Page 190 of 215 FirstFirst ... 90140180188189190191192200 ... LastLast
Results 1,891 to 1,900 of 2145

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

  1. #1891
    Sage
    Conservative's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Houston, TX
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 09:13 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    67,249

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

    Kushinator;1062108267]You are blaming Obama for not intervening in the economy enough while simultaneously claiming that intervention is wrong. Contradictory!
    wrong, get some help with comprehension, Obama did intervene in the economy and prolonged the problem. Leadership is lacking in the case of Obama non existent.


    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.
    The private sector economy will correct itself and the time it takes to do so depends on the govt. actions and policies. Obama has prolonged the correction for the middle class American who is dependent on job creation from that private sector.


    The private sector has never been left alone.
    Your point? You think Obamonomics has been a success?



    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!

    You need to get your nose out of the textbook and get out into the real world seeing how Obamanomics has affected the individual. Your charts and graphs don't do that. You confuse profitability with economic growth and activity. Companies today have excess cash which doesn't mean strong economic or business growth. They aren't spending money to expand and grow nor should they until Obama is fired or leaves office.

    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.
    Supply and demand is driving the market plus the influx of cash from the Fed as they buy toxic assets. Because of the huge influx of cash and low interest rates demand for a higher return is up and will remain up until it collapse under the weight of govt. intervention and high debt



    It is not about your perception of leadership. It is about a continued deleveraging of the middle and lower classes.
    Aw, yes, my perception of leadership vs. yours who has never led anything. Deleveraging the middle class is what Obama is doing by making them more dependent on the govt. That creates a dependent class which is good for liberals.



    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!).
    Bush came into office with the dot.com bubble bursting and a recession then was hit with 9/11. In fiscal year 2013 the deficit is already up over 600 billion dollars. Some people claimed they would never forget 9/11 or its cost. Apparently you aren't in that group



    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.
    Obama has done nothing to lower taxes, the tax rates are still low but economic growth is stagnant due to Obamanomics. You are paying the same tax rate today as you did when Bush implemented the tax cuts in 2001-2003. The average American isn't benefiting today because companies aren't hiring due to uncertainty and lack of leadership



    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.
    800 billion over 10 years is 80 billion a year and does nothing for economic growth. The govt. doesn't need to spend money to stimulate the economy, they need to stop over regulating, stop interfering and simply get out of the way.



    The government could borrow, or better yet... the private sector can step up! Instead, they prefer record profits earned in a jobless recovery.
    The private sector has no incentive to step up and grow as they have no idea what the cost of doing so would be under Obamanomics.



    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 charts show a book smart individual out of touch with reality and human behavior.



    Not an opinion. Tax cuts lower prices, which is a no-no during periods of low inflation and/or deflation.
    No, tax cuts increase spendable income and economic activity. Normally tax cuts will increase demand for goods and services which could drive up prices.


    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.
    And Obama dealt with it poorly as the current economic numbers and poll numbers show.

  2. #1892
    Sage
    Fenton's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:41 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    26,213

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Boo Radley View Post
    Obama doesn't control the economy.

    Says who ? A online ideologue who doesn't possess the humility and honesty to critique his own party ?

    Obama's signature legislation has caused the largest increase in part time employment in our Nations History.

    Millions have been introduced to a new reality in America. Chronic Joblessness and dependemce and hey, you had a hand in it all.

    Since 2008 you guys have been on the defensive and for good reason, because you people screwed this nation.

  3. #1893
    I'm not-low all the time
    Kushinator's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    West Loop
    Last Seen
    Today @ 10:21 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    16,253

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

    wrong, get some help with comprehension, Obama did intervene in the economy and prolonged the problem. Leadership is lacking in the case of Obama non existent.
    What is it? He is either not doing enough (intervention) or he is doing too much (intervention). It cannot be both!

    The private sector economy will correct itself and the time it takes to do so depends on the govt. actions and policies.
    That is contrary to the empirical evidence. Prior to active government intervention of the 20th and 21st centuries, recovery rates were similar to the one we are currently in. Of course much of that has to do with the frequency of financial crises prior to 1945. There was a financial panic (some times more than one) in every decade of the 19th century. After 1929, it's once every 80 years.

    Obama has prolonged the correction for the middle class American who is dependent on job creation from that private sector.
    Nothing that Obama did negates the vast amounts of federal expenditure or base money creation since 2009. Companies are not hiring because they can make record profits with dramatically less labor costs, which signals a demand problem. Only a boost in demand (this is a fact, not an opinion) can push top line growth to levels necessary for the type of expansion that incorporates strong job creation.

    Your point? You think Obamonomics has been a success?
    Depends on how you define success. I understand that without intervention, the financial sector would have collapsed. The next domino to fall was Goldman Sachs without the AIG bailout. After that, it's anybody's guess. Im happy that GDP is at $15 trillion and not $9 trillion. Therefore i view it as a success.

    Now if you view success as massive job creation in the recovery, then of course you cannot view Obamaonomics as successful. I simply see massive job creation unrealistic; a position that can be supported by empirical evidence.

    You confuse profitability with economic growth and activity. Companies today have excess cash which doesn't mean strong economic or business growth. They aren't spending money to expand and grow nor should they until Obama is fired or leaves office.
    False! My point rests in the fact that profitability does not necessary equate to strong hiring or expansion. The idea that companies should not expand until the end of Obama's term is partisan vitriol. It's about demand, silly!

    Supply and demand is driving the market plus the influx of cash from the Fed as they buy toxic assets.
    The Fed cannot purchase toxic assets. Aggregate demand will continue to operate at a shortfall until the middle and low consumer classes rebuild their balance sheets to previous levels. That my dear Conservative takes time! Especially true when more jobs were lost between 2007-2009 than in any other period in our countries history. You have even negated your own point hundreds of times! With less of a percentage of the population working, the positive economic impact of tax cuts diminish.

    Because of the huge influx of cash and low interest rates demand for a higher return is up and will remain up until it collapse under the weight of govt. intervention and high debt
    The returns in the most diversified equity indexes have been over 100% since the March lows. Housing prices (even though they've increased) did not move lockstep. Again (for the nth time), continued consumer deleveraging and balance sheet repair is a negative for short term growth.

    Aw, yes, my perception of leadership vs. yours who has never led anything.
    You don't know anything about me. Therefore this is a pointless comment (logical fallacy in the form of ad hominem) .

    Deleveraging the middle class is what Obama is doing by making them more dependent on the govt. That creates a dependent class which is good for liberals.
    This is a partisan talking point that lacks substance. What, 40% of all homeowners are still underwater on their mortgages? That has nothing to do with Obama. What is deleveraging?

    Bush came into office with the dot.com bubble bursting and a recession then was hit with 9/11.
    So increasing the size and scope of government is only acceptable when you support it? The way he handled it led to a trillion dollar war that was unnecessary, lower taxes that were maximized at higher incomes, and the largest real estate bubble... ever! No wonder you hate Obama, you've lost faith in the presidency in 2008.

    In fiscal year 2013 the deficit is already up over 600 billion dollars
    Actually, $509,826,000 since October 1, 2012.

    Obama has done nothing to lower taxes, the tax rates are still low but economic growth is stagnant due to Obamanomics. You are paying the same tax rate today as you did when Bush implemented the tax cuts in 2001-2003. The average American isn't benefiting today because companies aren't hiring due to uncertainty and lack of leadership.
    Companies are not hiring because they don't need to! Their goal is to make profit, not hire employees. Profits are higher than they have ever been!

    800 billion over 10 years is 80 billion a year and does nothing for economic growth.
    After reviewing the data, only about $47 billion was allocated towards infrastructure.

    The govt. doesn't need to spend money to stimulate the economy, they need to stop over regulating, stop interfering and simply get out of the way.
    To a degree. There needs to be better regulation, not more regulation.

    The private sector has no incentive to step up and grow as they have no idea what the cost of doing so would be under Obamanomics.
    That is complete bull****. There have literally been millions of dollars in consultancy purchases by corporations to model potential cost scenarios.

    Your charts show a book smart individual out of touch with reality and human behavior.
    Instead of discussing the content of my post, you decide to discuss your perception of me? This is debatepolitics.com not debatewhatithinkofyou.com.

    No, tax cuts increase spendable income and economic activity.
    Increasing spendable income does not necessarily mean it will increase economic activity. It depends on whether the new spendable income was spent (really, how much of it). Now, how do consumers deleverage?

    Normally tax cuts will increase demand for goods and services which could drive up prices.
    We haven't lived in normal times since December 2007.

    And Obama dealt with it poorly as the current economic numbers and poll numbers show.
    Opinion noted.
    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

  4. #1894
    Sage
    j-mac's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    South Carolina
    Last Seen
    12-08-17 @ 03:46 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    30,272

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Kushinator View Post
    We haven't lived in normal times since December 2007.
    Did the world begin with Bush Jr.?
    Americans are so enamored of equality that they would rather be equal in slavery than unequal in freedom.

    Alexis de Tocqueville

  5. #1895
    I'm not-low all the time
    Kushinator's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    West Loop
    Last Seen
    Today @ 10:21 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    16,253

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

    Quote Originally Posted by j-mac View Post
    Did the world begin with Bush Jr.?
    No......
    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

  6. #1896
    Sage
    j-mac's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    South Carolina
    Last Seen
    12-08-17 @ 03:46 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    30,272

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Kushinator View Post
    No......
    Are there not those that would say this course has been ongoing since the turn of the 20th century?
    Americans are so enamored of equality that they would rather be equal in slavery than unequal in freedom.

    Alexis de Tocqueville

  7. #1897
    I'm not-low all the time
    Kushinator's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    West Loop
    Last Seen
    Today @ 10:21 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    16,253

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

    Quote Originally Posted by j-mac View Post
    Are there not those that would say this course has been ongoing since the turn of the 20th century?
    The financial crisis began in 2007, and then became serious in 2008. So no, this had not been ongoing since the turn of the 20th.
    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

  8. #1898
    Sage
    j-mac's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    South Carolina
    Last Seen
    12-08-17 @ 03:46 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    30,272

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Kushinator View Post
    The financial crisis began in 2007, and then became serious in 2008. So no, this had not been ongoing since the turn of the 20th.
    Maybe I am off base, but the scourge of progressivism has too been ongoing since then.
    Americans are so enamored of equality that they would rather be equal in slavery than unequal in freedom.

    Alexis de Tocqueville

  9. #1899
    Sage
    Conservative's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Houston, TX
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 09:13 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    67,249

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

    Kushinator;1062108681]What is it? He is either not doing enough (intervention) or he is doing too much (intervention). It cannot be both!
    If you ever managed anything or had any personal responsibility in dealing with actual people you might understand the concept of intervention. Has Obamanomics been a success?



    That is contrary to the empirical evidence. Prior to active government intervention of the 20th and 21st centuries, recovery rates were similar to the one we are currently in. Of course much of that has to do with the frequency of financial crises prior to 1945. There was a financial panic (some times more than one) in every decade of the 19th century. After 1929, it's once every 80 years.
    There you go again with the textbooks. This is 2013 and we have over 100 million Americans dependent on some form of taxpayer assistance including welfare. This is the society you and your ilk are creating. Maybe that is good for people like you who deal with numbers and academia but not real people in the real world.

    Nothing that Obama did negates the vast amounts of federal expenditure or base money creation since 2009. Companies are not hiring because they can make record profits with dramatically less labor costs, which signals a demand problem. Only a boost in demand (this is a fact, not an opinion) can push top line growth to levels necessary for the type of expansion that incorporates strong job creation.
    Obama was hired because he told Americans that he would solve the problems, he has failed and with failure in a private sector economy there are consequences, not so with a Federal Govt. Companies don't create demand, consumers do and you create demand by having more spendable income. Happens all the time. No business owner is going to expand with the uncertainties of Obamanomics

    Depends on how you define success. I understand that without intervention, the financial sector would have collapsed. The next domino to fall was Goldman Sachs without the AIG bailout. After that, it's anybody's guess. Im happy that GDP is at $15 trillion and not $9 trillion. Therefore i view it as a success.
    That is your opinion, some banks didn't want TARP, wonder why?

    Now if you view success as massive job creation in the recovery, then of course you cannot view Obamaonomics as successful. I simply see massive job creation unrealistic; a position that can be supported by empirical evidence.
    success is a strong growing economy built on the private sector not govt. spending. Strong job creation happens in a strong growing economy which this one isn't. It is be restricted by Obamanomics. If you ever invested your own money in a business you would understand why


    False! My point rests in the fact that profitability does not necessary equate to strong hiring or expansion. The idea that companies should not expand until the end of Obama's term is partisan vitriol. It's about demand, silly!
    Where did I say profitability equates to strong hiring? You really need to get some help understanding how the private sector works. Businesses aren't in business to hire people like you, they are in business to make a profit. To make that profit they need demand, demand created by the private consumer and that isn't going to happen with massive govt. expenditures. Of course it is about demand, what is Obama doing to stimulate demand? Obamacare? EPA regulations? higher taxes during slow economic growth? Income redistribution?

    The Fed cannot purchase toxic assets. Aggregate demand will continue to operate at a shortfall until the middle and low consumer classes rebuild their balance sheets to previous levels. That my dear Conservative takes time! Especially true when more jobs were lost between 2007-2009 than in any other period in our countries history. You have even negated your own point hundreds of times! With less of a percentage of the population working, the positive economic impact of tax cuts diminish.
    The Fed is purchasing Toxic Assets thus QE. Demand will never grow as long as consumer confidence remains low and the labor participation rate stays are record lows. Obama leadership is lacking and will never promote the private sector. That isn't his desire.

    The returns in the most diversified equity indexes have been over 100% since the March lows. Housing prices (even though they've increased) did not move lockstep. Again (for the nth time), continued consumer deleveraging and balance sheet repair is a negative for short term growth.
    You are easily swayed but a distorted view of personal spending habits and personal income levels. About half the country owns homes so how does higher real estate values affect the other half? How are the unemployed/under employed/discouraged workers affected by equity indexes? The guy you hired to fix the problem doesn't even understand the problem and is incompetent. Most book smart people are also incompetent when it comes to street issues.

    You don't know anything about me. Therefore this is a pointless comment (logical fallacy in the form of ad hominem) .
    You are right and I have no interest in actually knowing you, but I do know a lot of people like you, book smart and street stupid.


    This is a partisan talking point that lacks substance. What, 40% of all homeowners are still underwater on their mortgages? That has nothing to do with Obama. What is deleveraging?
    Cite your source that 40% of all home owners are under water and tell me what leadership Obama has shown on the issue?



    So increasing the size and scope of government is only acceptable when you support it? The way he handled it led to a trillion dollar war that was unnecessary, lower taxes that were maximized at higher incomes, and the largest real estate bubble... ever! No wonder you hate Obama, you've lost faith in the presidency in 2008.
    Never have I supported increasing the size and scope of govt. Looks like another reading comprehension problem. I don't hate Obama, but know Obama is in over his head lacking any understanding of the private sector and how it works. He and you have a lot in common with regard to that area.



    Actually, $509,826,000 since October 1, 2012.
    Don't see the surplus then that you said existed. only a true liberal takes a victory lap for what will be a deficit of around 800 billion or more dollars because it is a cut? Bush never had a 800 billion dollar deficit



    Companies are not hiring because they don't need to! Their goal is to make profit, not hire employees. Profits are higher than they have ever been!
    Great, so what is the govt. doing to create incentive and grow demand? We agree, the goal is to make a profit, the incentive to grow more will be there when there is incentive to create demand. People buy during a sale, why? Obama is an economic failure in understanding how to motivate people and how to increase demand.



    After reviewing the data, only about $47 billion was allocated towards infrastructure.
    Is that how the stimulus was sold? Seems I remember shovel ready jobs being mentioned over and over. Name for me one economic prediction Obama has made that has been accurate?



    To a degree. There needs to be better regulation, not more regulation.
    Ok, what is Obama doing to create better regulations rather than growing regulations? Why is the Keystone Pipeline not up to the states to decide? Why is coal being regulated by anyone other than the people of W. Va. Why should the NLRB try to block Boeing from opening a plant in Carolina? Why is it a bureaucrats responsibility to administer healthcare for individuals in 50 states?



    That is complete bull****. There have literally been millions of dollars in consultancy purchases by corporations to model potential cost scenarios.
    You don't get it, do you? Who picks up the spending when the govt. buck stops? Why is it your responsibility to pay for my states liabilities? Throwing money at the problem is all the govt. is good at, never solving a problem. The federal govt. continues to reward bad behavior and expects behavior to change. never going to happen


    Instead of discussing the content of my post, you decide to discuss your perception of me? This is debatepolitics.com not debatewhatithinkofyou.com.
    You are part of the problem because you are so out of touch with the real world and real people



    Increasing spendable income does not necessarily mean it will increase economic activity. It depends on whether the new spendable income was spent (really, how much of it). Now, how do consumers deleverage?
    Really? what do you do with more spendable income and how does that affect the economy? Whether it was spent, saved, invested, or used to pay down debt, it doesn't matter, all benefit the economy. A free market capitalist would understand how



    We haven't lived in normal times since December 2007.
    Yep, and Obama is doing nothing to return us to normal times. The economic numbers are a disaster and Obama is a failure. Accept that reality and you are on the way to a cure for your lack of understanding as to how the private sector economy works



    Opinion noted.
    Yep, backed by actual economic numbers and current poll numbers

  10. #1900
    Sage
    Boo Radley's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Last Seen
    11-22-17 @ 04:22 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    36,858

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Bronson View Post
    He can't control the economy? That's your talking point now?

    If that's true than why did he waste 787B with his failed Stimulus Plan? Why was his economic team projecting 6% and below unemployment if we passed his stimulus if he couldn't control the economy? So he lied right? You were fooled right? That 787B was a massive robbery right?

    You and your pals are out of ideas and out of talking points. You're reduced to "If he was a Republican, you'd support it" nonsense. I don't play that game anymore. I dislike both Republicans and Democrats. If a Republican was doing what Obama is doing to this country, I'd be demanding his impeachment. You're still lost in the Left/Right reality TV show. WA is like the WWE. Behind closed doors they are all back slapping each other while they enable Wall Street to rob you blind. It's time for you to wake up to what's really going on.

    Obama's speech was scripted and rehearsed nonsense. He's like one of those wrestlers giving one of their speeches in the WWE. Whenever I see his supporters on here pretending it's still Hope and Change 2008 I just shake my head. It's sad.
    All politics s are scripted and rehearsed. And all have tired ways to stimulate. But the bottom line is best they can do is stop the bleeding. The money Obama spent did save jobs, and that is the only real way over meant can do that.

    And it would be the same with a republican.

    AUSTAN GOOLSBEE: I think the world vests too much power, certainly in the president, probably in Washington in general for its influence on the economy, because most all of the economy has nothing to do with the government.

Posting Permissions

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