• 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%

Conservative said:
That would be your opinion, the problem is that opinion of mine is based upon 35 years in the business world where I actually had to meet a payroll and monthly expenses, plus have the cash necessary to actually grow my business. You don't grow your business unless there is enough revenue to fund the additional employees and the costs associated with increasing the business size as well as generate the profit to justify my return on investment. That is exactly what we are seeing now, businesses reluctant to hire because of increasing business costs and risk..
Click to expand...

You couldn't prove that by anyone listening to you. understand, anyone's experience may be too narrow in focus, often not seeing the forest for the trees so to speak. You show repeatedly that you don't even know what the numbers you keep quoting mean.

The fact remains, presidents do not control the economy.
 
Conservative said:
During the Bush term the labor force increased by almost 11 million,
Click to expand...
With the bulk of that made up in federal and local/state govt employment increases......something you despise. The bulk of the job losses during the Bush Recession has been from those same sectors.....which should make you happy, and it does, because you then get to use these job losses as a club.....while you say that you would not hire the long term unemployed.

Your argument is so hypocritical and self serving.
 
Unitedwestand13 said:
nothing about the Conservative ideas about governing america, whether it is espoused by McCain and Palin in 2008, mitt Romney in 2012, paul ryan and his draconian budgets, or the conservative house's obsession with implementing draconian cuts to social programs that millions of people depend on; appeal to me in the least. mainly because it shows the lack of empathy for the people who would suffer if the conservatives succed in gutting social security, medicare, medicaid, or unemployment benifits.

at least liberalism can understand what empathy is.
Click to expand...

Romney and Ryan would have been better for America than what we have now. Romney had the private sector and public sector experience that Obama can only dream about. I never was a McCain supporter but I knew he beat the alternative. We will never know what either McCain or Romney would have done as President because far too many people are still feinting over the Obama rhetoric and buying the lies.

Conservatives aren't gutting SS, liberals are by stealing from it to fund other programs. Want an exercise to show how you have been sold a bill of goods. Get and investment calculator, put your SS "investment" and your employers into that calculator adding that up monthly, put in the simple average savings rate of a CD over the lifetime of your employment and see how much money you will have when you retire? And it will be all yours to do with as you see fit.
 
Gimmesometruth said:
With the bulk of that made up in federal and local/state govt employment increases......something you despise. The bulk of the job losses during the Bush Recession has been from those same sectors.....which should make you happy, and it does, because you then get to use these job losses as a club.....while you say that you would not hire the long term unemployed.

Your argument is so hypocritical and self serving.
Click to expand...

Your opinion noted, with population growth and a booming economy state and local governments are going to grow. What control does Obama have over state and local governments? Has Federal employment dropped under Obama? Not much if any, because the Federal Govt. can print money, states cannot.
 
Conservative said:
Keep diverting from the Obama economic results as if that makes you sound smarter. Fact, your ideology is a failure and support for Obama makes you look foolish.

The charts I just posted shows that.
Click to expand...
Yes, "diverting" is using your own words from this thread against you. You are happy with the job losses, you are not interested in job gains, your own words work against you. Keep posting.
 
Boo Radley said:
You couldn't prove that by anyone listening to you. understand, anyone's experience may be too narrow in focus, often not seeing the forest for the trees so to speak. You show repeatedly that you don't even know what the numbers you keep quoting mean.

The fact remains, presidents do not control the economy.
Click to expand...

What you show is your inability to understand what leadership is. President's do not control the economy but their leadership influences the economic policies that do. A good leader doesn't continue to blame someone else for their own failures. A good leader takes a bad situation and makes it better not a bad situation and keeps it the same.

I have shown that you are the one that doesn't know what the numbers mean and that like far too many wage slaves have no concept of what it costs to run a business and what an intrusive Federal Govt. does to those costs with programs like Obamacare, more regulations, and higher taxes.
 
Gimmesometruth said:
Yes, "diverting" is using your own words from this thread against you. You are happy with the job losses, you are not interested in job gains, your own words work against you. Keep posting.
Click to expand...

Right, 195000 jobs created most of which were part time jobs is what you call a success. 1.8% GDP growth is a success, and taking the debt from 10.6 trillion to 16.8 trillion isn't a problem in the liberal world.
 
Conservative said:
Romney and Ryan would have been better for America than what we have now. Romney had the private sector and public sector experience that Obama can only dream about. I never was a McCain supporter but I knew he beat the alternative. We will never know what either McCain or Romney would have done as President because far too many people are still feinting over the Obama rhetoric and buying the lies.

Conservatives aren't gutting SS, liberals are by stealing from it to fund other programs. Want an exercise to show how you have been sold a bill of goods. Get and investment calculator, put your SS "investment" and your employers into that calculator adding that up monthly, put in the simple average savings rate of a CD over the lifetime of your employment and see how much money you will have when you retire? And it will be all yours to do with as you see fit.
Click to expand...

Romney's private sector expeirance is in taking over companies and making a profit regaurdless of the fact that some of the companies he invested in were driven into the ground.

I can guess what Romney's presidency would have been like because of all the antics of the conservative house and Paul Ryan's draconian budgets.
 
Conservative said:
Your opinion noted, with population growth and a booming economy state and local governments are going to grow. What control does Obama have over state and local governments? Has Federal employment dropped under Obama? Not much if any, because the Federal Govt. can print money, states cannot.
Click to expand...
The federal govt CAN and HAS helped state govts.....with the ARRA.....which you opposed...remember?

So which is it, con, you wanted smaller govt, you got it.....but now your answer is that those jobs will come back....some time.
 
Unitedwestand13 said:
Romney's private sector expeirance is in taking over companies and making a profit regaurdless of the fact that some of the companies he invested in were driven into the ground.

I can guess what Romney's presidency would have been like because of all the antics of the conservative house and Paul Ryan's draconian budgets.
Click to expand...

Tell that to Staples and Sports Authority

As for budgets, you don't seem to have any concept as to the role of the Federal Govt. and the reality is that we don't need a 3.8 trillion dollar govt. except for liberal elites who want the power.
 
Conservative said:
Right, 195000 jobs created most of which were part time jobs is what you call a success. 1.8% GDP growth is a success, and taking the debt from 10.6 trillion to 16.8 trillion isn't a problem in the liberal world.
Click to expand...
You are at a dead end, you have no answer for the current economic condition, all of your answers are for conditions when the economy can absorb the excess labor. Gutting regulations does not spur demand.
 
Gimmesometruth said:
The federal govt CAN and HAS helped state govts.....with the ARRA.....which you opposed...remember?

So which is it, con, you wanted smaller govt, you got it.....but now your answer is that those jobs will come back....some time.
Click to expand...

The same amount of time as continental drift?
 
Gimmesometruth said:
The federal govt CAN and HAS helped state govts.....with the ARRA.....which you opposed...remember?

So which is it, con, you wanted smaller govt, you got it.....but now your answer is that those jobs will come back....some time.
Click to expand...

Your idea of help is having federal tax dollars go to the states and when those tax dollars stop the state taking on that responsibility. You see liberals always love taking credit but never responsibility.

My idea is that we have a private sector economy that Obama is trying to change and is doing so by creating more dependence on that govt. Record numbers on food stamps, record numbers on disability, record numbers on other taxpayer welfare programs. Yes, a liberal's dream world that destroys even good people like you because you are caught up in the lies.
 
Conservative said:
Tell that to Staples and Sports Authority

As for budgets, you don't seem to have any concept as to the role of the Federal Govt. and the reality is that we don't need a 3.8 trillion dollar govt. except for liberal elites who want the power.
Click to expand...

How many people will have to suffer in the attempt to downsize our government?
 
Conservative said:
Tell that to Staples and Sports Authority

As for budgets, you don't seem to have any concept as to the role of the Federal Govt. and the reality is that we don't need a 3.8 trillion dollar govt. except for liberal elites who want the power.
Click to expand...
And there you are, you want smaller govt.....so lets see the call for major defense spending cutbacks.
 
Gimmesometruth said:
You are at a dead end, you have no answer for the current economic condition, all of your answers are for conditions when the economy can absorb the excess labor. Gutting regulations does not spur demand.
Click to expand...

You are so blinded by the liberal ideology that you cannot see that the answer isn't in bigger govt, the answer is in a bigger private sector, not one growing a 1.8%. Cannot wait for you to begin crying when interest rates go up and the debt service which is now the fourth largest budget item becomes number one or two. Obamacare, more regulations, higher taxes don't spur economic growth and job creation, never will because private business cannot print money.
 
Gimmesometruth said:
And there you are, you want smaller govt.....so lets see the call for major defense spending cutbacks.
Click to expand...

The current expense budget is 800 billion dollars out of the 3.8 trillion dollar federal budget. how much do you want to cut and what effect with that have on Obama trillion dollar deficits. Does cutting the defense budget entirely balance the budget?
 
Conservative said:
Your idea of help is having federal tax dollars go to the states and when those tax dollars stop the state taking on that responsibility. You see liberals always love taking credit but never responsibility.

My idea is that we have a private sector economy that Obama is trying to change and is doing so by creating more dependence on that govt. Record numbers on food stamps, record numbers on disability, record numbers on other taxpayer welfare programs. Yes, a liberal's dream world that destroys even good people like you because you are caught up in the lies.
Click to expand...

The private sector that shed no tears for the millions of people who lost their jobs because of the 2008 financial crash and rewarded corporate CEOs with Bonus's after they participated in the financial crash.

I trust the private sector as much I trust a fox to protect my henhouse.
 
Unitedwestand13 said:
How many people will have to suffer in the attempt to downsize our government?
Click to expand...

How many people are suffering now? I went through a number of private sector downsizings and survived them all. Wonder why? You have a distorted and dangerous view as to the role of the Federal Govt. in this country. Suggest you check out what is going on overseas where dependence on the govt. is great. The private sector will lessen the blow in this country of major govt. downsizing. Less money going to debt service means more money for the private sector to invest and less need for higher taxes thus more spendable income.
 
Conservative said:
As for budgets, you don't seem to have any concept as to the role of the Federal Govt. and the reality is that we don't need a 3.8 trillion dollar govt. except for liberal elites who want the power.
Click to expand...


As for budgets, you don't seem to have any concept as to the role of the Federal Govt. and the reality is that we don't need a 3.8 trillion dollar govt. except for liberal elites who want the power.

1) Over the course of the Bush[43] administration there was a 72% increase in the national debt, from $5.7 trillion to $9.8 trillion – MOSTLY TRUE

2) At the end of the Bush [43] administration, the U.S. had a $1.5 trillion budget deficit - TRUE

SEN. MENENDEZ: And it’s not just talking about President Bush, it’s the policies that they espouse that are in essence Bush’s policies. Those led us to a 72 percent increase in the debt from $5.7 trillion to $9.8 trillion when Bush left. It led us to a massive elimination of the surplus that Bill Clinton gave George Bush, and he had a $1.5 trillion deficit when he left office

1) According to the Treasury Department, when George W. Bush took office in 2001 the national debt was $5.73 trillion and when Bush left office in 2009, the national debt had increased to $10.63 trillion. That’s a 85% increase of $4.9 trillion. Sen. Menendez is off by 13%, but he is correct in the underlying message that the national debt did significantly increase under George W. Bush. Thus, we rate Sen. Menendez’s statement MOSTLY TRUE.

2) According to the Congressional Budget Office, under former president Bill Clinton there was a budget surplus in 1999 ($1.9 billion) and in 2000 ($86.4 billion). But the surpluses in 1999 and 2000 were not enough to eliminate the national debt. When the federal government spends more money than it takes in, that’s a deficit. When the government takes in more money than it spends, that’s a surplus (Treasury Department budget FAQs). Though former president Bill Clinton had two consecutive surplus years, the U.S. national debt actually increased $400 billion over his term (1992 to 2000).

When former president Bill Clinton left office in 2000 there was a $86.4 billion surplus. When former president George W. Bush left office in 2008 there was a $1.5 trillion budget deficit. Because Sen. Menendez was correct in stating that there was a $1.5 trillion budget deficit when George W. Bush left office and the budget surplus that Bill Clinton left from his presidency had turned into a deficit, we rate Sen. Menendez’s statement TRUE.
FACT-CHECK: Sen. Bob Menendez – National debt increased 72% during the Bush admin, there was a 1.5 trillion budget deficit at the end of his term | Meet the Facts : Meet the Press Needs Fact-checking
Click to expand...


Was the role of the federal goverment different back then?
 
Unitedwestand13 said:
The private sector that shed no tears for the millions of people who lost their jobs because of the 2008 financial crash and rewarded corporate CEOs with Bonus's after they participated in the financial crash.

I trust the private sector as much I trust a fox to protect my henhouse.
Click to expand...

That happens in a private sector economy, businesses should be allowed to succeed or fail on their own and stop rewarding bad behavior. I wasn't for TARP and never will be for rewarding that kind of behavior. Are we better off today? Your view of the private sector is also distorted. the engine that drives this economy isn't large businesses but rather the small businesses that regulations, Obamacare, and higher taxes is destroying. What you want to ignore is that hundreds of thousands of small businesses and independent contractors aren't counted as unemployed but are out of business because of Obamanomics. Your state is a disaster because of large govt. yet you want to spread that misery equally to everyone else.
 
Conservative said:
Your idea of help is having federal tax dollars go to the states and when those tax dollars stop the state taking on that responsibility.
Click to expand...
Do you have the ability to write this as a complete sentence?

You see liberals always love taking credit but never responsibility.
Click to expand...
Meaningless dribble following incomplete thoughts.

My idea is that we have a private sector economy that Obama is trying to change and is doing so by creating more dependence on that govt. Record numbers on food stamps, record numbers on disability, record numbers on other taxpayer welfare programs. Yes, a liberal's dream world that destroys even good people like you because you are caught up in the lies.
Click to expand...
Obama did not cause the job losses, this is such moronic writing. You are not interested in increasing employment, your party is not interested in increasing employment and you won't acknowledge how we got this point nor do you have viable solutions for these conditions.
 
winston53660 said:
Was the role of the federal goverment different back then?
Click to expand...

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?
 
Gimmesometruth said:
Do you have the ability to write this as a complete sentence?

Meaningless dribble following incomplete thoughts.

Obama did not cause the job losses, this is such moronic writing. You are not interested in increasing employment, your party is not interested in increasing employment and you won't acknowledge how we got this point nor do you have viable solutions for these conditions.
Click to expand...

Obama is causing the very poor economic recovery, stagnant job creation, and poor economic growth.
 
Conservative said:
The current expense budget is 800 billion dollars out of the 3.8 trillion dollar federal budget. how much do you want to cut and what effect with that have on Obama trillion dollar deficits. Does cutting the defense budget entirely balance the budget?
Click to expand...
Uh, yes, cutting it will reduce the debt over time.

But what I love is how you once again play both sides of the street, you are constantly pushing and pulling non-discretionary spending in and out of the budget numbers as it suits you.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom