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

Conservative · Apr 10, 2014

Slyfox696 said:
I want a smaller military payout, no wars and higher taxes. Different situations are different.

But I do. You just won't accept it because you won't accept any narrative which doesn't paint the Democrat is a bad light. You're playing team politics.

Of course you do because you never question how the govt. spends your money, it is always throw more money at the issue never getting an explanation of where the money went in the first place.

You let ideology trump reality. I grew up a Democrat, bet I have voted for more Democrats than you have voted Republican and still do when the alternative is better in local elections. Will never vote for a Democrat with a resume like Obama and I have been proven right. You continue to buy the rhetoric and ignore the results, lowering your standards to justify what Obama has done.

You don't know the role of the Federal Govt. which is to PROVIDE for the Common Defense and that means the military. It is the role of the state and local government to handle social issues. Your decisions have helped lead to the poor results we have today and the incompetent we have in the WH

Slyfox696 · Apr 10, 2014

Conservative said:
Of course you do because you never question how the govt. spends your money, it is always throw more money at the issue never getting an explanation of where the money went in the first place.

You completely missed the point. Different situations are different. This is important to understand.

I grew up a Democrat, bet I have voted for more Democrats than you have voted Republican

But I bet you didn't vote for people who champion what modern day Democrats champion. In fact, I'm fairly certain you've said that before (your party left you, is the wording I believe you use).

I don't care what letter is behind a person's name. I'll vote for whomever presents the best plan. I voted for several Republicans in the local 2012 election.

You don't know the role of the Federal Govt. which is to PROVIDE for the Common Defense and that means the military.

And right after the common defense, the preamble says "promote the general Welfare". Cherry-picking from something so famous is not a good idea.

Your decisions have helped lead to the poor results we have today and the incompetent we have in the WH

Once more, this is useless partisan rhetoric. One of these days, I can't help but think you'll drop the act and discuss something legitimately.

Conservative · Apr 10, 2014

Slyfox696;1063138292]You completely missed the point. Different situations are different. This is important to understand.

No, I didn't miss the point at all, you never question the amount of money the govt. spends or why Obama proposed a 3.9 trillion dollar budget. All you care about is raising taxes not getting efficient use of the money that has been spent in the past. Politicians buy votes with their spending and that has led to the problems we have today.

But I bet you didn't vote for people who champion what modern day Democrats champion. In fact, I'm fairly certain you've said that before (your party left you, is the wording I believe you use).

You are right, I don't buy anything today's Democrat Party champions because they are promoting the nanny state and that isn't the role of the Federal Govt. That is the role of the state and local governments because they are closer to the people. This country was built on neighbor helping neighbor and not that neighbor being the Federal Govt. Social programs are not the role of the Federal bureaucracy and until you realize that you are always going to get the terrible results we have today, high debt, high dependence, and lack of initiative.

I don't care what letter is behind a person's name. I'll vote for whomever presents the best plan. I voted for several Republicans in the local 2012 election.

Could have fooled me. Tell me why you voted to re-elect Obama? What did Obama do that warrants a second term?

And right after the common defense, the preamble says "promote the general Welfare". Cherry-picking from something so famous is not a good idea.

Unlike you I understand the definition of PROVIDE and PROMOTE. You believe promoting means the Federal Govt. providing and that isn't promoting at all. The responsibility of the Federal Govt. is to get the private sector, state, and local communities to create an atmosphere that creates economic growth, jobs, and actually helps people who need it. It is the teaching people how to fish philosophy, not providing them with the fish.

Once more, this is useless partisan rhetoric. One of these days, I can't help but think you'll drop the act and discuss something legitimately.

I understand how the truth hurts but all your spending in the name of compassion has generated record numbers dependent on the Federal govt. and all that has done is increase the debt. When you have over 60% of the budget in entitlement spending that creates a lot of debt and spending without the revenue to pay for it. Time to get those people off dependence and the Federal Govt. or today's Democrat party isn't going to do that. Without dependence there wouldn't be any liberals. Liberals keep their power by making people dependent and those actually paying taxes are the ones that pay the bill.

Slyfox696 · Apr 10, 2014

Conservative said:
No, I didn't miss the point at all, you never question the amount of money the govt. spends or why Obama proposed a 3.9 trillion dollar budget. All you care about is raising taxes not getting efficient use of the money that has been spent in the past. Politicians buy votes with their spending and that has led to the problems we have today.

Your paragraph here clearly shows you missed the point. You claim you didn't, and then go off about something I wasn't talking about. You missed the point.

You are right, I don't buy anything today's Democrat Party champions

Which destroys the image you were promoting. The names may have changed, but what you voted for did not.

Could have fooled me. Tell me why you voted to re-elect Obama? What did Obama do that warrants a second term?

Good try, but we both know I've explained this to you before. You're trying to divert the discussion into another topic so you can regurgitate the same things you always say.

At the end of the day, you cannot deny facts. Obama wasn't elected until January 2009 and the negative effects of the recession didn't end until 2010. Since then, we have regained every private sector job lost and have continued adding jobs for 49 straight months. We've reduced our deficit by half and we're pulling or have pulled most of our forces from places most Americans no longer want to be. Those are just the facts.

The responsibility of the Federal Govt. is to get the private sector, state, and local communities to create an atmosphere that creates economic growth, jobs, and actually helps people who need it.

And under Obama's policies, we have now regained every private sector job lost because of the recession.

You can dance around it all you want, it won't go away.

I understand how the truth hurts but all your spending in the name of compassion has generated record numbers dependent on the Federal govt.

Yes, how dare all of those old people get old! :roll:

and all that has done is increase the debt.

Our deficit has decreased by roughly half from what Obama inherited.

Time to get those people off dependence

Yes, we need to tell my 80 year old grandfather who spent over 30 years in education to get off his lazy backside and go to work.

Conservative · Apr 10, 2014

Slyfox696;1063138401]Your paragraph here clearly shows you missed the point. You claim you didn't, and then go off about something I wasn't talking about. You missed the point.

no, I didn't the point, maybe the point you wanted to focus on wasn't clearly stated but I responded. It is about all the spending and never getting the compassionate results from that spending and you never questioning what Obama or any Democrat requests

Which destroys the image you were promoting. The names may have changed, but what you voted for did not.

Not at all, I probably give more to charity than you make in a year and that is money that I control vs. giving it to a bureaucrat to spend it for me after taking their Admin costs. GW Bush never had a 3.9 trillion dollar budget

Good try, but we both know I've explained this to you before. You're trying to divert the discussion into another topic so you can regurgitate the same things you always say.

Sorry, but that is the issue, you voted for someone because of the rhetoric whereas the results didn't matter and then you lower your standards to accept terrible results. 6.7 trillion added to th e debt to get back to where we were before the recession is terrible and to accept the fact that we aren't any better off today than 7 years ago says a lot about you

At the end of the day, you cannot deny facts. Obama wasn't elected until January 2009 and the negative effects of the recession didn't end until 2010. Since then, we have regained every private sector job lost and have continued adding jobs for 49 straight months. We've reduced our deficit by half and we're pulling or have pulled most of our forces from places most Americans no longer want to be. Those are just the facts.

See what I mean, you buy what you are told and have no concept of leadership. Check out Reagan's results 4 years after the end of a worse recession than we had this time around. You weren't around, I was, and you really have no idea what high inflation, high interest rates, and high unemployment do to the moral of the American people as well as the economy

And under Obama's policies, we have now regained every private sector job lost because of the recession.

You can dance around it all you want, it won't go away.

Not dancing at all, what was the population growth between December 2007 and March 2014, how about the labor force. how many were discouraged and not counted. You want badly to believe your ideology works but it is an economic disaster and one that is based strictly on thinking only with your heart

Yes, how dare all of those old people get old! :roll:

How dare the Federal Govt. spend the money people contributed to SS and Medicare on issues other than Medicare and SS. How dare people like you ignore the fact that the families of those people who die before collecting SS and Medicare lose their contributions. How dare personal responsibility be something you don't understand

Our deficit has decreased by roughly half from what Obama inherited.

LOL, again, you ignore that the deficit was at record levels over a trillion dollars a year so cutting it in half still generates record deficits and adds to the debt. Wow, really? This is how you think?

Yes, we need to tell my 80 year old grandfather who spent over 30 years in education to get off his lazy backside and go to work.

Emotional rhetoric that has nothing to do with the topic. People who contributed to SS and Medicare deserve to have their investment back. The best you can do is focus on something that isn't really the issue at all just to justify liberal failures. Your grandfather ought to be upset with the unions and the govt. for wasting his money

danielpalos · Apr 10, 2014

Conservative said:
Of course you do because you never question how the govt. spends your money, it is always throw more money at the issue never getting an explanation of where the money went in the first place.

You let ideology trump reality. I grew up a Democrat, bet I have voted for more Democrats than you have voted Republican and still do when the alternative is better in local elections. Will never vote for a Democrat with a resume like Obama and I have been proven right. You continue to buy the rhetoric and ignore the results, lowering your standards to justify what Obama has done.

You don't know the role of the Federal Govt. which is to PROVIDE for the Common Defense and that means the military. It is the role of the state and local government to handle social issues. Your decisions have helped lead to the poor results we have today and the incompetent we have in the WH

Providing for the general welfare is delegated as well. Since supply side economics is supposed to be supplying us with better governance at lower cost; I believe we should give our President a mandate regarding fixing a new Standard in Faith concerning a federal doctrine and State laws regarding the concept of employment at will.

Conservative · Apr 10, 2014

danielpalos said:
Providing for the general welfare is delegated as well. Since supply side economics is supposed to be supplying us with better governance at lower cost; I believe we should give our President a mandate regarding fixing a new Standard in Faith concerning a federal doctrine and State laws regarding the concept of employment at will.

Only in the liberal world is a 3.9 trillion dollar budget governance at a lower cost. The President had a mandate in 2009-2010 with total Democrat control of the Congress. He implemented a "shovel ready" Jobs program at a cost of 842 billion dollars, recycled the TARP repayments, and when both failed he went on to Obamacare. that is true incompetence

danielpalos · Apr 10, 2014

Conservative said:
Only in the liberal world is a 3.9 trillion dollar budget governance at a lower cost. The President had a mandate in 2009-2010 with total Democrat control of the Congress. He implemented a "shovel ready" Jobs program at a cost of 842 billion dollars, recycled the TARP repayments, and when both failed he went on to Obamacare. that is true incompetence

the republicans still don't have anything better. why not solve simple poverty in our republic, with existing infrastructure?

Conservative · Apr 10, 2014

danielpalos said:
the republicans still don't have anything better. why not solve simple poverty in our republic, with existing infrastructure?

Do you have a solution? You don't seem to understand personal responsibility or the free enterprise, capitalistic economy we have. I suggest a basic economics as well as civics course. Just for your information I am 67 years old, ran a 200 million dollar business, had over 1200 employees, offered full insurance, promoted from within, and never paid anything close to minimum wage.

danielpalos · Apr 10, 2014

Conservative said:
Do you have a solution? You don't seem to understand personal responsibility or the free enterprise, capitalistic economy we have. I suggest a basic economics as well as civics course. Just for your information I am 67 years old, ran a 200 million dollar business, had over 1200 employees, offered full insurance, promoted from within, and never paid anything close to minimum wage.

why not solve simple poverty in our republic, with existing infrastructure?

pbrauer · Apr 10, 2014

Conservative said:
Do you have a solution? You don't seem to understand personal responsibility or the free enterprise, capitalistic economy we have. I suggest a basic economics as well as civics course. Just for your information I am 67 years old, ran a 200 million dollar business, had over 1200 employees, offered full insurance, promoted from within, and never paid anything close to minimum wage.

Was that the Little Whore House in Texas you ran, Con? :lamo

Conservative · Apr 10, 2014

danielpalos said:
why not solve simple poverty in our republic, with existing infrastructure?

And how exactly do you do that, do you mandate what people spend, what they eat, where they live, their individual profit demands?

Conservative · Apr 10, 2014

pbrauer said:
Was that the Little Whore House in Texas you ran, Con? :lamo

Sometimes I thought it might be but doubt that was a 200 million a year business. It was big but not that big

danielpalos · Apr 10, 2014

Conservative said:
And how exactly do you do that, do you mandate what people spend, what they eat, where they live, their individual profit demands?

Nope; by using socialism to bailout capitalism, like usual.

Conservative · Apr 10, 2014

danielpalos said:
Nope; by using socialism to bailout capitalism, like usual.

So you believe destroying incentive by redistribution of wealth and control of production is the way to improve quality and generates incentive to be innovative, creative, and take risk to develop new products and services? You really don't seem to understand capitalism at all. I suggest a history course added to your economics and civics courses.

danielpalos · Apr 10, 2014

Conservative said:
So you believe destroying incentive by redistribution of wealth and control of production is the way to improve quality and generates incentive to be innovative, creative, and take risk to develop new products and services? You really don't seem to understand capitalism at all. I suggest a history course added to your economics and civics courses.

I am not sure what you mean. I believe supply side economics should be supplying us with better governance at lower cost. We already have the infrastructure in place in our republic.

Conservative · Apr 10, 2014

danielpalos said:
I am not sure what you mean. I believe supply side economics should be supplying us with better governance at lower cost. We already have the infrastructure in place in our republic.

Supply side economics has nothing to do with the governance we have, ignorance is generating that governance. Socialism isn't the answer unless you want to stifle creativity, innovation, incentive, and exceptionalism. The problem with our governance today is the 24/7 news cycle and National Enquirer mentality.

danielpalos · Apr 10, 2014

Conservative said:
Supply side economics has nothing to do with the governance we have, ignorance is generating that governance. Socialism isn't the answer unless you want to stifle creativity, innovation, incentive, and exceptionalism. The problem with our governance today is the 24/7 news cycle and National Enquirer mentality.

Yes, it does. It has to do with better governance at lower cost; else, why complain about taxes. Socialism has always been the answer--the proof is that it is custom and habit to bailout Capitalism with it.

JRSaindo · Apr 11, 2014

danielpalos said:
Yes, it does. It has to do with better governance at lower cost; else, why complain about taxes. Socialism has always been the answer--the proof is that it is custom and habit to bailout Capitalism with it.

Name one program or venture the gov't touched that resulted in lower costs? Or better governance.....WTF are you talking about? Capitalism and bailout don't belong together. If you fail, you deserve to fail, not be propped up to waste more money. Has the FED or banking sector learned from 2008? Nope, they are still operating like business as usual.

danielpalos · Apr 11, 2014

JRSaindo said:
Name one program or venture the gov't touched that resulted in lower costs? Or better governance.....WTF are you talking about? Capitalism and bailout don't belong together. If you fail, you deserve to fail, not be propped up to waste more money. Has the FED or banking sector learned from 2008? Nope, they are still operating like business as usual.

Simply appealing to ignorance is no way to inspire any confidence in your sincerity. Did you know that corporate welfare even pays multi-million dollar bonuses?

Conservative · Apr 11, 2014

danielpalos said:
Simply appealing to ignorance is no way to inspire any confidence in your sincerity. Did you know that corporate welfare even pays multi-million dollar bonuses?

Do you realize that the so called "Corporate welfare" doesn't cost you a dime nor any taxpayer? You don't seem to understand the difference between tax dollars and private industry dollars. With all due respect, how old are you? You usually only find young people promoting socialism whereas those of us older understand socialism and want no part of it. This country wasn't built on socialism and as has been pointed out to you bailouts aren't or shouldn't be part of capitalism. Failure is a part of life and if you fail there are or should be consequences for failure. When you bail someone out they learn nothing and will continue to make the same mistakes over and over again.

danielpalos · Apr 11, 2014

Conservative said:
Do you realize that the so called "Corporate welfare" doesn't cost you a dime nor any taxpayer? You don't seem to understand the difference between tax dollars and private industry dollars. With all due respect, how old are you? You usually only find young people promoting socialism whereas those of us older understand socialism and want no part of it. This country wasn't built on socialism and as has been pointed out to you bailouts aren't or shouldn't be part of capitalism. Failure is a part of life and if you fail there are or should be consequences for failure. When you bail someone out they learn nothing and will continue to make the same mistakes over and over again.

Income transfers are income transfers when it comes to welfare.

Slyfox696 · Apr 11, 2014

Conservative said:
no, I didn't the point, maybe the point you wanted to focus on wasn't clearly stated but I responded.

Yes, and your response missed the point. Different situations are different. I've said it many times now.

Not at all, I probably give more to charity than you make in a year

:lamo

So? What does that have to do with you trying to project a false image of yourself being an open minded voter? It's not hard to stay on topic, at least not if you have a salient point.

Sorry, but that is the issue, you voted for someone because of the rhetoric whereas the results didn't matter and then you lower your standards to accept terrible results. 6.7 trillion added to th e debt to get back to where we were before the recession is terrible and to accept the fact that we aren't any better off today than 7 years ago says a lot about you

See what I mean, you buy what you are told and have no concept of leadership. Check out Reagan's results 4 years after the end of a worse recession than we had this time around. You weren't around, I was, and you really have no idea what high inflation, high interest rates, and high unemployment do to the moral of the American people as well as the economy

And here you are proving me right about your copy and paste job, regurgitating the same disproven rhetoric time and again. Keep dancing.

How dare the Federal Govt. spend the money people contributed to SS and Medicare on issues other than Medicare and SS.

How dare the government allow that money to sit and fall prey to inflation? Do you even understand the basics behind how SS works?

How dare people like you ignore the fact that the families of those people who die before collecting SS and Medicare lose their contributions.

Social Security is not a retirement fund. How dare you not understand what you're talking about when you criticize?

How dare personal responsibility be something you don't understand

I cannot begin to tell you how hard I laughed when you're criticizing me for not understanding, immediately after showing a lack of understanding of Social Security.

At the end of the day, "entitlement spending" is increasing as the Baby Boomers continue to grow older. It's going to continue to increase for the foreseeable future. So unless you're advocating for my 80 year old grandfather to get off his lazy butt and go back to work, your comment of "spending in the name of compassion has generated record numbers dependent on the Federal govt" doesn't mean much.

LOL, again, you ignore that the deficit was at record levels over a trillion dollars a year

I didn't ignore that at all. I specifically said Obama INHERITED the $1.2 trillion in deficits and has since cut it in half. Could you please take more time to read before you respond?

so cutting it in half still generates record deficits and adds to the debt.

Logically speaking, how does cutting deficit in half generate record deficit? Just by sheer mathematics, that doesn't make sense.

Wow, really? This is how you think?

Yes, I think facts are important. The CBO projected a $1.2 trillion deficit in January 2009, before Obama even took office. Roughly 5 years later, the deficit was about half of that $1.2 trillion deficit Obama inherited. And while we've cut the deficit in half, we've also recovered every private sector job lost.

All under Obama. You should be thanking the man.

Emotional rhetoric that has nothing to do with the topic.

It has everything to do with the topic, because those are the type of people you call dependent on the federal government.

[qutoe]People who contributed to SS and Medicare deserve to have their investment back. [/quote]Social Security is not an investment. You clearly don't understand how Social Security works. Please research Social Security.

The best you can do is focus on something that isn't really the issue at all

Everything I've said has exactly been the issue. Different situations are different (comparing Obama and Reagan recessions, which you still don't understand). Dependency is, in large part, due to people retiring. The policies of Obama have been in effect while we've recovered every private sector job lost and cut the deficit Obama inherited in half. Social Security is not a retirement plan.

Everything I've said has been on topic. You just need to understand things a little better, it does appear.

Conservative · Apr 11, 2014

danielpalos said:
Income transfers are income transfers when it comes to welfare.

No they aren't, you really don't understand the private sector economy at all. How does any company that you don't purchase from affect you and your family? You choose where to spend your money, not so with taxes and the govt. They collect it and spend it for you.

danielpalos · Apr 11, 2014

Conservative said:
No they aren't, you really don't understand the private sector economy at all. How does any company that you don't purchase from affect you and your family? You choose where to spend your money, not so with taxes and the govt. They collect it and spend it for you.

A bailout is a bailout.