Page 189 of 215 FirstFirst ... 89139179187188189190191199 ... LastLast
Results 1,881 to 1,890 of 2145

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

  1. #1881
    Sage
    Conservative's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Houston, TX
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:37 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    67,270

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

    The last two days Obama has made campaign speeches running for a job that he currently holds which once again shows his lack of leadership skills and liberal arrogance. Supporters continue to buy the rhetoric and ignore the results.

    I posted the following article and got no response. Not one supporter can look at this article and tell us where the lies or distortions are. Down deep I believe most supporters know they were duped into voting for this empty suit and yes down deep they know that the article is true.

    The Architect of Destruction

  2. #1882
    I'm not-low all the time
    Kushinator's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    West Loop
    Last Seen
    Today @ 11:13 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    16,261

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Conservative View Post
    No, cannot blame Democrats for that which they don't understand which is what I do blame Democrats for, they don't understand the private sector at all because they are too busy wanting to keep people dependent.
    It was private industry that cause massive layoffs, not the public sector. Why do you want to blame market failure on democrats?


    A 30% increase that still doesn't get us back to pre recession levels is a disaster especially with the dollars spent to generate those numbers. Great quote from Thomas Sowell that applies to you.
    In terms of nominal dollars, net wealth has been restored. However, in terms of per-capita or factored for inflation, we are still below pre-recession levels.

    Nominal:



    Real:

    It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion.
    "Wealth of Nations," Book V, Chapter II, Part II, Article I, pg.911

  3. #1883
    Sage
    j-mac's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    South Carolina
    Last Seen
    Today @ 09:18 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    30,322

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Conservative View Post
    I have, you simply cannot admit you are wrong on any issue even when proven wrong.
    You can always tell when you have Joe....The overuse of smilies, and 5th grade pedantic is a dead give away.
    Americans are so enamored of equality that they would rather be equal in slavery than unequal in freedom.

    Alexis de Tocqueville

  4. #1884
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Last Seen
    01-22-17 @ 09:27 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Conservative
    Posts
    4,136

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Boo Radley View Post
    Careers:

    Doctorate Degrees

    And yes, I agree doctors make up a small part. But I wasn't the one complaining about them. But that is also not all reform tackes.
    LOL. Yeah no. Sorry but getting any doctorate degree does not take 12-16 years. Masters programs are two years and most doctorate programs are 3. MD school is 4 years, so someone could be nearly be done with their doctorate program (after getting their masters) before a medical student even begins residency. Not to mention, the sheer amount of rigor one has to endure to required to become a doctor has very, very few comparisons. Just the fact that you posted a website list any old doctorate degree as a response to my question seems to indicate to me that you are in no position to be making value judgments on what a doctor is or isn't worth.

  5. #1885
    Sage
    Conservative's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Houston, TX
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:37 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    67,270

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

    Kushinator;1062107872]It was private industry that cause massive layoffs, not the public sector. Why do you want to blame market failure on democrats?

    That is what happens when you operate at a deficit or lose money, you cut expenses and the number one biggest expense is payroll. States are doing the same thing. The only entity that isn't is the Federal Govt. because they can print money.

    In terms of nominal dollars, net wealth has been restored. However, in terms of per-capita or factored for inflation, we are still below pre-recession levels.

    Nominal:



    Real:

    And what exactly did Obama do to restore value?

    I am very happy that the current economic results haven't affected you but by them not affecting you, you ignore the effects on others and ignore that Obama has zero leadership skills or understanding of the private sector economy

  6. #1886
    I'm not-low all the time
    Kushinator's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    West Loop
    Last Seen
    Today @ 11:13 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    16,261

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Conservative View Post
    That is what happens when you operate at a deficit or lose money, you cut expenses and the number one biggest expense is payroll. States are doing the same thing. The only entity that isn't is the Federal Govt. because they can print money.
    But why do you want to blame the democrats for the actions (or lack thereof) of the private sector?

    And what exactly did Obama do to restore value?
    Nothing, as the economy is primarily dictated by the private sector. In all actuality, public sector job creation has declined since 2009, year over year over year....

    I am very happy that the current economic results haven't affected you but by them not affecting you, you ignore the effects on others and ignore that Obama has zero leadership skills or understanding of the private sector economy
    You dislike Obama for partisan reasons. Barring trillions of dollars in infrastructure stimulus, there is nothing Obama, Romney, McCain, or Hilary would have been able to do to restore both employment and wealth to pre-recession levels. I know you do not understand how severe a financial crisis is, nor do you understand how long the recovery will last.

    Even with all-time/historic low interest rates, credit conditions continue to operate in deterioration mode. There is nothing more the public sector can do other than wait for the private sector to experience diminishing returns to labor and capital which will force expansion. Companies are more profitable than they have ever been. Equity values are at their highest levels. Balance sheets are gushing with short term liquidity.

    Economies do not recover from severe financial crises like they would from your typical recession.

    In the future, put a [quote= in front of my name. Otherwise the coding is all screwed up.
    It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion.
    "Wealth of Nations," Book V, Chapter II, Part II, Article I, pg.911

  7. #1887
    Sage
    Conservative's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Houston, TX
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:37 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    67,270

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

    Kushinator;1062107917]But why do you want to blame the democrats for the actions (or lack thereof) of the private sector?
    I blame Democrats for the very poor recovery and lack of leadership in stimulating and growing the private sector which is where the jobs will be created. It was Democrats that created the conditions for the recession we experienced and it is Democrats today that seem to believe the govt. is the answer whereas the govt. is only the answer in providing incentive not roadblocks for economic growth.



    Nothing, as the economy is primarily dictated by the private sector. In all actuality, public sector job creation has declined since 2009, year over year over year....
    Leadership takes the hand they are dealt and deals with it. Obama takes the hand he was dealt and plays politics and campaigns with it. I posted the following article which is being ignored. When was the last time you heard Obama talk positively about the private sector and the economy of this country. The economy is dictated by the private sector so why is Obama trying to micromanage it with things like Obamacare, increasing coal regulations, other EPA stonewalling, higher taxes? How does that stimulate the private sector business person to invest their own money?

    The Architect of Destruction


    You dislike Obama for partisan reasons. Barring trillions of dollars in infrastructure stimulus, there is nothing Obama, Romney, McCain, or Hilary would have been able to do to restore both employment and wealth to pre-recession levels. I know you do not understand how severe a financial crisis is, nor do you understand how long the recovery will last.
    Wrong, I don't dislike Obama, seems like a nice man but one who doesn't understand the private sector at all. He is a great campaigner but poor leader. Leadership sometimes means cheerleading and Obama has done nothing but divide. He is a community agitator in a position that requires leadership. A good example of leadership would have been to forgo vacations and golf by forcing Congressional leaders to meet face to face until the economic problems are solved.

    Even with all-time/historic low interest rates, credit conditions continue to operate in deterioration mode. There is nothing more the public sector can do other than wait for the private sector to experience diminishing returns to labor and capital which will force expansion. Companies are more profitable than they have ever been. Equity values are at their highest levels. Balance sheets are gushing with short term liquidity.

    Economies do not recover from severe financial crises like they would from your typical recession.
    It is the historic low interest rates that are an indication of how bad the economy is under Obama's leadership and it is these low rates which are making the economic results look better than they are. People aren't affected as much when interest rates are low but millions and millions of Americans are unemployed/under employed/discouraged in the Obama economy and less than 2% GDP growth isn't going to create the economic activity to generate positive job creation to solve the unemployment problems

    You have no idea what McCain, Romney or anyone else would have done but I assure you they wouldn't have implemented a stimulus program that bailed out union contracts and saved irresponsible states from their own poor behavior. A stimulus program should have been directed solely at the private sector, not the public sector and targeted tax cuts will never work as again Obama tried to drive private sector behavior. Reagan cut tax rates, Bush cut tax rates and that is what drives economic activity. People have certainty knowing that in ever paycheck they are going to have more spendable income.
    Last edited by Conservative; 07-26-13 at 09:51 AM.

  8. #1888
    I'm not-low all the time
    Kushinator's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    West Loop
    Last Seen
    Today @ 11:13 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    16,261

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Conservative View Post
    I blame Democrats for the very poor recovery and lack of leadership in stimulating and growing the private sector which is where the jobs will be created. It was Democrats that created the conditions for the recession we experienced and it is Democrats today that seem to believe the govt. is the answer whereas the govt. is only the answer in providing incentive not roadblocks for economic growth.
    You are contradicting yourself. In one statement, you lay blame for lack of stimulating and growing the private sector, but in another statement, you say that democrats believe the government is the answer?

    What happened to the conservative mantra, "the private sector will correct itself"?

    The economy is dictated by the private sector so why is Obama trying to micromanage it with things like Obamacare, increasing coal regulations, other EPA stonewalling, higher taxes? How does that stimulate the private sector business person to invest their own money?
    People invest to make profit. As it stands, U.S. companies are more profitable than they have ever been. Why are businesses not expanding? Because there is still a structural demand deficiency. People continue to deleverage even 4 years after the recession ended. Welcome to the reality of a post financial crisis recovery.

    Wrong, I don't dislike Obama, seems like a nice man but one who doesn't understand the private sector at all.
    All you do is blame him in every thread, even without discussing the topic at hand. In a thread about June's budget surplus, you began with "Obama is not a leader" (which is Limbaugh rhetoric). Partisanship blinds you of the reality of the situation.

    It is the historic low interest rates that are an indication of how bad the economy is under Obama's leadership and it is these low rates which are making the economic results look better than they are. People aren't affected as much when interest rates are low but millions and millions of Americans are unemployed/under employed/discouraged in the Obama economy and less than 2% GDP growth isn't going to create the economic activity to generate positive job creation to solve the unemployment problems
    Is this the economy driven by the private sector, or Obama?

    You have no idea what McCain, Romney or anyone else would have done
    It wouldn't have mattered, barring something like a $5 trillion infrastructure stimulus.

    This chart dipicts the output gap, or potential GDP minus actual GDP, factored for inflation.



    As you can clearly see, the U.S. economy requires an additional $800 billion in expenditures/income to operate at full employment.

    Reagan cut tax rates, Bush cut tax rates and that is what drives economic activity.
    This begs the question: Why did the economy fall so dramatically even though Reagan and Bush tax cuts were in effect? Besides, tax cuts only induce deflation/disinflation. Cutting additional taxes is the appropriate response to a stagflation; not a deflationary liquidity trap.


    Conservative, code the ****ing response correctly! You have to put a [B][quote=[/B] in front of my name. Make sure to erase the bold or it will **** up your response even more.
    It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion.
    "Wealth of Nations," Book V, Chapter II, Part II, Article I, pg.911

  9. #1889
    Sage
    Conservative's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Houston, TX
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:37 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    67,270

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

    Kushinator;1062108011]You are contradicting yourself. In one statement, you lay blame for lack of stimulating and growing the private sector, but in another statement, you say that democrats believe the government is the answer?
    No contradiction at all.

    What happened to the conservative mantra, "the private sector will correct itself"?
    Yes, left alone it will correct itself, that isn't what Obama is doing. Obamacare isn't leaving the private sector alone, extending unemployment benefits isn't leaving the private sector alone, raising taxes isn't leaving the private sector alone, increasing regulations isn't leaving the private sector alone.



    People invest to make profit. As it stands, U.S. companies are more profitable than they have ever been. Why are businesses not expanding? Because there is still a structural demand deficiency. People continue to deleverage even 4 years after the recession ended. Welcome to the reality of a post financial crisis recovery.
    There is no incentive to hire and yes, the rich are getting richer because the stock market is doing great. That is what happens when you have an overactive Fed.

    All you do is blame him in every thread, even without discussing the topic at hand. In a thread about June's budget surplus, you began with "Obama is not a leader" (which is Limbaugh rhetoric). Partisanship blinds you of the reality of the situation.
    This is about leadership and in Obama's case lack of leadership. Obama is no leader and there was no budget surplus according to the Treasury Dept. because one month does not a year make. Bush had many months of surplus



    Is this the economy driven by the private sector, or Obama?
    The economy is driven by the Private Sector something Obama doesn't understand and over taxes and over regulates.



    It wouldn't have mattered, barring something like a $5 trillion infrastructure stimulus.
    There was limited infrastructure stimulus or did you forget Obama claiming there was no such thing as a shovel ready job?

    This chart dipicts the output gap, or potential GDP minus actual GDP, factored for inflation.



    As you can clearly see, the U.S. economy requires an additional $800 billion in expenditures/income to operate at full employment.
    We don't have 800 billion of taxpayer money. Your charts are such relief to the millions unemployed/under employed/discouraged


    This begs the question: Why did the economy fall so dramatically even though Reagan and Bush tax cuts were in effect? Besides, tax cuts only induce deflation/disinflation. Cutting additional taxes is the appropriate response to a stagflation; not a deflationary liquidity trap.
    your opinion noted, the economic results however show a different story especially with Reagan and even with Bush from 2004-2006 when Republicans controlled the Congress.

  10. #1890
    I'm not-low all the time
    Kushinator's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    West Loop
    Last Seen
    Today @ 11:13 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    16,261

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

    No contradiction at all.
    You are blaming Obama for not intervening in the economy enough while simultaneously claiming that intervention is wrong. Contradictory!

    Yes, left alone it will correct itself, that isn't what Obama is doing.
    Laissez faire and the theory regarding self correction is used to teach basic (textbook) economic concepts. There is not any empirical support for economies correcting themselves in a timely manner.

    Obamacare isn't leaving the private sector alone, extending unemployment benefits isn't leaving the private sector alone, raising taxes isn't leaving the private sector alone, increasing regulations isn't leaving the private sector alone.
    The private sector has never been left alone.

    There is no incentive to hire and yes, the rich are getting richer because the stock market is doing great. That is what happens when you have an overactive Fed.
    You don't know what you are talking about. Sure, liquidity prevents deflation in asset prices, but U.S. companies are more profitable than they have ever been. EVER!



    Which shows the level of understanding you have in regards to the stock market. Equity prices are driven by profits! Companies are more profitable than before the financial crisis! Therefore, stock prices will likely be higher than they were prior to the recession.

    This is about leadership and in Obama's case lack of leadership.
    It is not about your perception of leadership. It is about a continued deleveraging of the middle and lower classes.

    Obama is no leader and there was no budget surplus according to the Treasury Dept. because one month does not a year make. Bush had many months of surplus
    Of course there were monthly surpluses during the Bush administration. He came into office with a balanced budget, therefore he likely presided over many monthly budget surpluses. It just so happens that the largest monthly budget deficit on record occurred in June of 2013 (under a democrat administration!).

    The economy is driven by the Private Sector something Obama doesn't understand and over taxes and over regulates.
    Taxes are still near their historic lows. In fact, taxes have been lower during the Obama administration than they have been during any other administration since the Great Depression. This is simply a matter of fact.

    There was limited infrastructure stimulus or did you forget Obama claiming there was no such thing as a shovel ready job?
    How much? $80 billion in the span of 11 years? It needed to be something like $1 trillion a year for 5 years, as highlighted by the output gap i provided.

    We don't have 800 billion of taxpayer money.
    The government could borrow, or better yet... the private sector can step up! Instead, they prefer record profits earned in a jobless recovery.

    Your charts are such relief to the millions unemployed/under employed/discouraged
    Weak strawman! I never stated that the charts provided are a relief to anyone. I do use data to support my positions, of which you continue to ignore.

    your opinion noted
    Not an opinion. Tax cuts lower prices, which is a no-no during periods of low inflation and/or deflation.

    the economic results however show a different story especially with Reagan and even with Bush from 2004-2006 when Republicans controlled the Congress.
    They never had to deal with the greatest amount of wealth loss and credit contraction and bank failures (Bear Stearns and Lehman survived the Great Depression!) since the GD.
    Last edited by Kushinator; 07-26-13 at 11:22 AM.
    It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion.
    "Wealth of Nations," Book V, Chapter II, Part II, Article I, pg.911

Posting Permissions

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