• 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 195,000 Jobs; Unemployment Remains 7.6%

Sure, just as soon as you get around to proving my statement as wrong.

You are sidestepping, you made a claim, back it up.

The chart proves it because unlike you I understand that people keeping more of what they earn isn't an expense to the govt. thus doesn't constitute govt. spending. Notice the personal income tax revenue with the Reagan tax cuts. Notice that govt revenue went up the same amount of govt. spending and it was the 17 plus million new employees that stimulated the economic growth due to tax cuts that provided incentive to spend and thus to hire.
 
Therefore, he is/was not a good employer.

Isn't it amazing how someone who doesn't know me personally and because they dislike my political ideology has to get personal and make claims that they cannot back up? Life is about making choices. you chose your ideology and cannot refute the data I have posted and that frustrates you thus you lash out the only way you can, with a personal attack
 
The chart proves
That chart had nothing to do with the relative amounts of increased spending by Reagan and Obama, you are avoiding what you claimed I was wrong about.

You cannot honestly debate anything.
 
Isn't it amazing how someone who doesn't know me
Your previous statements about not hiring the long term unemployed have already been reposted in this thread.

They are consistent with the rest of the Ayn Rand concept you espouse.
 
That chart had nothing to do with the relative amounts of increased spending by Reagan and Obama, you are avoiding what you claimed I was wrong about.

You cannot honestly debate anything.

Is there no limit to what you don't know. Govt. spending is listed on that chart, learn to read it.
 
Your previous statements about not hiring the long term unemployed have already been reposted in this thread.

As usual context doesn't matter to you just to make what you think is a valid political point.
 
Aw, yes, more baiting and trolling. Prove that the numbers I have posted are wrong and paint a different picture than I presented. You cannot nor can you admit that you are wrong in your ideology.
I opposed the Bush tax cuts and recent history has shown they don't work as you advertise.
 
Your previous statements about not hiring the long term unemployed have already been reposted in this thread.

They are consistent with the rest of the Ayn Rand concept you espouse.

What I find concerning is that you claim to own your own business yet employ no one. Tell me what makes you an expert on hiring individuals and why would you hire the person unemployed the longest vs the best qualified for the job if that person was working in a job they were over qualified to handle? Does working rather than collecting an unemployment check play any role in your decision making process? If a longer term unemployed applied for the job and was more qualified than the individual under employed individual who applied for the same job wonder who I would hire? Hmmm, you see hiring the wrong employee reflects poorly on my and my financial results. I just wonder how a long term unemployed individual is more qualified accepting an unemployment check than taking a job and working towards a better job?
 
As usual context doesn't matter to you just to make what you think is a valid political point.
The context was whether you were a good employer, the criteria included whether you would hire someone who had been unemployed long term. You admitted previously you would not hire the long term unemployed.

Not only does this fit nicely into the Ayn Rand ideology, it also displays that your ideas do not fit with the situation of today. You cannot say that you know what the solutions are for the unemployed (that you use as a club) since you would never hire the long term unemployed.
 
I opposed the Bush tax cuts and recent history has shown they don't work as you advertise.

So you oppose keeping more of your own money and believe the govt. needs it more? Working people today are still benefiting from the Bush tax cuts whereas people working today aren't benefiting from the Obama tax cuts. I find it interesting that you cannot see the difference. Could it be political ideology blinding you?
 
Therefore, he is/was not a good employer.

it mostly means he wasn't a perfect employer. pretty much every good employer i have worked for has had at least one stupid, anti-worker / counterproductive policy that i disagree with completely. the job that broke my nine month streak was awesome. however, they hired me as a ****ing "independent contractor," i had no job security, and i was somewhat mislead about whether i would be made a permanent employee. i was on track to be hired permanently, and then they sent the boss two levels above my supervisor to China. new guy didn't know me, and decided to pare down the team. i was first on the chopping block. that's what happens when workers have no representation, even if the worker is highly skilled and educated. still, the job was great, paid very well, and i definitely wanted to stay.
 
The context was whether you were a good employer, the criteria included whether you would hire someone who had been unemployed long term. You admitted previously you would not hire the long term unemployed.

Not only does this fit nicely into the Ayn Rand ideology, it also displays that your ideas do not fit with the situation of today. You cannot say that you know what the solutions are for the unemployed (that you use as a club) since you would never hire the long term unemployed.

No, that isn't what I admitted, but keep playing the baiting diversion game. Post 484 explains it well to you. maybe you ought to get someone to help you read it.
 
Bush was fired in 2008 by the public rejecting Republicans. Bush added to much to the debt but Obama put that spending on steroids. Bush never had a 3.6 trillion dollar budget nor did he propose a 3.8 trillion dollar budget. National debt increased by 4.9 trillion dollars under Bush in 8 years, one trillion of which was attributed to 9/11. Obama has added 6.2 trillion in less than five years. You have an outrage over what Bush did but give Obama a pass. Do the economic numbers warrant adding 6.2 trillion to the debt?

Bush was term limited, not fired.
 
What I find concerning is that you claim to own your own business yet employ no one. Tell me what makes you an expert on hiring individuals and why would you hire the person unemployed the longest vs the best qualified for the job if that person was working in a job they were over qualified to handle? Does working rather than collecting an unemployment check play any role in your decision making process? If a longer term unemployed applied for the job and was more qualified than the individual under employed individual who applied for the same job wonder who I would hire? Hmmm, you see hiring the wrong employee reflects poorly on my and my financial results. I just wonder how a long term unemployed individual is more qualified accepting an unemployment check than taking a job and working towards a better job?
Your argument is totally faulty, of course it is the standard business practice, to not hire those who have been out of work.....but that is not a solution for the current conditions. Further, you don't want fed spending on those unemployed for training to get them up to speed or to change jobs.

Your arguments leaves them in the cold, you have no solutions for those you continue to use as a club.
 
it mostly means he wasn't a perfect employer. pretty much every good employer i have worked for has had at least one stupid, anti-worker / counterproductive policy that i disagree with completely. the job that broke my nine month streak was awesome. however, they hired me as a ****ing "independent contractor," i had no job security, and i was somewhat mislead about whether i would be made a permanent employee. i was on track to be hired permanently, and then they sent the boss two levels above my supervisor to China. new guy didn't know me, and decided to pare down the team. i was first on the chopping block. that's what happens when workers have no representation, even if the worker is highly skilled and educated. still, the job was great, paid very well, and i definitely wanted to stay.

Never claimed to be a perfect employer but was always held accountable for the results I generated. If I hired the wrong employee it cost me. My question to any perspective employee who was long term unemployed is why you were on unemployment so long and didn't take another job even though more qualified. Initiative and work ethic was very important to me. The long term unemployed gets further in the interview by the answer he/she gives.
 
Bush was term limited, not fired.

Yes, Bush wasn't fired but Bush's chosen replacement wasn't hired meaning that the Bush economic results led to the firing of the Republican Party. How did that work out for the country?
 
it mostly means he wasn't a perfect employer. pretty much every good employer i have worked for has had at least one stupid, anti-worker / counterproductive policy that i disagree with completely. the job that broke my nine month streak was awesome. however, they hired me as a ****ing "independent contractor," i had no job security, and i was somewhat mislead about whether i would be made a permanent employee. i was on track to be hired permanently, and then they sent the boss two levels above my supervisor to China. new guy didn't know me, and decided to pare down the team. i was first on the chopping block. that's what happens when workers have no representation, even if the worker is highly skilled and educated. still, the job was great, paid very well, and i definitely wanted to stay.
You are avoiding the point made, those who will not hire the long term unemployed would not hire you as anything.
 
So you oppose keeping more of your own money and believe the govt. needs it more? Working people today are still benefiting from the Bush tax cuts whereas people working today aren't benefiting from the Obama tax cuts. I find it interesting that you cannot see the difference. Could it be political ideology blinding you?

You seem to be forgetting that the house is were all legeslation starts and any jobs or economic policy Obama proposed in a bill has never seen the light of day. At least that has been the case since 2010.
 
Your argument is totally faulty, of course it is the standard business practice, to not hire those who have been out of work.....but that is not a solution for the current conditions. Further, you don't want fed spending on those unemployed for training to get them up to speed or to change jobs.

Your arguments leaves them in the cold, you have no solutions for those you continue to use as a club.

And your solutions are?
 
Your argument is totally faulty, of course it is the standard business practice, to not hire those who have been out of work.....but that is not a solution for the current conditions. Further, you don't want fed spending on those unemployed for training to get them up to speed or to change jobs.

Your arguments leaves them in the cold, you have no solutions for those you continue to use as a club.

How many long term unemployed have you hired? Get some help reading my response since obviously comprehension isn't a strong suit. This isn't a union shop where you hire the one out of work the longest, you hire the most qualified and one with the best work ethic depending on the job. Since you don't hire people your comments are opinion only and don't touch reality.
 
No, that isn't what I admitted, but keep playing the baiting diversion game. Post 484 explains it well to you. maybe you ought to get someone to help you read it.
rewind...
Remind me again....if a guy has been out of work for a while.....you won't hire him.
For a while? Two years? Yes I won't hire someone who has been out of work for 2 years, no initiative, no drive, and someone who has lived off the taxpayers for too long
 
You seem to be forgetting that the house is were all legeslation starts and any jobs or economic policy Obama proposed in a bill has never seen the light of day. At least that has been the case since 2010.

No, civics says you are wrong, The house is where all Appropriation bills begin, not where all legislation start. Why don't you ask Harry Reid why he is sitting on House passed bills and refusing to allow the Senate to debate them? Donc gets it, why don't you? Your view of the do nothing House is distorted based upon the media reports that continue to ignore House passed legislation.
 
rewind...

Two years unemployed? Why? Why would you hire someone who was unemployed for two years collecting an unemployment check? Are you going to get the right employee representing you to the public with that track record? For someone that never hires anyone I suggest you stop telling those of us who do that we are wrong since you have nothing to compare our choices to.
 
Back
Top Bottom