• 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%

When we have a budget this high why does it have to increase at all? Don't care about budget increases, care about the debt generated.




Do you realize how accurate CBO is? CBO is charged by the Congress to take the assumptions given and develop a cost estimate. If the assumptions are wrong, the cost estimates are wrong. That happens with CBO a lot, assumptions are mostly always wrong, look at the Obamacare costs today vs when initially passed?





The American people need to get the facts, not one side of the facts. People around today that were around during the Reagan years know what the economy was like when Reagan took office and know what happened during his term. That same feeling isn't happening today because Obama lacks basic leadership skills and expertise.



I gave you the average based upon employment numbers, that is terrible when you spend as much as Obama has spent to generate those numbers. Why do you buy what the left tells you when experience tells you that the projections are never right. Name for me an economic projection that Obama has made that has been accurate?




The numbers regarding Bush aren't what you reported and I have posted those numbers here. Most of the job losses that hurt his numbers came with a Democrat controlled Congress more interested in regaining the WH than doing their job. I am a pro growth private sector individual and that is the exact opposite of Obama and liberalism today. I grew up a JFK Democrat but this party is no where near the party of JFK, it is the leftwing party, the European model party, the massive central govt. party
Are you still pushing that steaming pile of BS? How exactly did the Democratic Congress create the recession that caused the job loss? Why all the job loss with the Bush tax cuts in place? :eek:

Bush On Jobs: The Worst Track Record On Record - Real Time Economics - WSJ
 
Most have done more than called upon to do. And doing more often costs more.

But I linked how.

Really? Another opinion? What is it about liberalism that creates this kind of loyalty? You buy the rhetoric and ignore the results. There isn't a govt. program that has cost what they were supposed to cost or do what they were supposed to do, all have become entitlements rather than supplements. No Obama economic projections have been accurate.
 
Are you still pushing that steaming pile of BS? How exactly did the Democratic Congress create the recession that caused the job loss? Why all the job loss with the Bush tax cuts in place? :eek:

Bush On Jobs: The Worst Track Record On Record - Real Time Economics - WSJ

Need I remind you again that Bush isn't in office and "your" President's economic record is a disaster. You want badly to buy the Obama rhetoric and ignore the Obama results. Too bad you have such a poor understanding of leadership and the responsibilities of leadership. No wonder you want this to be about Bush to divert from someone whose results are worse. How did Obama generate this kind of loyalty? Results don't matter at all, do they when Obama is in the WH
 
Btw, to everyone else...the question he refuses to answer is,

Do you think this is a good jobs report - yes or no?

And no, he has, to my sincere knowledge, not answered it - once or twice.

It seems obvious he just doesn't want to but cannot just admit it.


Why he refuses to type even a 'y' or an 'n' to end this; yet types hundreds of characters saying why he refuses to type one character ('y' or 'n') is beyond me.

Pride I guess.

could be because the answer can not be answered by a yes or a no.
 
Really? Another opinion? What is it about liberalism that creates this kind of loyalty? You buy the rhetoric and ignore the results. There isn't a govt. program that has cost what they were supposed to cost or do what they were supposed to do, all have become entitlements rather than supplements. No Obama economic projections have been accurate.
It's not loyalty. You're stuck repeating stereotypical platitudes without ever checking them. The pst office did a hell of a job for a long, long time. SS does more than intended, and leaves people with a better life than thy had in the past. Medicare also beats what was available for elderly before it came into being. All business is messy. But these programs hold up pretty damn well all things considered.
 
Need I remind you again that Bush isn't in office and "your" President's economic record is a disaster. You want badly to buy the Obama rhetoric and ignore the Obama results. Too bad you have such a poor understanding of leadership and the responsibilities of leadership. No wonder you want this to be about Bush to divert from someone whose results are worse. How did Obama generate this kind of loyalty? Results don't matter at all, do they when Obama is in the WH
Answer the question: How did the Democratic controlled Congress create the job loss?
 
Something Reagan did when he doubled payroll taxes on the self
employed.

Didn't Democrats control both houses under Reagan and didn't the Middle Class grow under Reagans economic policies.

Jobs were added.

I mean you libz can slam reagan all you want, your'e still doing it from a ridiculously weak position given our current economic situation.

1.8% GDP, practically no net new jobs, huge increases in dependent spending...

Still trying to figure out what you folks are so proud of.
 
It's not loyalty. You're stuck repeating stereotypical platitudes without ever checking them. The pst office did a hell of a job for a long, long time. SS does more than intended, and leaves people with a better life than thy had in the past. Medicare also beats what was available for elderly before it came into being. All business is messy. But these programs hold up pretty damn well all things considered.

The post office has never been efficient and always loses money. Just like a liberal who cannot accept reality. The govt. isn't there to make your life easier, it was created to protect you. Govt is out of control as evidenced by the 3.8 trillion dollar Federal Budget. Why do we need a 3.8 trillion dollar budget? Our Founders are rolling over in their grave all because people like you want to delegate responsibility to a federal entity because you cannot influence your own state and local govt.
 
When we have a budget this high why does it have to increase at all? Don't care about budget increases, care about the debt generated.

No.

The budget is a bit more complicated than the end debt result. You want to talk up Reagan and trash Obama for spending? Fine, but don't shirk away when that actual data starts to chip away at your perceptions. I care about spending and revenue trends, I want the deficit to go down and hopefully one day start paying down our debts, and looking at these factors and where they have been and are going matter. Math matters.


Do you realize how accurate CBO is? CBO is charged by the Congress to take the assumptions given and develop a cost estimate. If the assumptions are wrong, the cost estimates are wrong. That happens with CBO a lot, assumptions are mostly always wrong, look at the Obamacare costs today vs when initially passed?

The CBO is as accurate as it can be, it's not perfect and anyone would admit that. Life happens, laws get adjusted, hurricanes occur, economies shift, estimates change, not getting around that for sure. Problem is for the most part I'm using past and current budgets, spending, and jobs numbers to draw my conclusions, times already bygone and not chronologically able to be subjected to estimation. The only projections I've used were the $3.8 trillion spending estimate you gave based off of a budget request for FY 2013-2014, and the $3.53T spending estimated for the fiscal year ending in just three months.

As for the ACA aka Obamacare, the CBO still is telling Paul Ryan that repealing the law would INCREASE the budget deficit.

http://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/attachments/hr45.pdf

The American people need to get the facts, not one side of the facts. People around today that were around during the Reagan years know what the economy was like when Reagan took office and know what happened during his term. That same feeling isn't happening today because Obama lacks basic leadership skills and expertise.

People were on the sugar high, and I don't blame them at all. On the surface, we had a better economy and employment from between when Reagan took and left office, but at the cost of massive budget deficits for the time and mroe or less that start of the era of fiscal irresponsibility. It would be nice to see another 17 million jobs into the economy by the time Obama leaves office and I hope we get there. Thanks to Congressional stagnation and a shrinking pubic jobs sector, we're kind of trying to do this with one hand tied and I'm less than optimistic that we'll get there by January 2017.

I gave you the average based upon employment numbers, that is terrible when you spend as much as Obama has spent to generate those numbers. Why do you buy what the left tells you when experience tells you that the projections are never right. Name for me an economic projection that Obama has made that has been accurate?

You keep conflating "the left" with hard economic statistics, why?

As for projections, as I said before, life happens and estimates change because of that. No projections from anyone are perfect or 100% accurate, certainly not Obama's any other president's. For the most part though, I'm not talking into the "maybes" but what has happened and what is happening now.

The numbers regarding Bush aren't what you reported and I have posted those numbers here. Most of the job losses that hurt his numbers came with a Democrat controlled Congress more interested in regaining the WH than doing their job.

That is laughably partisan and unprovable. Even the Wall Street Journal concedes that Bush's job numbers were lousy at best, and negative at worst.

I am a pro growth private sector individual and that is the exact opposite of Obama and liberalism today.

You say that, and yet the only job growth that has occurred under Obama and his big government liberal cabal has been pretty much exclusively in the private sector. Every month for the last 30 straight, the private jobs market has grown whereas the public market has shrunk.

Which I'm okay with, the private sector should lead the way, but you know, "something something liberal socialism Obama something big govt. something cult" or whatever rhetoric the internet right-wingers are babbling about these days.
 
Answer the question: How did the Democratic controlled Congress create the job loss?

By not addressing the housing problem before it imploded. Now how about answering the question, when are you going to hold Obama responsible for the poor economic results generated?
 
By not addressing the housing problem before it imploded. Now how about answering the question, when are you going to hold Obama responsible for the poor economic results generated?
Total BS. The financial meltdown was created by the banksters and Wall Street. Remember Bush said they were drunk? I keep telling, Obama is not responsible for the poor economic conditions. These things go in cycles.
 
ToastyOats;1062028466]No.

The budget is a bit more complicated than the end debt result. You want to talk up Reagan and trash Obama for spending? Fine, but don't shirk away when that actual data starts to chip away at your perceptions. I care about spending and revenue trends, I want the deficit to go down and hopefully one day start paying down our debts, and looking at these factors and where they have been and are going matter. Math matters.

I will never run from discussing Reagan, this just isn't the thread to do that. Why do we need an increase in a 3.7 trillion dollar budget? Shouldn't there be a decrease? Why would anyone compare the spending of Reagan to the spending of Obama when Obama had a high baseline to start with than Reagan?



The CBO is as accurate as it can be, it's not perfect and anyone would admit that. Life happens, laws get adjusted, hurricanes occur, economies shift, estimates change, not getting around that for sure. Problem is for the most part I'm using past and current budgets, spending, and jobs numbers to draw my conclusions, times already bygone and not chronologically able to be subjected to estimation. The only projections I've used were the $3.8 trillion spending estimate you gave based off of a budget request for FY 2013-2014, and the $3.53T spending estimated for the fiscal year ending in just three months.

The CBO was as accurate as intended, it is non partisan but assumptions aren't. Name for me a CBO projection that has been accurate. Again, stop buying the rhetoric that we need a 3.5 trillion dollar budget let alone a 3.8 trillion dollar budget.

As for the ACA aka Obamacare, the CBO still is telling Paul Ryan that repealing the law would INCREASE the budget deficit.

http://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/attachments/hr45.pdf

Putting 21 million Americans back to work full time will help govt. revenue and lower the deficit. Repealing Obamacare removes a hiring obstacle.



People were on the sugar high, and I don't blame them at all. On the surface, we had a better economy and employment from between when Reagan took and left office, but at the cost of massive budget deficits for the time and mroe or less that start of the era of fiscal irresponsibility. It would be nice to see another 17 million jobs into the economy by the time Obama leaves office and I hope we get there. Thanks to Congressional stagnation and a shrinking pubic jobs sector, we're kind of trying to do this with one hand tied and I'm less than optimistic that we'll get there by January 2017.

People always get on a sugar high when they have more spendable income. Never did I do better than I did during the Reagan term. Those massive budget debts as you call them were 1.7 trillion dollars. What do you call the 6.2 trillion dollar debt of Obama?



You keep conflating "the left" with hard economic statistics, why?

Because it is time to start holding the left accountable for failures. God knows how they point to the failures of the Republicans but never accept responsibility for their own failures.

As for projections, as I said before, life happens and estimates change because of that. No projections from anyone are perfect or 100% accurate, certainly not Obama's any other president's. For the most part though, I'm not talking into the "maybes" but what has happened and what is happening now.

Projections always change, why is it that the left never points to those changes when the make their original projections look bad?



That is laughably partisan and unprovable. Even the Wall Street Journal concedes that Bush's job numbers were lousy at best, and negative at worst.

Yes, Bush's job numbers in 2008 were terrible. Up to that point and when the Republicans controlled the Congress they weren't bad at all nor was the economic growth. The fact is however those numbers don't matter at all, Bush isn't in office, Obama is and the numbers he has generated are a disaster but he sure has no problem blaming someone else and taking vacations.



You say that, and yet the only job growth that has occurred under Obama and his big government liberal cabal has been pretty much exclusively in the private sector. Every month for the last 30 straight, the private jobs market has grown whereas the public market has shrunk.

Which I'm okay with, the private sector should lead the way, but you know, "something something liberal socialism Obama something big govt. something cult" or whatever rhetoric the internet right-wingers are babbling about these days :rolls.

The job growth is anemic and it is the private sector that will always generate jobs regardless of who is in office, the question however is how many and where is the incentive to grow jobs. The job growth last month was mostly part time positions and that isn't sustainable. Jobs are never going to be created in the numbers necessary until Obama is fired or leaves office. He has no concept as to how the private sector works as he never had to make a payroll. He doesn't seem to understand that private businesses have to generate the revenue to pay for higher taxes, more regulations, and Obamacare
 
Total BS. The financial meltdown was created by the banksters and Wall Street. Remember Bush said they were drunk? I keep telling, Obama is not responsible for the poor economic conditions. These things go in cycles.

Does it matter now? What has Obama done to correct the problem? Oh, he hired Geithner and Lawrence Summers and others who helped create the crisis but that doesn't matter to you, does it? What is it about Obama that blinds people like you to reality?
 
The post office has never been efficient and always loses money. Just like a liberal who cannot accept reality. The govt. isn't there to make your life easier, it was created to protect you. Govt is out of control as evidenced by the 3.8 trillion dollar Federal Budget. Why do we need a 3.8 trillion dollar budget? Our Founders are rolling over in their grave all because people like you want to delegate responsibility to a federal entity because you cannot influence your own state and local govt.

Are you keeping, during a time when it served the country well, they delivered our mail very efficiently. You're just locked into a false narrative and don't question you're mistaken assumptions often enough.

As for the founding fathers, I wouldn't be too quick to speak for them. They worked to solve problems and not only have supported everything, but might have went further had to lived through the history. No one cam say with certainty, but you have them stuck in place and time with no ability to learn nor adapt. I wouldn't consider them that fixed.
 
Are you keeping, during a time when it served the country well, they delivered our mail very efficiently. You're just locked into a false narrative and don't question you're mistaken assumptions often enough.

As for the founding fathers, I wouldn't be too quick to speak for them. They worked to solve problems and not only have supported everything, but might have went further had to lived through the history. No one cam say with certainty, but you have them stuck in place and time with no ability to learn nor adapt. I wouldn't consider them that fixed.

What one can say is they left England with an oppressive central govt and believed in a small central govt. with the power resting closest to the people. That isn't what liberalism believes or supports. Our Founders would be turning over in their grave seeing a 3.8 trillion dollar budget and the massive dependence the govt. has created.
 
Do you ever check what you are saying?

View attachment 67150096

http://about.usps.com/news/national-releases/2012/pr12_0217profitability.pdf



Really reality? After what you said above?

What is it about liberalism that believes anything they are told when a liberal is in the WH but believes nothing they are told when that person in the WH is a Republican? What is it about unsustainable losses that you don't understand? Why would you buy a proposal of returning the post office to profitability? Let me know when that happens.
 
What is it about liberalism that believes anything they are told when a liberal is in the WH but believes nothing they are told when that person in the WH is a Republican? What is it about unsustainable losses that you don't understand? Why would you buy a proposal of returning the post office to profitability? Let me know when that happens.

Fact the post office has been profitable in the past as recently as 2006. Fact you said it always losses money.
 
could be because the answer can not be answered by a yes or a no.

He typed the following when I asked him to just type 'y' or 'n', instead of yes or no:

'I can, I choose not to, because I've already directly answered this question twice. Why answer it again when you'll simply ignore it a third time?'

http://www.debatepolitics.com/break...ains-7-6-a-post1062027482.html#post1062027482


And I have never seen these answers of his.

Yet he refuses to either post a link to them, tell me where they are or just repeat them for Pete's sake and save both of us a ton of hassle.

It's not a complicated question - either you think it's good or you don't.

And if you are unsure - then say that.

But claiming over and over again you answered and then refusing to say what you said or where you typed it is just bizarre, imo.
 
What one can say is they left England with an oppressive central govt and believed in a small central govt. with the power resting closest to the people. That isn't what liberalism believes or supports. Our Founders would be turning over in their grave seeing a 3.8 trillion dollar budget and the massive dependence the govt. has created.

Yep, they wanted representation. We have that. And have been paying any attention at all, both parties have increased federal powers.
 
could be because the answer can not be answered by a yes or a no.
It's actually because I've already answered it twice, including in a post he later quoted. Proof provided below.

Yet he refuses to either post a link to them
You replied to one of my posts in which I answered it. Don't blame me for your lack of reading comprehension.

Aww, hell, I'm tired of your trolling and/or laziness. I'll even circle the relevant part, because I'm not sure if you possess what's necessary to find it on your own.

proof1_zps199777f1.jpg

proof2_zps4c79eeb7.jpg


So either you obviously lack reading comprehension or you were trolling. Neither one would surprise me.
 
What is it about liberalism that believes anything they are told when a liberal is in the WH but believes nothing they are told when that person in the WH is a Republican? What is it about unsustainable losses that you don't understand? Why would you buy a proposal of returning the post office to profitability? Let me know when that happens.

Ask that in reverse, and I think you'll get an answer. Some conservatives (don't look in the mirror whatever you do) suffer from the same affliction you mention, only the other way around.


:coffeepap
 
It's actually because I've already answered it twice, including in a post he later quoted. Proof provided below.

You replied to one of my posts in which I answered it. Don't blame me for your lack of reading comprehension.

Aww, hell, I'm tired of your trolling and/or laziness. I'll even circle the relevant part, because I'm not sure if you possess what's necessary to find it on your own.

View attachment 67150098

View attachment 67150099


So either you obviously lack reading comprehension or you were trolling. Neither one would surprise me.

Sorry, don't remember seeing that.

I don't have much respect for you, so I tend to speed read over your posts, skipping over many words.


So, let me get this straight...you could have just said 'yes'.

...instead of going through ALL this nonsense?

Noted.


So Slyfox696 thinks a jobs report that adds only one job is a good report.


Have a nice day.
 
Sorry, don't remember seeing that.
While I appreciate your apology, if you had just taken a few moments to review the thread, like I constantly told you to, you'd have seen it.

I don't have much respect for you
I assure you the feeling is mutual. I tend to not respect posters who lack reading comprehension and are too lazy to do their own research, all the while wasting time on frivolous and ultimately useless technicalities. Which describes you perfectly.

So, let me get this straight...you could have just said 'yes'.

...instead of going through ALL this nonsense?
No, you don't have that straight. So allow me to set you straight.

If you possessed a modicum of reading comprehension, or the integrity to debate honestly and not be lazy in this thread about it, you could have had your answer long ago.

Good. Maybe next time you'll take the time to read someone's answer when you ask them a question.

So Slyfox696 thinks a jobs report that adds only one job is a good report.
Ahh, more dishonesty. Not surprising.

By the way, since you obviously care about frivolous and useless technicalities:

"Anytime we add JOBS..."

Plural:

1. Relating to or composed of more than one member, set, or kind: the plural meanings of a text; a plural society.
2. Grammar Of or being a grammatical form that designates more than one of the things specified.


So while you take some time to actually read answers to the questions you ask, perhaps you can study up on what plural words are.


So, now that I've exposed your silliness to probably no one who cares, I'm done with you. You're obviously just trolling at this point. You got your answer, for the third time remember, so I think there is nothing else left for me on which to make you look ridiculous.

Have a great day.
 
While I appreciate your apology, if you had just taken a few moments to review the thread, like I constantly told you to, you'd have seen it.
I doubt it.

Why waste time reading posts from people you don't respect much?

"Anytime we add JOBS..."

Okay,

So Slyfox696 thinks a jobs report that adds only two or more jobs is a good report.

LOLOLOLOL.

Two jobs created is a good report...lol...that's a good one.

America needs well over 100,000 new jobs a month just to keep pace with the population growth.

And Slyfox696 thinks only adding 2(?!?) jobs is a 'good report'

NOTED......


Let's see if he sticks with that when a Rep is in the WH?
 
Back
Top Bottom