• 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%

you will get no apology from me, as i asked you if this was your posistion, read for comprehension my friend, read for comprehension.

I never said that the number 195000 was a lie but did put that number into context which doesn't seem to matter to an Obama supporter who doesn't understand how our economy works.
 
1/5 of those jobs are at temp agencies. After Walmart, a temp agency is the second largest employer in the US. Why? Because its becoming too expensive to have your own staff.
 
its not spending
So stop comparing it to trickle down, we have no investment dollars issue.


it is investments like investments that oil companies used to find and extract oil that caused the oil boom in Dakota which caused the McDonald worker to make 16 dollars an hours
No, the oil boom is still a demand driven event, they will not go for easily extractable oil if the costs involved do not make it profitable. These are international oil corps making a market driven choice, there is still enough demand on the open world market for this particular area to be a going concern.

It is demand driven, not investment driven, you have it all backwards.
 
I never said that the number 195000 was a lie but did put that number into context which doesn't seem to matter to an Obama supporter who doesn't understand how our economy works.
so, is your argument that adding 195,000 to the job rolls is a bad thing? you seem to spend alot of time poo pooing those jobs, plus those jobs added over the last 30 plus months. does this good news bother you, or just piss you off that it is happening under a democratic president?
 
This stupid, there is no lack of capital in the US, there is plenty of investment funds in the US, corporations are cash rich and interest rates are at record lows.

Even with all of this AND QE, we still do not have corporations making investment in employment.....because demand is still depressed.

Capital IS NOT THE ISSUE.

The government accidentally incentivizing part time employment could be one of the many problems.
 
so, is your argument that adding 195,000 to the job rolls is a bad thing? you seem to spend alot of time poo pooing those jobs, plus those jobs added over the last 30 plus months. does this good news bother you, or just piss you off that it is happening under a democratic president?

IMO the better news was the increase in wages of 30cents rather than the 10cent average expected increase.
 
This stupid, there is no lack of capital in the US, there is plenty of investment funds in the US, corporations are cash rich and interest rates are at record lows.

Even with all of this AND QE, we still do not have corporations making investment in employment.....because demand is still depressed.

Capital IS NOT THE ISSUE.
and those investments are in bonds commodities and futures not in areas that create jobs. business investments are at a low caused by the uncertainty in business thanks in part by Obama care
 
so, is your argument that adding 195,000 to the job rolls is a bad thing? you seem to spend alot of time poo pooing those jobs, plus those jobs added over the last 30 plus months. does this good news bother you, or just piss you off that it is happening under a democratic president?

No, it is a drop in the bucket and most of them are part time employees, the new Obama economy. What pisses me off is the ignorance of liberal Obama supporters who have no idea what drives the U.S. Economy and supports someone who doesn't have a clue how our economy works either.
 
No, it is a drop in the bucket and most of them are part time employees, the new Obama economy. What pisses me off is the ignorance of liberal Obama supporters who have no idea what drives the U.S. Economy and supports someone who doesn't have a clue how our economy works either.
a 'drop in the bucket' eh? even over the last 30plus months? or is 30 plus months just a 'drop in the bucket'? as for the rest, childish spiel that you try to use to get a rise out of people...just shows you have a losing argument.
 
.

It is demand driven, not investment driven, you have it all backwards.
with out investments and the means to make a profit off those investments there wouldn't be oil exploration and extraction you need both the demand and the initial capitol to supply that demand
 
with out investments and the means to make a profit off those investments there wouldn't be oil exploration and extraction you need both the demand and the initial capitol to supply that demand
No chit....this is just more of the same.

News Flash...investment capital is not the issue, you keep avoiding the issue.....DEMAND.
 
No, it is a drop in the bucket and most of them are part time employees, the new Obama economy. What pisses me off is the ignorance of liberal Obama supporters who have no idea what drives the U.S. Economy and supports someone who doesn't have a clue how our economy works either.
what pisses me off, is fact we used to manufacture finished goods for the rest of the world, now the rest of the world manufactures finished goods for us. And that was with much higher taxes.
 
The government accidentally incentivizing part time employment could be one of the many problems.

its wasn't an accident it was away to so call lower unemployment with out actually creating jobs instead of having one person working 40 hours a week you now have two working 20. also it was away to get more dependent on the government
 
No, it is a drop in the bucket and most of them are part time employees, the new Obama economy. What pisses me off is the ignorance of liberal Obama supporters who have no idea what drives the U.S. Economy and supports someone who doesn't have a clue how our economy works either.
If Bush had no effect on the (recessionary) economy, then neither has Obama.

You can't have it both ways, con.
 
a 'drop in the bucket' eh? even over the last 30plus months? or is 30 plus months just a 'drop in the bucket'? as for the rest, childish spiel that you try to use to get a rise out of people...just shows you have a losing argument.

Yep, 2 million fewer people working than when the recession started, four years after the recession ended and we have 177,000 fewer unemployed all at a cost of over 6 trillion but what the hell, it is someone else's money? Then let's not forget the 1.8% GDP growth annualized for 2013 after the first quarter? Booming economy?
 
No chit....this is just more of the same.

News Flash...investment capital is not the issue, you keep avoiding the issue.....DEMAND.

it is when you are safer and have a better return investing in bonds commodities and futures that doesnt create jobs. business investments are at a low caused by the uncertainty in business thanks in part by Obama care
 
If Bush had no effect on the (recessionary) economy, then neither has Obama.

You can't have it both ways, con.

Bush isn't in office, Bush wasn't on the ballot in 2008, Bush didn't generate the results we have today.
 
it is when you are safer and have a better return investing in bonds commodities and futures that doesnt create jobs. business investments are at a low caused by the uncertainty in business thanks in part by Obama care
QE is not an investment in "commodities or futures".

Clueless.
 
Bush isn't in office
No chit, I didn't say he was.

Bush wasn't on the ballot in 2008,
See the above response

Bush didn't generate the results we have today.
Wrong, he is responsible for much of the results of the aftermath of his recession.

You don't get to say Bush had no effect on the economy while saying Obama does.
 
No chit, I didn't say he was.

See the above response

Wrong, he is responsible for much of the results of the aftermath of his recession.

You don't get to say Bush had no effect on the economy while saying Obama does.

Aw, yes, Bush is responsible for the economic conditions today over 4 years after leaving office thanks mostly to the outstanding leadership qualities of Obama and the failure of Obama supporters to understand leadership. You Obama supporters are quite interesting.
 
Aw, yes, Bush is responsible for the economic conditions today over 4 years after leaving office thanks mostly to the outstanding leadership qualities of Obama and the failure of Obama supporters to understand leadership. You Obama supporters are quite interesting.
Nope, you are missing the point, you have constantly said that Bush had no effect upon the economy of his day, ie 2001-2009, yet Obama does have an effect in his day, 2009 through to today.

You don't get to play both side of the same argument.
 
Yep, 2 million fewer people working than when the recession started, four years after the recession ended and we have 177,000 fewer unemployed all at a cost of over 6 trillion but what the hell, it is someone else's money? Then let's not forget the 1.8% GDP growth annualized for 2013 after the first quarter? Booming economy?
i'm willing to bet if 30 plus months of adding jobs had happened under a republican president, you would be telling us how good adding these jobs is.
 
Nope, you are missing the point, you have constantly said that Bush had no effect upon the economy of his day, ie 2001-2009, yet Obama does have an effect in his day, 2009 through to today.

You don't get to play both side of the same argument.

Again, show me where I said that Bush didn't have anything to do with the economy during his term? Do you have any concept of leadership?
 
QE is not an investment in "commodities or futures".

Clueless.

QE is the reason it is safer and have a better return investing in bonds commodities and futures because QE devalued the dollar
 
i'm willing to bet if 30 plus months of adding jobs had happened under a republican president, you would be telling us how good adding these jobs is.

When the labor force increases and there are more people working than when the recession began which in Bush's case was March 2001, you betcha and in fact Bush increased the labor force over 10 million and the number employed by over 6 million until the recession hit. Context is something you don't understand just like you lack any understanding of leadership.
 
Back
Top Bottom