) now have an estimated cost of $4 to $6T, much of which is baked into future spending.



    No, what is amazing is you never tell us how Bush created deficits when we clearly went from a "balanced budget" to large deficits during his tenure, yet you want to tell us how Obama debt is so huge. The fact is, Presidents have some control over budgets during their administration; but debt is a function of deficits and budget infrastructure often set during previous administrations. Obama is not responsible for most of the cost infrastructure of government including the wars and mandatory spending, the obligations of which were set up well before he assumed office.

    Sorry, while the debt may "only" have risen $4.9T during the Bush presidency. The debt was $5.7 when Bush assumed office in 2001; it is $16.7T today, a change of $11T. Bush is pretty responsible for MOST of that change. Granted, Obama now owns the tax cuts, as the Bush cuts expired in 2010 (and were extended to 2012), and Obama owns part of the stimulus spending... but most of the rest of the government economic infrastructure (spending and revenue) has nothing to do with him.

    Feel free to refute this (with facts).... and spare yourself canned counter-argument 101 that its Congress' fault... that argument shows a lack of understanding of how government works... though the House is chartered with creating budgets, its meaningless without support of the Senate and Presidency.. if not, we would be living under the Ryan Budget. The President pretty much has to endorse the budget, or it don't happen... the veto pen is far too strong in today's fractured COTUS.... and, so we can all look at how our budget went from under control to out of control between 2001 and 2009 (the Bush years)... allow me to present, well, the budget (Table 1.1 thereof, anyway).

    Budget - Summary of Receipts, Expenditures and Deficits.jpg


    Sorry, the facts are not on your side, except in your own mind. Quite the contrary, in fact, as you have yet to produce any facts, much less refute any of mine. Look, the Bush Presidency, from an economic perspective, was a disaster... we are still digging out. You should accept that embarrassment of an economic leader and move on. It will help you blood pressure.

    Oh how you have to just love it's never Obama. On nothing.

    Bush tax cuts this, Bush tax cuts that, Bush, Bush Bush. Obama and the rest of the brain dead could have dumped the Bush tax cuts in 2008 but they didn't. They had the White House, the Senate and the House. As it turns out, just about the only smart move that this administration has made since 2008 was not dumping those Bush Tax cuts (of course the dumbocrats did a dumb move with increases on the rich since). But funny how Obama is never held for not correcting a problem (even though it wasn't one) when he had the chance. If fact Obama himself said it would be stupid to raise taxes when the economy isn't doing well but then what does he do a couple of years later? What he said was stupid.

    Same goes with your nonsense on the deficit. if Obama is not responsible for it, then Bush isn't either. And of course it's funny how that so called "surplus" during Clintons years didn't reduce or slow the rate of growth of the deficit. Taxes being to low is not the problem, spending is. And the deficit is going to skyrocket like never before unless Obamacare is trash caned. But then it won't matter to those like you, instead of blaming it on Bush, you will blame it on the GOP who did not vote for it.

  7. #1577
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Last Seen
    08-25-16 @ 08:31 PM
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    11,265

    Re: U.S. Adds 195,000 Jobs; Unemployment Remains 7.6%

    Quote Originally Posted by ItAin'tFree View Post
    Yes, yes it all makes sense now. Minimum wage should be set at a level that employee's want. The adverse consequences be damned, what's important is what people want. LOL.


    You think employee's want $7 & change per hour???

  8. #1578
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Last Seen
    08-25-16 @ 08:31 PM
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    11,265

    Re: U.S. Adds 195,000 Jobs; Unemployment Remains 7.6%

    Quote Originally Posted by Fenton View Post
    According to the December Jobs report in 2013, ( this year) net new jobs from 2008 in the private sector was up 725,000 but Government jobs were down 700,000 with a net jobs total of around 25,000.

    So your'e saying wev'e picked up 7 MILLION private sector jobs since December 2013 ?? In 6 months ?

    Can't you defend your corrupt ideology without lying ? It's bad enough you lack the capacity to understand the Democrat mandated Sub-Prime Collapse that caused the recession, but now your'e telling bald face lies.

    Its embarrasing to watch and I think you owe me an apology for ttaking up 4 minutes of my life
    It's not my fault you can't understand what I posted. Suffice it to say, I never claimed the private sector gained 7 million jobs since December, 2013(?) ... nor did I say it occurred over a 6 month period.

    Learn to understand what you read so you don't embarrass yourself like that again.

  9. #1579
    Pragmatic Idealist
    upsideguy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Rocky Mtn. High
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:19 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Progressive
    Posts
    10,104

    Re: U.S. Adds 195,000 Jobs; Unemployment Remains 7.6%

    Quote Originally Posted by ItAin'tFree View Post
    Oh how you have to just love it's never Obama. On nothing.

    Bush tax cuts this, Bush tax cuts that, Bush, Bush Bush. Obama and the rest of the brain dead could have dumped the Bush tax cuts in 2008 but they didn't. They had the White House, the Senate and the House. As it turns out, just about the only smart move that this administration has made since 2008 was not dumping those Bush Tax cuts (of course the dumbocrats did a dumb move with increases on the rich since). But funny how Obama is never held for not correcting a problem (even though it wasn't one) when he had the chance. If fact Obama himself said it would be stupid to raise taxes when the economy isn't doing well but then what does he do a couple of years later? What he said was stupid.

    Same goes with your nonsense on the deficit. if Obama is not responsible for it, then Bush isn't either. And of course it's funny how that so called "surplus" during Clintons years didn't reduce or slow the rate of growth of the deficit. Taxes being to low is not the problem, spending is. And the deficit is going to skyrocket like never before unless Obamacare is trash caned. But then it won't matter to those like you, instead of blaming it on Bush, you will blame it on the GOP who did not vote for it.
    Thank you for your emotional, factless response. I laid out specifics; you laid an egg. Sorry, I built a case against Bush with facts and articles; you gave us nothing but wasted cyberspace.... In fact, your retort was so empty, I am not sure why it warrants my attention. I guess I just see a guy with 90 posts and think, just maybe, he has some potential to be a good poster and future debating adversary. "...maybe the kid's got some potential..."

    As to the bolded area above, not only do you not bring facts to support your arguments, you ignore facts already presented that specifically refute your argument. I posted Table 1.1 of from the actual US Budget. This table shows ACTUAL receipts and expenditures. If you took the time to look at it, you would the deficits not only slowed; they reversed and become modest surpluses in 1999 and 2000 (on-budget) and 1997 to 2000 (on and off budget combined). These surpluses were acknowledged by the Heritage Foundation (see prior post of mine) and the Bush Administration... they were real, albeit modest. Even if you don't want to acknowledge the surplus, you have to acknowledge that the budget was pretty much balanced when GW pulled up to 1600 Pennsylvania and unpacked his stuff.

    Bush Defends Size of Surplus And Tax Cuts - NYTimes.com
    Bush 1999: "It's Important to Cut the Taxes" - YouTube

    If what you mean is asking why the rate of increase in debt did not slow (confusing deficits and debts is a common rookie mistake).... well, the rate of increase in debt slowed to almost nothing. Total debt rose by about $18B between 1999 and 2001 ($5.641 to $5.659B); while debt to public actually dropped (from $3.8T in 1997 to $3.3T in 2001).

    http://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/r...bt_ann2001.pdf

    Sorry, Bush essentially started with a clean slate and produced huge deficits... there is no denying it, no matter how much emotion you wish to levy.

    I laid out my supported argument. Granted, I have a huge advantage in this as the facts are on my side. Its pretty easy to call up articles to support what I am saying. You have a much tougher challenge; defending the guilty is a tough road.... but, surely you can do better than this. Let's see facts, graphs and supporting articles (from something besides a political porn site). Perhaps you could start by explaining your proposition that Obamacare is a budget buster. That is a new one. The CBO actually has scored it as saving money in the long-run. So, produce the goods (supported arguments).. otherwise sit down, watch and learn, rook.

    (hey, at least one guy liked your posts... after all, you jumped in to help him defend the indefensible... unfortunately, you used his strategy of confusing your impressions with good argument and not supporting his position with verifiable facts.)
    Last edited by upsideguy; 07-24-13 at 01:04 AM.

  10. #1580
    Pragmatic Idealist
    upsideguy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Rocky Mtn. High
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:19 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Progressive
    Posts
    10,104

    Re: U.S. Adds 195,000 Jobs; Unemployment Remains 7.6%

    Quote Originally Posted by Conservative View Post
    What I find quite bothering is how little you understand about leadership and personal responsibility.
    Classic Con: deflect the issue that he can not handle with a new, silly issue. I was not debating leadership and personal responsibility. I was debating who is responsible for the economic mess. Stick to the subject!

    Quote Originally Posted by Conservative View Post
    Obama has been in office for over 4 years and has shown zero leadership skills and generated worse economic results than Bush who you want to blame everything on. Most people realize that the Bush Presidency wasn't 2008 alone and that the Bush Presidency had a Democrat Controlled Congress his last two years and a divided Congress his first two years. Too bad you don't hold Obama to the same standards that you want to hold Bush.
    There you go again.... again, Bush started with essentially a balanced budget and then ran up huge deficits.... well before the Dems took control of congress. Again, the fact that the Dems had nominal control of congress in 2007 was moot, as 1) the damage substantially was already done (again --- why must I repeat this? --- with tax cuts designed to eliminate surplus, plus two very, very expensive wars/occupations). The Dems did not have a veto proof congress, so there wasn't much they could have done to change things.... other than do what the current Reps do, which is pass the same meaningless, shallow legislation over and over and over and over and over and over and over... and over again.

    Quote Originally Posted by Conservative View Post
    We can continue to debate the so called Clinton surplus but what purpose does it serve? Obama deficits are worse than anything Bush ever did as Bush never had a trillion dollar deficit and Obama's economic plan which consisted of the Stimulus and Obamacare are disasters yet you want to ignore that. The economic numbers today are the facts that I offer that you ignore.
    I am not debating the Clinton surplus. I am telling you the Bush screwed up the economy and we are still digging out. Again, you can't stick to the subject because its an argument lost to you and you know it. Bush made a mess out of the economy.

    Quote Originally Posted by Conservative View Post
    The facts are something that you don't seem to understand. You want badly to believe that tax cuts or you keeping more of what you earn is an expense to the govt. and creates deficits.
    Facts are something that elude you, pal. First, you have presented NONE in this argument. You continue to offer only your impressions and try to pass them off as facts. I never said tax cuts were an expense to the government. I did say that tax cuts causes deficits. I backed up my statement with numerous articles on the subject... I never offered my personal impressions on this (despite, having a CPA background, I would actually have some expertise on the subject)... but, let me go ahead: deficits can be created by increasing expenditure OR by decreasing revenue. Tax cuts decreased revenue (the tables document this is what happened and the basic premise was for this to happen because they were designed to be surplus

    [/QUOTE]You want badly to believe your ideology is a winning one. You want badly to believe Bush is responsible for the economic results today. What you show is just how little you understand about leadership as well as economic policies. [/QUOTE]

    You want badly to believe your ideology is a winning one. Well, the ideology of Bush told us how they were going to reduce the surplus and pay off the debt with their tax reform. The result was the biggest forecast bust in the history of human civilization-- THE BIGGEST!

    The Heritage Foundation told us the tax cuts would REDUCE revenue by $1.2T (a little higher, but at least they admitted it was going to cut revenue... which means reduce surplus/increase deficit by more than $1T) AND create a $1.8T surplus at the end of Bush's term. Of course, the actual debt at the end of Bush's term was $10.626. (Debt to the Penny (Daily History Search Application)).. for a total budget bust / ERROR of $12.2T. Never, in the history of the world, as anyone been so wrong! Now, I probably shouldn't mention here about the Iraq/Afghanistan wars/occupations, the former of which was to pay for itself, yet cost us $4-6T.

    This is the "leadership" was so wrong about so much. It's easy to lay the sins of the US financial plight on their feet; its almost impossible to defend them and preserve your integrity.... but, go ahead, Con, give it a shot. Its nearly an impossible task... which is why you never do it, you just deflect. Not with me. I see through it. You can't defend Bush... and you know it. Its time to admit the sin. The truth and forgiveness will set you free.

    The Economic Impact of President Bush's Tax Relief Plan

    Quote Originally Posted by Conservative View Post
    Obama will never generate positive economic results with an anti growth economic policy. He will never create a reduction in the debt with 21 plus million unemployed/under employed/discourage workers. He will never show true leadership as long as he doesn't stand up to people like you who blame all the problems of today on someone else and not the poor leadership of Obama. And we will never dig out of the Obama hole until Obama leaves office or is fired.

    Oh by the way I am sure someone as intelligent as you understands that any so called surplus in off budget items isn't really a surplus at all because off budget items are offset with long term obligations. In other words that money is owed to others in the future. Just because less is spent than taken in doesn't generate a surplus when that money is promised to people like you in the future.
    Again, this is a different discussion. I appreciate that your only place to hide is with obfuscation. The proposition that I am asking you to either acknowledge or debate is whether the GW Bush administration 1) started with a balanced budget and delivered running large deficits and thus 2) pretty much screwed up the US economy as we know it.

    Go ahead, address that issue without the distraction of changing the subject. I know you are not capable of that, so perhaps you should take the easy road and embrace the truth. It will set you free to discuss whether Obama has failed to fix the problem or is capable of fixing the problem. Though that is a different discussion, I am happy to have that with you. You just might find, on that subject, you and I are much closer to agreement.

    Stay on subject.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •