• 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%

Gimmesometruth said:
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.
Click to expand...

Non discretionary spending is 60% of the budget. It is you that simply cannot accept the reality of the numbers we have today, four years after the end of the recession. Only a true ideologue would trumpet these poor economic numbers as if they benefit you directly or the country as a whole.
 
Conservative said:
Obama is causing the very poor economic recovery, stagnant job creation, and poor economic growth.
Click to expand...
And you are back to "the President effects the economy" when it suits you. Your arguments have no intellectual consistency, along with the fact that your economic ideas do not apply to these conditions. Gutting regulations does not spur demand.
 
Gimmesometruth said:
And you are back to "the President effects the economy" when it suits you. Your arguments have no intellectual consistency, along with the fact that your economic ideas do not apply to these conditions. Gutting regulations does not spur demand.
Click to expand...

Leadership or in this case lack of good leadership will always affect the economy and if it doesn't why do we elect a President? He is doing a good job on his foreign vacations, isn't he? Golf course are keeping busy? Like far too many you have no concept of leadership and the responsibilities of leadership. You wouldn't survive a year let alone over 4 in the private sector with your attitude and these kind of economic results.
 
Conservative said:
Non discretionary spending is 60% of the budget. It is you that simply cannot accept the reality of the numbers we have today, four years after the end of the recession. Only a true ideologue would trumpet these poor economic numbers as if they benefit you directly or the country as a whole.
Click to expand...
Empty rhetoric, you don't want to discuss solutions for the conditions.
 
Gimmesometruth said:
Empty rhetoric, you don't want to discuss solutions for the conditions.
Click to expand...

I am the only one here doing that, you are baiting and trolling as usual. We have seen Obamanomics for over 4 years and yet you cannot see the poor results because of your ideology. I have given you the answers many times over the last few years but because they go against your ideology and even the poor economic results that ideology generates, they are rejected. Failure is always the only option to a liberal thus just throw more money at the problem.
 
Conservative said:
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?
Click to expand...

(However, using raw numbers, our colleagues found that at the time, the debt had increased by 34 percent, or $3.66 trillion, under Obama -- well below the 86 percent increase, or a total of $4.9 trillion, under George W. Bush.)

http://www.politifact.com/wisconsin...ent-obama-built-nations-16-trillion-debt-gop/
 
Conservative said:
Leadership or in this case lack of good leadership will always affect the economy and if it doesn't why do we elect a President? He is doing a good job on his foreign vacations, isn't he? Golf course are keeping busy? Like far too many you have no concept of leadership and the responsibilities of leadership. You wouldn't survive a year let alone over 4 in the private sector with your attitude.
Click to expand...
I seem to be able to consistently reduce your arguments to ad hominums. If you cannot show any examples of your ideas turning around an economy, perhaps they are worthless.

Reagan did not turn things around by "leadership", he did it by massively spending.
 
Conservative said:
I am the only one here doing that, you are baiting and trolling as usual. We have seen Obamanomics for over 4 years and yet you cannot see the poor results because of your ideology. I have given you the answers many times over the last few years but because they go against your ideology and even the poor economic results that ideology generates, they are rejected. Failure is always the only option to a liberal thus just throw more money at the problem.
Click to expand...
Reagan threw money at his problem, the debt during the Obama administration is from less revenue, not stimulative spending.

Your argument is ignoring reality.
 
winston53660 said:
(However, using raw numbers, our colleagues found that at the time, the debt had increased by 34 percent, or $3.66 trillion, under Obama -- well below the 86 percent increase, or a total of $4.9 trillion, under George W. Bush.)

PolitiFact Wisconsin | President Obama 'built' nation's $16 trillion debt, GOP Rep. Reid Ribble says
Click to expand...

Great, only 34%? Glad the 6.2 trillion doesn't matter. Amazing how a larger base number doesn't seem to matter with percentage change. Interesting how everything that happened in 2009 including the stimulus plan, the GM/Chrysler takeover, and Afghanistan supplementals were all Bush's fault. Amazing how he snuck back into the WH and spent all that money.
 
Gimmesometruth said:
Reagan threw money at his problem, the debt during the Obama administration is from less revenue, not stimulative spending.

Your argument is ignoring reality.
Click to expand...

Ask the American people if they would prefer the 17 million jobs Reagan created, the doubling of GDP and a 60% increase in govt. income tax revenue to what Obama has generated. Less revenue is right and that happens when you have over 21 million Americans unemployed/under employed/discouraged along with so many on welfare, disabled, or dependent on other taxpayer funded programs
 
Gimmesometruth said:
I seem to be able to consistently reduce your arguments to ad hominums. If you cannot show any examples of your ideas turning around an economy, perhaps they are worthless.

Reagan did not turn things around by "leadership", he did it by massively spending.
Click to expand...

Your opinion noted however history provides a different picture than you paint
 
Conservative said:
Ask the American people if they would prefer the 17 million jobs Reagan created, the doubling of GDP and a 60% increase in govt. income tax revenue to what Obama has generated. Less revenue is right and that happens when you have over 21 million Americans unemployed/under employed/discouraged along with so many on welfare, disabled, or dependent on other taxpayer funded programs
Click to expand...
Reagan got his results FROM MASSIVE SPENDING......this President has NOT been spending anywhere near a proportional amount.
 
Gimmesometruth said:
Reagan got his results FROM MASSIVE SPENDING......this President has NOT been spending anywhere near a proportional amount.
Click to expand...

Again, your opinion noted, wrong as usual but noted. then again people like you always believe that someone else keeping more of their money because of tax cuts is an expense to the govt. Why isn't hat the case with you? You are so blinded by an ideology that has failed everywhere in the world that you simply have no credibility.
 
winston53660 said:
Sure beats the guy you would have voted for a third time.
Click to expand...

And that has what to do with reality that we are facing today? Didn't know Bush was on the ballot again. Economic numbers say you are wrong again as usual.
 
Conservative said:
Your opinion noted however history provides a different picture than you paint
Click to expand...
Prove it.

Reagan massively increased defense spending as a means of stimulation while he lowered tax rates, tripling fed debt.
 
Conservative said:
Yes, too broad of a statement, my error. The reality is however there are far too many dependent on taxpayer assistance that if forced to take a job, any job, would do so rather than not eat. We have record numbers on food stamps, record numbers dependent on the taxpayers, record numbers on SS disability thus the fraud is rampant. There are many like you but in the real world I saw a lot like the ones I mentioned, lacking incentive to get off their butts.

My payroll had far too many people without incentive and living from paycheck to paycheck by their own desires. I never paid minimum wage, offered full benefits including healthcare for full and part time employees, educational reimbursement. Many took advantage of those opportunities but many others supplemented their income and drug habits by stealing and moving on to the next job when fired.

I admire people like you and hired many just like you, people who were grateful for the opportunity. Unfortunately there were far too many who wanted to take advantage of any opportunity, wanted to live for today, and gave the workforce a bad name.
Click to expand...

thanks for the kind words, and it sounds like you were a good employer.
 
Helix said:
thanks for the kind words, and it sounds like you were a good employer.
Click to expand...
He would not have hired you since you were unemployed for more than a year.
 
Gimmesometruth said:
Prove it.

Reagan massively increased defense spending as a means of stimulation while he lowered tax rates, tripling fed debt.
Click to expand...

Interesting information again from the BEA.gov. Would love to have you explain to us all how Reagan cut taxes and grew individual income tax revenue?


Table 3.1. Government Current Receipts and Expenditures
[Billions of dollars]
Bureau of Economic Analysis
Last Revised on: June 26, 2013 - Next Release Date July 31, 2013

Line 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989
1 Current receipts 917.7 939.3 1000.3 1113.5 1214.6 1290.1 1403.2 1502.4 1627.2
2 Current tax receipts 663.5 659.5 694.1 762.5 823.9 868.8 965.7 1018.9 1109.2
3 Personal current taxes 345.2 354.1 352.3 377.4 417.3 437.2 489.1 504.9 566.1
4 Taxes on production and imports 235.6 240.9 263.3 289.8 308.1 323.4 347.5 374.5 398.9
5 Taxes on corporate income 81.1 63.1 77.2 94 96.5 106.5 127.1 137.2 141.5
6 Taxes from the rest of the world 1.5 1.4 1.2 1.3 1.9 1.7 2 2.4 2.7
7 Contributions for government social insurance 196.9 210.1 227.2 258.8 282.8 304.9 324.6 363.2 386.9
8 Income receipts on assets 50.2 58.9 65.3 74.3 84 89.7 85.6 89.9 93.7
9 Interest and miscellaneous receipts 1 50.1 58.7 65.1 74.1 83.8 89.5 85.5 89.7 93.5
10 Dividends 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2
11 Current transfer receipts 12.7 15.3 16.9 19.7 23.4 25.9 27 27.9 32.5
12 From business (net) 6.7 8.2 8.8 10.6 12.9 13.9 13.8 13 16
13 From persons 6 7.1 8.1 9.2 10.4 12 13.2 14.8 16.5
14 Current surplus of government enterprises 2 -5.6 -4.5 -3.2 -1.9 0.6 0.9 0.2 2.6 4.9
15 Current expenditures 966.9 1076.8 1171.7 1261 1370.9 1464 1540.5 1623.6 1741
Click to expand...
 
Gimmesometruth said:
He would not have hired you since you were unemployed for more than a year.
Click to expand...

nine months, actually.

however, i am very much against discriminating against the long term unemployed.
 
Conservative said:
Again, your opinion noted, wrong as usual but noted. then again people like you always believe that someone else keeping more of their money because of tax cuts is an expense to the govt. Why isn't hat the case with you? You are so blinded by an ideology that has failed everywhere in the world that you simply have no credibility.
Click to expand...
And the pot calls the kettle black.
 
Helix said:
thanks for the kind words, and it sounds like you were a good employer.
Click to expand...

Thanks, tried to be and to this day, 9 years after retiring I still get calls from people who worked for me. That means a lot to me and tells me that much of what I did was well worth it. I always seemed to recognize people trying and caring about what they did and knew and honest mistake from a dishonest one. I gave a lot of people a chance to succeed and the tools to succeed. Many are very successful today.
 
pbrauer said:
And the pot calls the kettle black.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Conservative said:
Interesting information again from the BEA.gov. Would love to have you explain to us all how Reagan cut taxes and grew individual income tax revenue?
Click to expand...
Sure, just as soon as you get around to proving my statement as wrong.

You are sidestepping, you made a claim, back it up.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom