• 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%

Of course not, but I don't have to refute your story, only the idea that it is true on the whole. And that is been done, objectively.

Of course it has been done, but objectively? Not so much. It's indisputable that statistics and analysis are subject to bias and selective interpretation. To claim otherwise is to be foolish.

As I wrote before, it's well known that a tremendous amount of effort has gone into the theory that President Reagan signaled the beginning of the end of prosperity in the United States. There is a financial and ideological imperitive behind proving such a connection exits.

This fact alone casts most of the analysis by those purporting to be ojective highly into doubt. I do understand such results are met with great satisfaction by some, because they appear to support the narrative, but that doesn't change the bottom line.
 
by stimulating the private sector and consumer spending. The only ones benefiting from the Obama recovery are the banks. The Average American isn't being reported in your textbooks.

No, i mean what is the typical recovery rate for an economy that goes through a financial crisis?


Carmen M. Reinhart & Kenneth S. Rogoff's This Time Is Different: Eight Centuries of Financial Folly show's that downturns following financial crises are more severe and longer lasting.

Comparing it to other recessions is completely disingenuous.
 
What is this? Are you denying that Reagan doubled the budget levels? Yes, you are.


Actually, the $3.5T (2009) budget has increased to $3.8T, a very small increase, not anywhere near the increases Reagan brought.

And even the 3.8 trillion number was only an initial projection. We're on track to spend $3.53 trillion by the end of this fiscal year, provided spending trends continue until the end of September. The actual increase in spending under Obama is nothing, and much less of an increase than under Bush and Reagan, and even Clinton both by raw numbers and percentages.
 
For someone in college during the Reagan years you really don't have a lot of credibility in discussing that which you hardly understand.

Let's see, 17 million jobs created, doubling the GDP, growing Govt. revenue, improving our standing in the world and leaving a peace dividend. Works for me and the majority in this country. It was a double dip recession in 81-82 compounded by a financial crisis of high inflation, high unemployment leading to a terrible misery index which you didn't have to face.

All you do is repeat the same talking points, the GDP claim already debunked.
 
For someone in college during the Reagan years you really don't have a lot of credibility in discussing that which you hardly understand.

Let's see, 17 million jobs created, doubling the GDP, growing Govt. revenue, improving our standing in the world and leaving a peace dividend. Works for me and the majority in this country. It was a double dip recession in 81-82 compounded by a financial crisis of high inflation, high unemployment leading to a terrible misery index which you didn't have to face.
I did face it, I have no idea ho you think someone working AND going to college without grants or loans did not face it. You just keep on ignoring the massive INCREASES in spending by Reagan to get those "results".
 
by stimulating the private sector and consumer spending. The only ones benefiting from the Obama recovery are the banks. The Average American isn't being reported in your textbooks.
So there we have it folks, the admission from Conservative that the same spending scheme brought by Reagan is not being applied under Obama.
 
Your originally claimed...that "Furthermore, the government creates a class of "not seeking work" containing over 80 million people, at least 40 million of which are able to work, old enough, and may actually be seeking work but have not been hired yet." I replied that if they were seeking work they'd be classified as Unemployed and then you responded that "Again, depends on your viewpoint. Having worked with both employers and the unemployed I am a little less skeptical about real causes of their "disgust" and "marginality."" But since all the info on job search and availability comes from the respondents, it certainly seems like you're questioning the validity of the classifications. You seem to be implying that they really are looking, yet are classified as not.

Meh...are you intentionally being misleading? The first reply of mine you quoted there was in response to YOUR post #994, which replied to MY post #990, which was in regards to YOUR post #963 discussing “marginal” and “disgusted” among those classified as “not seeking work.” It was not in relationship to the “40 million able bodied listed as not seekers” classified through government survey questionnaires. Have difficulty following a discussion?

I further explained that my position was also based on 3 years first-hand experience dealing with thousands of employers and unemployed workers, not just survey responses. Empirical evidence is more convincing to me than government propaganda.

Most of the rest of your reply after this point is argument regarding why you think the “estimates” limiting unemployment to what the government claims it is are valid. I don’t accept this so I am simply not going to respond. I’ve already stated several times why, no need to repeat myself.

POTENTIAL. Why do you want to measure potential instead of actual? The main number is, as it should be, the actual number seeking work, with the Potential listed seperately.

Why? Because several times in my own life I have been a “potential” employee when I periodically sought work, even while in school, for one reason or another. I am fairly certain there are many people who do that, i.e. students applying at one or two places seeking some independent income, wives who don’t “need” one but sometimes seek one only to change their minds, even retirees who simply want something to do. Their efforts may be half-hearted, or only aggressive a few days at any one time, but while they are they also become “competition” for more serious job seekers.

Also, this group of “non-seekers” provides an answer for the larger number of job applicant’s during economic downturns, when the major breadwinner is laid off, fired, or w/e. More people seeking than merely those who had lost jobs or were previously seeking can account for.

Ignoring this potential until it is somehow statistically traceable is foolish, especially when talking about who is seeking employment, or causes of seeker marginalization or disgust.

Sorry I hate word problems so I avoided that involved scenario you proposed. Besides, you provided your own answers anyway. I just don’t buy them. ;)

....So I would say you could have given away a total of 1,085. But you would include some of the people who said they didn't want one.....why? How could they, or the people who didn't try to get one, have gotten one? (again, only talking about having more, not about doing anything different.

Simply because I would want to have an extra supply on hand to provide for them if they change their minds! Many businesses do, it’s called either “overstock” or "reserve stock." Similarly, I want employers to realize the potential harm caused by further drain as they ship jobs out overseas, ignoring people who may be dependent on current workers and might flood the market if those they depend upon can no longer support them. This includes welfare recipients, pushed of the rolls and into the job market as the old tax base crumbles.

Again, I don’t buy into government unemployment figures, they are playing a game with the numbers so that even when things look bad, they don’t seem bad because…” Oh look, so many other people are doing okay it can’t be all THAT bad, right???”
 
Last edited:
Of course it has been done, but objectively? Not so much. It's indisputable that statistics and analysis are subject to bias and selective interpretation. To claim otherwise is to be foolish.

As I wrote before, it's well known that a tremendous amount of effort has gone into the theory that President Reagan signaled the beginning of the end of prosperity in the United States. There is a financial and ideological imperitive behind proving such a connection exits.

This fact alone casts most of the analysis by those purporting to be ojective highly into doubt. I do understand such results are met with great satisfaction by some, because they appear to support the narrative, but that doesn't change the bottom line.

As there are multiple sources, which include both business people and republicans, we can assume fairly solid objectivity. If we only had liberals or democrats, you might have a point. But that's not what has been posted. Further more, there has been no contrary studies posted here. I suspect there is some difficulty in finding them. You can find opinions, as many have been posted, by the usual suspects as well. But little that even attempts to objectively study.
 
No, i mean what is the typical recovery rate for an economy that goes through a financial crisis?


Carmen M. Reinhart & Kenneth S. Rogoff's This Time Is Different: Eight Centuries of Financial Folly show's that downturns following financial crises are more severe and longer lasting.

Comparing it to other recessions is completely disingenuous.

Reagan found the solution, what has Obama tried? Although some would say it wasn't a financial crisis like this one, one would be blind however to say that it didn't hurt the American people harder than this recession thus was a financial disaster for many back then. Don't underestimate the value of good positive leadership. The blueprint was there but the Obama arrogance is on full display as are the results that supporters still ignore.
 
All you do is repeat the same talking points, the GDP claim already debunked.

Have you told your story to the Bureau of Economic Analysis as I posted the data directly from their site. GDP growth in 1981-89 dollars is ever bit as relevant as GDP growth today in today's dollars.
 
I did face it, I have no idea ho you think someone working AND going to college without grants or loans did not face it. You just keep on ignoring the massive INCREASES in spending by Reagan to get those "results".

Yeah, guess actual results from spending is a foreign concept to you. Imagine this country today with 17 million jobs being created and GDP going up the 4 plus % Reagan averaged?
 
So there we have it folks, the admission from Conservative that the same spending scheme brought by Reagan is not being applied under Obama.

And there we have the typical liberal diversion from reality. Obama has put Reagan spending on steroids and generated the results we see today. Where are the 17 million jobs Reagan created? Where is the 4+% average GDP growth? Where is the consumer confidence level that Reagan generated? Where is the labor participation rate that Reagan had? Where are the low number of discouraged workers that Reagan had? You see, get all that information out of your textbook and ignore what really drives the consumer economy, individuals who believe in the Presidential economic policies.
 
As there are multiple sources, which include both business people and republicans, we can assume fairly solid objectivity. If we only had liberals or democrats, you might have a point. But that's not what has been posted. Further more, there has been no contrary studies posted here. I suspect there is some difficulty in finding them. You can find opinions, as many have been posted, by the usual suspects as well. But little that even attempts to objectively study.

You are welcome to assume, but that is only your opinion.

Are you suggesting there hasn't been a concerted effort to identify the Reagan Administration as the beginning of the end of prosperity in the United States?

There are classes offered in many of the major liberal college campuses across the country that push this agenda.

Objectively, the period of the Reagan Administration is considered as one of greatest periods of economic prosperity in modern times.

I understand such substantiated facts are typically met with "yea but's", however, those can't change the truth.

Now one may argue they don't like the methods, and they don't like some of the benefactors, but the economic turn around the Reagan Administration championed was dramatic, and long lived.
 
You are welcome to assume, but that is only your opinion.

Are you suggesting there hasn't been a concerted effort to identify the Reagan Administration as the beginning of the end of prosperity in the United States?

There are classes offered in many of the major liberal college campuses across the country that push this agenda.

Objectively, the period of the Reagan Administration is considered as one of greatest periods of economic prosperity in modern times.

I understand such substantiated facts are typically met with "yea but's", however, those can't change the truth.

Now one may argue they don't like the methods, and they don't like some of the benefactors, but the economic turn around the Reagan Administration championed was dramatic, and long lived.

Only by a few. And despite they're efforts, the Reagan myth endures.

But this has nothing at all to do with Reagan. he like all presidents take credit where it is not deserved and gets blame where not deserved. This is about objectively do taxes and regulations have a significant effect. The research says no.

You are free to present any actual research you have. But merely being president when the economy is good isn't enough. History documents well that the economy has been good and bad with high tax rates. And that the economy has been good and poor with low tax rates. All evidence, objective evidence, shows minimal effect.

Such is also true with regulations. Though the real issue with regulations isn't effect on business, but whether they are truly needed or not. Strangely I rarely ever see a thread attacking any regulation in that way.
 
Bush did "nothing to cause the Bush Great Recession??"

:lamo :lamo :lamo

Even Bush himself disagrees with you...


"Thanks to our policies, home ownership in America is at an all-time high." ~ George Bush, RNC acceptance speech

Oh, I see you like to shorten up what I typed out. That's OK. I never expect honesty out of a liberal, never. Not a single one of them have it in them. He probably did say something like that. But it had nothing to do with what caused the housing crash. That started before he even thought about running for the office of President. Slick Willie and Janet Reno delivered a 5000 gallon fuel tanker to the housing bubble and as soon as all the fuel was transferred, boom, down goes the market. But you won't ever say anything about their major part in designing and implementing the crash. And you will also ignore Obamas push at the banks to repeat the same thing all over again. Why? Because you are a liberal and failure is always somebody else's fault, never the brain dead idea.
 
Yeah, guess actual results from spending is a foreign concept to you. Imagine this country today with 17 million jobs being created and GDP going up the 4 plus % Reagan averaged?
I am all for the relative increases in spending we saw during Reagan NOW, but we are not doing that, we have seen little to no increases in fed spending and DECLINES in local spending, the exact OPPOSITE of what we did under Reagan.
 
And there we have the typical liberal diversion from reality. Obama has put Reagan spending on steroids and generated the results we see today.
Absolutely flat out incorrect, we just went over the size of increases in spending by Reagan it real terms, in terms of increases in defense spending, in terms of doubling the budget, in terms of tripling the debt, in terms of direct effect on GDP.....and you are back into total denial of the increases in spending by Reagan and the flat/decreases in spending under Obama.
 
Only by a few. And despite they're efforts, the Reagan myth endures.

But this has nothing at all to do with Reagan. he like all presidents take credit where it is not deserved and gets blame where not deserved. This is about objectively do taxes and regulations have a significant effect. The research says no.

You are free to present any actual research you have. But merely being president when the economy is good isn't enough. History documents well that the economy has been good and bad with high tax rates. And that the economy has been good and poor with low tax rates. All evidence, objective evidence, shows minimal effect.

Such is also true with regulations. Though the real issue with regulations isn't effect on business, but whether they are truly needed or not. Strangely I rarely ever see a thread attacking any regulation in that way.


Here is an interesting observation on the subject of income taxes.

I have noticed much of the evidence regarding taxation implies there is little to gain from lowering income taxes. On the same note, there is much suggestion that increases in spending by the government can have quite a positive effect on the economy, especially during hard economic times. This suggestion carries with it the idea that the government needs to put more money into the economy.

What is the difference between deficits caused by decreases in revenue as a result of lower tax rates, and deficits caused by increases in government spending?

When it comes to regulatory impacts, I'd like to see the analysis that indicates they have little economic impact. I would think a quick study of California would be sufficient to illustrate that conclusion is highly suspect.
 
Here is an interesting observation on the subject of income taxes.

I have noticed much of the evidence regarding taxation implies there is little to gain from lowering income taxes. On the same note, there is much suggestion that increases in spending by the government can have quite a positive effect on the economy, especially during hard economic times. This suggestion carries with it the idea that the government needs to put more money into the economy.

What is the difference between deficits caused by decreases in revenue as a result of lower tax rates, and deficits caused by increases in government spending?

When it comes to regulatory impacts, I'd like to see the analysis that indicates they have little economic impact. I would think a quick study of California would be sufficient to illustrate that conclusion is highly suspect.

You would assume that California is A) representative and 2) has no other issues other than regulations. ;)

As for spending, putting money into the economy, no matter where it comes from, helps because business will react to spending. In fact, that is largely the only way they move toward growth. if someone is buying, they will expand. Saving money on taxes doesn't equal a buyer out there willing to pay for the service or widget. A business can have tons of profit and money sitting in the bank, but if demand is down, he won't expand. And that's a proper decision. Conversely, they could be paying high taxes, seeing many new regulations, but if the demand is high enough, they'll move heaven and earth to meet that demand.
 
Here is an interesting observation on the subject of income taxes.

I have noticed much of the evidence regarding taxation implies there is little to gain from lowering income taxes. On the same note, there is much suggestion that increases in spending by the government can have quite a positive effect on the economy, especially during hard economic times. This suggestion carries with it the idea that the government needs to put more money into the economy.

What is the difference between deficits caused by decreases in revenue as a result of lower tax rates, and deficits caused by increases in government spending?

When it comes to regulatory impacts, I'd like to see the analysis that indicates they have little economic impact. I would think a quick study of California would be sufficient to illustrate that conclusion is highly suspect.
This has been covered before, we are trying to use both highly effective stimulus spending (UI, SNAP) and demand side tax cuts, ie tax cuts for lower quintile earners.
PolitiFact | Maddow claims spending is more stimulative than tax cuts
 
You would assume that California is A) representative and 2) has no other issues other than regulations. ;)

As for spending, putting money into the economy, no matter where it comes from, helps because business will react to spending. In fact, that is largely the only way they move toward growth. if someone is buying, they will expand. Saving money on taxes doesn't equal a buyer out there willing to pay for the service or widget. A business can have tons of profit and money sitting in the bank, but if demand is down, he won't expand. And that's a proper decision. Conversely, they could be paying high taxes, seeing many new regulations, but if the demand is high enough, they'll move heaven and earth to meet that demand.


Yes, one can make that assumption that A applies. The point about B has no impact, since it's universal.

As to the issue of taxes, it is not a surprise to me to see you subcribe to the notion that deficits caused from increases in government spending are better than deficits caused by increases in personal income.

Did you know there was no real demand for personal computers until investors went out on a limb and created them? Did you know there was no real demand for automobiles until investors went out on a limb to create a process that made them affordable to a larger segment of the population?

And so the chicken/egg debate continues.
 
Last edited:
I am all for the relative increases in spending we saw during Reagan NOW, but we are not doing that, we have seen little to no increases in fed spending and DECLINES in local spending, the exact OPPOSITE of what we did under Reagan.

Your opinion noted but what you don't understand is that it isn't mine or anyone else from another state to pay for your local expenses nor can the s tate government print money like the Federal Govt. can. You really do lack a basic understanding of local, state, and Federal Responsibility along with the role of the Federal Govt.
 
Absolutely flat out incorrect, we just went over the size of increases in spending by Reagan it real terms, in terms of increases in defense spending, in terms of doubling the budget, in terms of tripling the debt, in terms of direct effect on GDP.....and you are back into total denial of the increases in spending by Reagan and the flat/decreases in spending under Obama.

You really are a waste of time, no concept of context or return on investment. You must work as a contract employee for the Federal Govt.
 
Yes, one can make that assumption that A applies. The point about B has no impact, since it's universal.

As to the issue of taxes, it is not a surprise to me to see you subcribe to the notion that deficits caused from increases in government spending are better than deficits caused by increases in personal income.

And the chicken/egg debate continues.

I didn't say that, any of it really.

I said that spending money helps business. I nothing about the deficit at all nor did I said I supported all spending. Not sure why people always leap to things not said.

For the record, the deficit concerns me. And I don't support all spending. However, no matter who the president is, I recognize the question is always a tough one in tough times.
 
Back
Top Bottom