• 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!

US unemployment lowest in 4 years

rabbitcaebannog said:
Here are charts comparing Reagan, Bush H.W, Clinton, Bush W, and Obama for both private jobs and government jobs.

Calculated Risk: Public and Private Sector Payroll Jobs: Reagan, Bush, Clinton, Bush, Obama

Calculated Risk: Public and Private Sector Payroll Jobs: Reagan, Bush, Clinton, Bush, Obama
Click to expand...

A couple issues here that some don't seem to understand, first of all public sector jobs are Federal, State, and local and unlike the Federal Govt. the states have to balance their budgets and thus the first thing to go is going to be state employees. During strong economic growth like during the Reagan years state employment is going to grow which will skew the public sector jobs up but what happened during the Reagan years is that both public and private sector jobs grew to the tune of over 17 million.

So many people here want to give Clinton credit for the economic results of the 90's and I give him credit for being a good politician as well as a willingness to actually negotiate with the Republican Controlled Congress even though it didn't appear so in the Press. You see it was Clinton who signed most of the Contract with America after publicly speaking out against it. It was Clinton that signed off on Republican budgets after shutting down the govt. over those budgets. It was Clinton who signed welfare reform after vetoing the same GOP Legislation he vetoed. It was Clinton who signed NAFTA after campaigning against it. Republicans took control of the Congress in the 1994 elections for the first time in decades and held control of the House until the 2002 elections. The Senate went 50-50 in 2001 but Democrats controlled the major committees

So not sure what you are trying to show here but there is a story behind those numbers and it all boils down to leadership skills which Obama seriously lacks. A good leader wouldn't be taking vacations with so many Americans unemployed and such poor economic growth. A good leader wouldn't be playing golf so many times with the massive debt Obama has accumulated and the toxic attitude in D.C. A good leader would hole up in D.C. and make the Congress do the same thing until they reached a deal on consensus and would do what Reagan did, go to the American people almost daily selling his economic plan and making people feel good about their country, not promoting a divisive economic and foreign policy.
 
rabbitcaebannog said:
All these issues (unemployment, debt, stagnant economy, massive poverty and inequality) that are on a much larger scale than just the US. It has to do with globalization and until we address the real issue and leave behind the partisan hackery nothing will ever really get resolved.
Click to expand...

To some extent that is true and why we needed someone with the experience to handle a private sector economy that has to compete in a global world. Saddling the private sector with more regulations and higher taxes isn't going to help anyone compete in the global economy. It is a leaders responsibility to destroy partisan hackery so tell me what Obama has done to do that?
 
Conservative said:
To some extent that is true and why we needed someone with the experience to handle a private sector economy that has to compete in a global world. Saddling the private sector with more regulations and higher taxes isn't going to help anyone compete in the global economy. It is a leaders responsibility to destroy partisan hackery so tell me what Obama has done to do that?
Click to expand...


Oh, oh, oh *with hand raised with excitement* Um....increased it? Stirred it up? Used as a tool of Alinsky level agitation?
 
jmotivator said:
Obviously you don't understand the statistic.
Click to expand...
I clearly understand it much better than you.

The fact that it doesn't include marginally attached or discouraged workers and completely misses the difference between retirees and those forced into early retirement -- all of these people that the U-3 doesn't track would, if available, take a job
Click to expand...
How does that work? How could they take a job they haven't applied for or even asked about? How could they take a job without looking for one? The people aren't available until they try to find work.


doesn't track labor available like you think it does.
Click to expand...
anyone not trying to work is not available for work. That shouldn't't even be a discussion.
 
pinqy said:
How does that work? How could they take a job they haven't applied for or even asked about? How could they take a job without looking for one? The people aren't available until they try to find work.
Click to expand...


So why have they given up then? I mean, if we are to believe what you are saying, and jobs are out there for the taking, then why aren't they applying? Surely they are not all winning the lottery are they? (well, in a sense, with handouts, maybe they are)
 
j-mac said:
Not available? Why?
Click to expand...

How many people who have not applied or asked about a job do you think an employer can hire? Do you think they go door to door looking for workers?

Someone not trying to work cannot be hired and is therefore not available.
 
pinqy said:
How many people who have not applied or asked about a job do you think an employer can hire? Do you think they go door to door looking for workers?

Someone not trying to work cannot be hired and is therefore not available.
Click to expand...

You avoided the question....Why are they unavailable?
 
pinqy said:
How many people who have not applied or asked about a job do you think an employer can hire? Do you think they go door to door looking for workers?

Someone not trying to work cannot be hired and is therefore not available.
Click to expand...

Have you ever opened up the want ads in the paper? Pages and pages of ads looking for workers. Many of those who stopped looking have no incentive to work and no they don't have to go door to door but only open the newspaper to the want ads. Business advertise for workers and don't go door to door any more.

Someone not trying to work under liberalism doesn't need to get work as there are many social programs funded by the 50% of the income earning families that pay net taxes that they get their income without doing a thing. This seems to be the liberal elite's dream, permanent dependence and thus permanent power
 
Conservative said:
So not sure what you are trying to show here but there is a story behind those numbers and it all boils down to leadership skills which Obama seriously lacks. A good leader wouldn't be taking vacations with so many Americans unemployed and such poor economic growth. A good leader wouldn't be playing golf so many times with the massive debt Obama has accumulated and the toxic attitude in D.C. A good leader would hole up in D.C. and make the Congress do the same thing until they reached a deal on consensus and would do what Reagan did, go to the American people almost daily selling his economic plan and making people feel good about their country, not promoting a divisive economic and foreign policy.
Click to expand...

I'm showing numbers while your selling partisan hackery. No one president is responsible for our economy but each and everyone has had a hand in the direction it has gone. All (IMHO) in not so good a direction for several decades now.
 
Conservative said:
To some extent that is true and why we needed someone with the experience to handle a private sector economy that has to compete in a global world. Saddling the private sector with more regulations and higher taxes isn't going to help anyone compete in the global economy. It is a leaders responsibility to destroy partisan hackery so tell me what Obama has done to do that?
Click to expand...

Obama has merely continued to protect the creditor class at the expense of the unemployed. I see no proof of a president put forth (paid for by big money) in front of the public that was going to change that trend whether with a D or an R put in front of his name.
 
rabbitcaebannog said:
I'm showing numbers while your selling partisan hackery. No one president is responsible for our economy but each and everyone has had a hand in the direction it has gone. All (IMHO) in not so good a direction for several decades now.
Click to expand...

Sorry but a leader is responsible for all results generated during his term, something you don't seem to understand. The President sets the agenda and the priorities/tone for his Administration and in case you haven't been paying attention has done nothing to improve bipartisanship but rather the opposite. You talk about partisan hackery all the time but the reality is it is the Democrats doing nothing to change the tone in D.C. starting with Harry Reid sitting o dozens of bills the House passed but refusing debate in the Senate. Please tell me how that promotes bipartisanship.

Not sure what you and others propose because I have seen nothing out of you other than claims of partisanship. Where are your solutions? Where is your understanding of leadership? Where is your sense of fairness by holding Obama responsible for his results just like you hold others responsible for theirs?
 
rabbitcaebannog said:
Obama has merely continued to protect the creditor class at the expense of the unemployed. I see no proof of a president put forth (paid for by big money) in front of the public that was going to change that trend whether with a D or an R put in front of his name.
Click to expand...

What you have seen is a "do as I say" not a do as I do President. Obama lacks the leadership skills for the job and in fact is tearing this country further apart by continuing to promote class warfare. Obama has continued to promote massive dependence and done nothing to encourage individual wealth creation because he doesn't understand it nor apparently do you.

Regardless of whether you have an R or a D in front of your name, as a leader you have the responsibility to work with the other party. Obama has made no such attempt.
 
Conservative said:
Sorry but a leader is responsible for all results generated during his term, something you don't seem to understand. The President sets the agenda and the priorities/tone for his Administration and in case you haven't been paying attention has done nothing to improve bipartisanship but rather the opposite. You talk about partisan hackery all the time but the reality is it is the Democrats doing nothing to change the tone in D.C. starting with Harry Reid sitting o dozens of bills the House passed but refusing debate in the Senate. Please tell me how that promotes bipartisanship.

Not sure what you and others propose because I have seen nothing out of you other than claims of partisanship. Where are your solutions? Where is your understanding of leadership? Where is your sense of fairness by holding Obama responsible for his results just like you hold others responsible for theirs?
Click to expand...

There is no bipartisanship in Congress period.

As for your second comment, the issue we are discussing in this thread is unemployment. A big solution would be to stop slashing government spending. It has really destructive effects on incomes and employment. Obama has the lowest record on public sector jobs and that speaks volumes as to part of the reason we are not in better recovery mode. Also, people who are yelling inflation concerns are not helping the matter either. Only one sector of people benefitting greatly from low inflation right now and it isn't the unemployed.
 
Conservative said:
What you have seen is a "do as I say" not a do as I do President. Obama lacks the leadership skills for the job and in fact is tearing this country further apart by continuing to promote class warfare. Obama has continued to promote massive dependence and done nothing to encourage individual wealth creation because he doesn't understand it nor apparently do you.

Regardless of whether you have an R or a D in front of your name, as a leader you have the responsibility to work with the other party. Obama has made no such attempt.
Click to expand...

Class warfare is not being promoted but rather being demonstrated in this country. The rest of your post is not worth commenting on.
 
rabbitcaebannog;1062144129]There is no bipartisanship in Congress period.
Click to expand...

That is true, what has Obama done to promote it? What is the role of a leader when faced with that problem?

As for your second comment, the issue we are discussing in this thread is unemployment. A big solution would be to stop slashing government spending. It has really destructive effects on incomes and employment. Obama has the lowest record on public sector jobs and that speaks volumes as to part of the reason we are not in better recovery mode. Also, people who are yelling inflation concerns are not helping the matter either. Only one sector of people benefitting greatly from low inflation right now and it isn't the unemployed.
Click to expand...

Your opinion noted but what you fail to recognize is that govt. spending has been at record levels and still the problem exists. More spending isn't the answer in a private sector economy. You have seen what happens in Europe with all that govt. spending, you get dependence and European socialism.

Keep ignoring reality, Obama has influence on public sector jobs most of which are at the state level and I explained that states have to balance the budget thus why public sector employment is down. Is Federal Employment down?

Slashing govt. spending is the only answer because it creates more investment capital for the private sector. The answer is cutting federal spending and providing incentive to the private sector to grow, Obamacare, threats of higher taxes and more regulations stifles private sector growth thus creates the problem we have today.

Far too many here don't understand the private sector economy at all thus comments like yours. You have been brainwashed into believing govt. spending is a major portion of GDP when it isn't. There are four components to GDP, figure out what they are and what affects those components. Stop buying what this Administration and the media tells you. Think for a change. The fourth largest budget item is interest expense on the debt. Think that debt service is improving the economy?
 
rabbitcaebannog said:
Class warfare is not being promoted but rather being demonstrated in this country. The rest of your post is not worth commenting on.
Click to expand...

LOL, that is a perfect example of someone who doesn't have a clue what is going on in this country today and the brainwashing of the left. Too bad you have bought the rhetoric and ignore the results. You seem very poorly informed on what really is happening in this country so you must be getting your information from the MSM and doing no thinking on your own.

You think taxing the rich hasn't been proposed? You think that unemployment benefits now beyond two years isn't in place? You think that forcing small businesses to purchase healthcare for their employees benefits employment? You think that promoting part time jobs is the prescription to strong economic growth? Where do you get your information?
 
shagg said:
:lamo

Google, give me examples of Obama Olive Branches to the Republican Party
Click to expand...

Nice job of using Google, too bad it doesn't make your case. when did Obama propose extending ALL the Bush tax cuts? the reality is he proposed extending only the Middle Class tax cuts and raising them on the rich. You see, you buy headlines but never read the entire story or what led up to the story.

Obama demonized McCain at the meeting on Healthcare reform, he tried to destroy Ryan in public regarding budget negotiations. Obama is a community agitator not a community organizer or leader
 
Gimmesometruth said:
FFS Fenton, dictatorships are the nearly the total opposite of "liberalism", I think we have gone over that one a few hundred times. I'm glad you were able to see that I did not take the premise seriously, the question is, since we have gone over this numerous times, why you still do take the false rhetorical premise seriously. It is the stuff of Birchers....who are, ironically enough, close to dictators themselves.
Click to expand...

Birchers as in the anti-communist John Birchers society ? Or did you just misspell " Birthers " ? I'm looking at my "QWERTY" keyboard here and I can see that "C" is no where near "T" so I'm a bit nonplussed.

Second, the fundamental definition Liberalism definitely supports your assertion that a Dictatorship and Liberalism would contradict each other on ideological grounds, but that's a sorry excuse for what this Liberal administration has so far been responsible for.

The targeting or mistreatment of individuals based on the fact that they oppose the Liberal ideology is in direct contradiction to the supposed values of a true Liberal and most hard left Governments historically have either slightly evolved from dictatorships or have devolved into dictatorships.

I can think of a couple just South of the Border of Mexico that would make a great example.

I have no problem saying Obama would welcome with open arms a change in our Government that would allow him to MUCH have more un-contested power. Well, he and about every other Liberal politician in our Country.
 
Conservative said:
That is true, what has Obama done to promote it? What is the role of a leader when faced with that problem?



Your opinion noted but what you fail to recognize is that govt. spending has been at record levels and still the problem exists. More spending isn't the answer in a private sector economy. You have seen what happens in Europe with all that govt. spending, you get dependence and European socialism.

Keep ignoring reality, Obama has influence on public sector jobs most of which are at the state level and I explained that states have to balance the budget thus why public sector employment is down. Is Federal Employment down?

Slashing govt. spending is the only answer because it creates more investment capital for the private sector. The answer is cutting federal spending and providing incentive to the private sector to grow, Obamacare, threats of higher taxes and more regulations stifles private sector growth thus creates the problem we have today.

Far too many here don't understand the private sector economy at all thus comments like yours. You have been brainwashed into believing govt. spending is a major portion of GDP when it isn't. There are four components to GDP, figure out what they are and what affects those components. Stop buying what this Administration and the media tells you. Think for a change. The fourth largest budget item is interest expense on the debt. Think that debt service is improving the economy?
Click to expand...

Ah, I don't know...perhaps not give them everything they wanted.

Government spending that you're addressing has nothing to do with the loss of government jobs. What you are addressing is spending which was in place by appropriations and policies when Obama took office including a huge bail out. Under Obama, we see a sharp downturn in government jobs. That is the point I'm trying to make. We need more jobs in a recession not less. Obama could have bailed out states and allowed them to keep essential jobs instead of focusing on bailing out private institutions.

Growing capital through financialization is a problem. This capital isn't being used to create jobs, through trade and commodity production in the economy, but rather a pattern of accumulation in which profit making occurs increasingly through financial channels. A particular group who is capitalizing on this economy is the rentier class which make their money off of passive income. We currently see massive amounts of payments to bondholders, laying off of public employees, exacerbating the cycle of unemployment and so people are buying less goods and services and don't pay much in taxes so less revenue comes in. Creditor friendly policies are harming our economy.

I've not been brainwashed at all. I've looked at both sides of the argument and can clearly see the trend is toward privatizing services and the selling off of public assets. This in turn refines the ability to extract rents which keeps bondholders in complete power/control by making sure they will be paid in full be damn our public interest/goods and assets. And, to answer your final question, GDP is largely depended on consumer spending for goods and services.
 
Conservative said:
Nice job of using Google, too bad it doesn't make your case. when did Obama propose extending ALL the Bush tax cuts? the reality is he proposed extending only the Middle Class tax cuts and raising them on the rich. You see, you buy headlines but never read the entire story or what led up to the story.

Obama demonized McCain at the meeting on Healthcare reform, he tried to destroy Ryan in public regarding budget negotiations. Obama is a community agitator not a community organizer or leader
Click to expand...

I know, bringing facts up is kinda anathema to your style debate, but Obama compromised on that issue with republicans. His original position was return to old rates for those over 250k, but compromised to 400k, and the tax rate on dividends for those making over 400k was capped at 20 %, instead of 39.6 % which it would have been with just the expiration of the Bush tax cuts. You can hardly accuse Obama of not compromising on something he did compromise on, simply because he did not give republicans everything they wanted. You do not seem to understand what compromise means.
 
Conservative said:
LOL, that is a perfect example of someone who doesn't have a clue what is going on in this country today and the brainwashing of the left. Too bad you have bought the rhetoric and ignore the results. You seem very poorly informed on what really is happening in this country so you must be getting your information from the MSM and doing no thinking on your own.

You think taxing the rich hasn't been proposed? You think that unemployment benefits now beyond two years isn't in place? You think that forcing small businesses to purchase healthcare for their employees benefits employment? You think that promoting part time jobs is the prescription to strong economic growth? Where do you get your information?
Click to expand...

You're the one with all the talking points.
 
Redress said:
I know, bringing facts up is kinda anathema to your style debate, but Obama compromised on that issue with republicans. His original position was return to old rates for those over 250k, but compromised to 400k, and the tax rate on dividends for those making over 400k was capped at 20 %, instead of 39.6 % which it would have been with just the expiration of the Bush tax cuts. You can hardly accuse Obama of not compromising on something he did compromise on, simply because he did not give republicans everything they wanted. You do not seem to understand what compromise means.
Click to expand...

The reality is that Obama comprised but with Senate Democrats from high cost areas like NY and California not with Republicans. Nice try, but a little honesty on this site would not hurt.
 
washunut said:
The reality is that Obama comprised but with Senate Democrats from high cost areas like NY and California not with Republicans. Nice try, but a little honesty on this site would not hurt.
Click to expand...

LoLz. Yeah, that is just silly. Making **** up does not impress me.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom