• 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!

Economy adds 192,000 jobs; unemployment rate holds steady at 6.7%

That sounds about like you and your solutions. How fitting that you used the words bondo and cover it. This is just what this idiot in the White is doing any you seem to approve of it.

The real issue is that people like you are a threat to freedom in this country. It's one thing to be fooled and vote for Obama. It's another thing to see the direction he is taking us and approve of it. The former is being naïve, the latter is being a danger to our freedoms!

I don't mind ending our expensive, wars crime, drugs, poverty, and terror.
 
I don't mind ending our expensive, wars crime, drugs, poverty, and terror.

Well you can always wish for radical Islam to not hate us and I am sure they will stop flying planes into our buildings killing Americans. Or we can give them everything they want and I am sure they will leave us alone. How do you feel converting to Islam?
 
Except my belief in their legitimacy doesn't hinge on the administration at the reigns. Your suspicions are based one exactly that :shrug:

Uh huh. We shall see in 2017 won't we.
 
No. You're over blowing this by trying to take away what i have already proven:
that big business is making unprecedented profits while not creating jobs. And you're are also over blowing this Affordable Care Act too when it comes to small businesses. Take note from Forbes:



By the way, it isn't the people's role to provide big businesses with tax cuts that they can undoubtedly afford, too. :roll:

Probably so that those workers can actually live in that state comfortably.

Your OPINIONS and the opinions of the people you keep linking too can be easilly refuted if you look local economies on a State level.

States with high debt burdens and high taxes are NOT the States that are producing growing economies and inturn new jobs.

Those are the States that are losing their residents and businesses to places like Texas.

If your generic left wing economic rhetoric where even marginally true, States like California and Michigan would have huge economic growth to show for it and wouldn't be dealing with hundreds of Billions in unfunded liabillities.

As far as the ACA NOT hurting Companies big or small ? Thats just unsupported Nonsense.

And no, some left wing economist whos writing for team Obama doesn't count as "proof ".

The ACA has had an enormous negative effect on our economy for the last 4 years, and will continue to drag this Obama economy down until at least 2016.
 
Wonder why it is that California which has among the highest cost of living in the nation doesn't have McDonald's paying its workers $16 per hour?
Because the people in California are not as crazy as those folks in N. Dakota when it comes to fracking, maybe? Maybe those folks in California do not wish to sell their state to desolation for present comforts? Seriously. You never read that Bloomberg article did you. The infrastructure alone is going to the dogs and crime is high.

Maybe you didn't like Bloomberg. Here, try ABC News

...The western North Dakota town of 18,000 people is the most expensive place in the United States for renters, according to a survey by Apartment Guide, an online website for apartment hunters.

A 700-square-foot, one-bedroom apartment costs an average of $2,394 a month. Those looking for a little more space could shell out $4,500 a month for a three-bedroom, three-bathroom apartment, according to the survey...
I would hope that considering all the costs of living Micky Ds would have to pay about somewhere close to twenty bucks an hour. How else could you live? :roll:
 
Because the people in California are not as crazy as those folks in N. Dakota when it comes to fracking, maybe? Maybe those folks in California do not wish to sell their state to desolation for present comforts? Seriously. You never read that Bloomberg article did you. The infrastructure alone is going to the dogs and crime is high.

Maybe you didn't like Bloomberg. Here, try ABC News

I would hope that considering all the costs of living Micky Ds would have to pay about somewhere close to twenty bucks an hour. How else could you live? :roll:

Yep, apparently the people in N. Dakota prefer jobs and a thriving economy to the economy created by the loony left, one made up of lies and distortions. You seem to believe that people in North Dakota don't like clean air, clean water, and support total destruction of their land which just goes to show how out of touch with reality liberals are. I don't need to read Bloomberg or anything from ABC news to sell me on free enterprise, capitalism, low cost of living generating a thriving economy and strong economic growth

Again, you have no concept of what makes for a high cost of living town or economy, try learning about supply and demand which is the first concept taught in economics. 1.5 million Californians live on $8 an hour and what do you think a one bedroom apartment costs in San Francisco or other parts of California.
 
Your OPINIONS and the opinions of the people you keep linking too can be easilly refuted if you look local economies on a State level.
That's cool. Go ahead and refute them. And they're not just people; (you say that like it's a blog or something. :roll: ) they're news agencies.

If your generic left wing economic rhetoric where even marginally true, States like California and Michigan would have huge economic growth to show for it and wouldn't be dealing with hundreds of Billions in unfunded liabillities.
They sure would if they had fracking going on.


As far as the ACA NOT hurting Companies big or small ? Thats just unsupported Nonsense.
I'm sorry that you didn't read the Forbes article. You and Conservative have a lot in common. ;)

And no, some left wing economist whos writing for team Obama doesn't count as "proof ".
Maybe you would like to bring in a "right-wing" economist? You have that right.

The ACA has had an enormous negative effect on our economy for the last 4 years, and will continue to drag this Obama economy down until at least 2016.
I can't read the Forbes article for you.
 
I don't need to read Bloomberg or anything from ABC news to sell me on free enterprise, capitalism, low cost of living generating a thriving economy and strong economic growth
Well I guess we have nothing else to discuss. Have a pleasant evening.
 
Well I guess we have nothing else to discuss. Have a pleasant evening.

Thank you, plan on doing just that. Just one last question why is it you still believe anything out of this Administration or articles that reference data coming from an organization that takes its information from a partisan Congress that created ACA and benefits from discouraged workers in the official unemployment numbers?

As for the higher cost of living in North Dakota, why is that a problem for you but not a problem for you in California where 1.5 plus million citizens make $8 and hour? Supply in demand, the high wages in N. Dakota will be attracting new housing and more competition which will drive down prices.
 
Because the people in California are not as crazy as those folks in N. Dakota when it comes to fracking, maybe? Maybe those folks in California do not wish to sell their state to desolation for present comforts? Seriously. You never read that Bloomberg article did you. The infrastructure alone is going to the dogs and crime is high.

Maybe you didn't like Bloomberg. Here, try ABC News

I would hope that considering all the costs of living Micky Ds would have to pay about somewhere close to twenty bucks an hour. How else could you live? :roll:

If you understood entrepreneurship you would realie what a great opportunity this might be to build apartment buildings, or other necessities in the service industry. If I were a younger man I'd be there in a heartbeat.
 
Thank you, plan on doing just that. Just one last question why is it you still believe anything out of this Administration or articles that reference data coming from an organization that takes its information from a partisan Congress that created ACA and benefits from discouraged workers in the official unemployment numbers?

As for the higher cost of living in North Dakota, why is that a problem for you but not a problem for you in California where 1.5 plus million citizens make $8 and hour? Supply in demand, the high wages in N. Dakota will be attracting new housing and more competition which will drive down prices.
First, those were two questions. Secondly, if I were to tell you why and eventually show you evidence in form of links, (Something of which you will not read.) I fear that we will both go on and on to nowhere and, I, too, wish to enjoy my evening also. So with that. Have a good night. ;)
 
If you understood entrepreneurship you would realie what a great opportunity this might be to build apartment buildings, or other necessities in the service industry. If I were a younger man I'd be there in a heartbeat.
You have a point but only if it was cleaning up after, and I would want that money in my hands beforehand. ;)
 
That's cool. Go ahead and refute them. And
they're not just people; (you say that like it's a blog or something. :roll: ) they're news agencies.

They sure would if they had fracking going on.


I'm sorry that you didn't read the Forbes article. You and Conservative have a lot in common. ;)

Maybe you would like to bring in a "right-wing" economist? You have that right.

I can't read the Forbes article for you.

That article is dated 2012, and it SPECULATING on ACA "benefits" that might effect small businesses and Corporations.

You're not very economically literate are you ?

A poll last year found that 42 percent of small businesses had put off hiring because of the ACA and 20 percent of Corporations and small Businesses polled said they have proactively reduced the number of employees because of the ACA.

In the same poll another 38 percent of businesses said they were holding back on expanding because of ObamaCare.

And Texas's Oil and Gas Industry only accounts for 10 Percent of the States GDP.

Plus California is the Nations 4th highest Oil Producer.

So you really dont knkw what your'e talking about.

You're just another low information left wing ideologue spreading disinformation and getting your ass handed to you in the process by Conservatives on a online Political Forum.
 
That article is dated 2012, and it SPECULATING on ACA "benefits" that might effect small businesses and Corporations.
I didn't see anything about it speculating the facts as when it was written and just because it was written in 2012, so what, big deal. Does it have an expiration date on it?

A poll last year found that 42 percent of small businesses had put off hiring because of the ACA and 20 percent of Corporations and small Businesses polled said they have proactively reduced the number of employees because of the ACA.

In the same poll another 38 percent of businesses said they were holding back on expanding because of ObamaCare.
Last year? OK. I guess you can only discuss old info, huh? Got the link to that?


Plus California is the Nations 4th highest Oil Producer.
I'll betcha they would be kicking butt with their economy if they wouldn't frown on fracking, huh. Good for CA. for telling those companies no.


You're just another low information left wing ideologue spreading disinformation and getting your ass handed to you in the process by Conservatives on a online Political Forum.
Except I do offer links when I discuss things. :2wave:
 
Bob N;1063123297]I didn't see anything about it speculating the facts as when it was written and just because it was written in 2012, so what, big deal. Does it have an expiration date on it?

When exactly did ACA go into effect and when did the employer mandate become effective?

Last year? OK. I guess you can only discuss old info, huh? Got the link to that?

BLS will give you employment data and we still have fewer people employed today than we had at the beginning of the recession. Why is that?


I'll betcha they would be kicking butt with their economy if they wouldn't frown on fracking, huh. Good for CA. for telling those companies no.

The last thing we want is to become energy self sufficient, right? Keep fueling our Middle East "friends" and become more dependent on foreign sources because people like you have a false impression of fracking? Why are you against job creation and strong economic growth?


Except I do offer links when I discuss things. :2wave:

Your links offer information that is based upon Congressional assumptions many of which have been changed by this President. Why should we believe those articles and ignore actual data like BLS.gov?
 
I didn't see anything about it speculating the facts as when it was written and just because it was written in 2012, so what, big deal. Does it have an expiration date on it?

Last year? OK. I guess you can only discuss old info, huh? Got the link to that?


I'll betcha they would be kicking butt with their economy if they wouldn't frown on fracking, huh. Good for CA. for telling those companies no.


Except I do offer links when I discuss things. :2wave:

I know you told me to have a good evening and don't want to continue this discussion but your comments show someone who really has no business experience at all and never actually hired anyone. Do you have any idea what it costs to hire an employee, to train an employee, and to actually employ the employee or the regulations required for that employee? Business owners cannot print cash and have their own money invested in their business thus aren't going to hire anyone until they know the costs associated with ACA and other govt. regulations including the potential for higher income taxes due to Obama's wealth redistribution program.

How about it, why would anyone hire under this uncertainty and these economic conditions?
 
Here is what the liberals want to ignore and want the public to forget

Employment numbers

And, we have added 11 million souls to the US population since 2008.
 
Last edited:
I didn't see anything about it speculating the
facts as when it was written and just because it was written in 2012, so what, big deal. Does it have an expiration date on it?

Last year? OK. I guess you can only discuss old info, huh? Got the link to that?


I'll betcha they would be kicking butt with their economy if they wouldn't frown on fracking, huh. Good for CA. for telling those companies no.


Except I do offer links when I discuss things. :2wave:

All you have apparently is your one 2012 article thats discusses possible future " benefits " of the ACA, which apparently is more relevent than a 2013 Poll that showed exactly how the ACA was affecting business prior to its full implementation.

42 percent of them admitted to putting off new hiring, and 20 percent of them had already laid people off because of ObamaCare.

Thr current state of the Obama economy should be enough to convince any intelligent person that the Democrats are absolutely in over their heads and that the ACA is continuing to have a terrible impact on our economy.

I'm guessing you've decided to blame this extended recession on something thats completley disconnected from reality.
Only because a objective analysis of the economy contradicts your political lean.

Thats pretty pathetic and childish if you ask me.
 
All you have apparently is your one 2012 article thats discusses possible future " benefits " of the ACA, which apparently is more relevent than a 2013 Poll that showed exactly how the ACA was affecting business prior to its full implementation.

42 percent of them admitted to putting off new hiring, and 20 percent of them had already laid people off because of ObamaCare.

Thr current state of the Obama economy should be enough to convince any intelligent person that the Democrats are absolutely in over their heads and that the ACA is continuing to have a terrible impact on our economy.

I'm guessing you've decided to blame this extended recession on something thats completley disconnected from reality.
Only because a objective analysis of the economy contradicts your political lean.

Thats pretty pathetic and childish if you ask me.
And you still have your usual political bravado, useless chiding and no link.
 
And you still have your usual political bravado, useless chiding and no link.

Would any Obama supporter explain to the group why any small business that cannot print money and have put their own money into their business hire any workers in today's environment and with an Administration that doesn't understand the private business sector? The costs of hiring and potentially firing people is just too great to invest in new employees with the burden of ACA and higher taxes on the horizon. Payroll expense is the largest single operating expense a business has and the uncertainty as to the cost of ACA as well as govt. demand for more tax revenue is just too big of a risk to hire people for a small business.
 
And you still have your usual political bravado, useless chiding and no link.

Why do you require a link to show that increasing direct labor costs, via PPACA mandates, would have a negative affect on hiring? Why do you suppose that Obama decided to postpone the employer mandate since it was "the law of the land", would promote more hiring and was good for the economy? Paying more for direct labor costs while not getting any increase in production from it does not make good business sense.
 
Why do you require a link to show that increasing direct labor costs, via PPACA mandates, would have a negative affect on hiring?

Because it's not fact

Why do you suppose that Obama decided to postpone the employer mandate since it was "the law of the land", would promote more hiring and was good for the economy?

The employer mandate was not postponed. Only the reporting requirements were postponed, which makes it impossible to determine who is adhering to the mandate.

Paying more for direct labor costs while not getting any increase in production from it does not make good business sense.

Not a fact
 
Because it's not fact



The employer mandate was not postponed. Only the reporting requirements were postponed, which makes it impossible to determine who is adhering to the mandate.



Not a fact

How exactly do you know it isn't a fact? How many lies does this Administration have to tell your or how many inaccurate estimates does the CBO have to give before you stop believing what you are told and do your own DD? How many changes has Obama made to the Congressional Law passed and how accurate has his predictions been? Why should any business believe what they are being told by this Administration. Don't expect an answer but have to ask?
 
How exactly do you know it isn't a fact? How many lies does this Administration have to tell your or how many inaccurate estimates does the CBO have to give before you stop believing what you are told and do your own DD? How many changes has Obama made to the Congressional Law passed and how accurate has his predictions been? Why should any business believe what they are being told by this Administration. Don't expect an answer but have to ask?

Pelosi and the other Dems are now on record saying that the employer madate will not be postponed again, like it was just postponed recently:


Democrats fought back Sunday against claims from a former Obama aide that the White House might delay Obamacare’s employer mandate.

House Minority Leader Rep. Nancy Pelosi called the mandate, which requires businesses with between 50 and 100 employees to provide health insurance for workers or face a penalty, “integral.”


and later in the article:


The comments come after former White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs claimed that the mandate, which has already been delayed twice, would be “one of the first things to go,” as different facets of Obama’s signature health care law continued to run into hurdles.

“I don’t think the employer mandate will go into effect. It’s a small part of the law,” Gibbs told a trade group during a speech last week



Time will tell how honest they're being.

Democrats say White House won
 
Pelosi and the other Dems are now on record saying that the employer madate will not be postponed again, like it was just postponed recently:


Democrats fought back Sunday against claims from a former Obama aide that the White House might delay Obamacare’s employer mandate.

House Minority Leader Rep. Nancy Pelosi called the mandate, which requires businesses with between 50 and 100 employees to provide health insurance for workers or face a penalty, “integral.”


and later in the article:


The comments come after former White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs claimed that the mandate, which has already been delayed twice, would be “one of the first things to go,” as different facets of Obama’s signature health care law continued to run into hurdles.

“I don’t think the employer mandate will go into effect. It’s a small part of the law,” Gibbs told a trade group during a speech last week



Time will tell how honest they're being.

Democrats say White House won

want to wager on the accuracy of their report? What liberals want to ignore is that this Administration is always the first to tout success and the last to be forthcoming on failures. They are misleading the American people on ACA just like they are taking credit for an unemployment rate and number distorted because of the high numbers of discouraged workers. In Spite of the request to tell us how discouraged workers affect the unemployment rate I will answer the question, the discouraged results distort the official unemployment rate because they aren't counted in the official number
 
Back
Top Bottom