• 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. Deficit Decline to 2.8% of GDP Is Unprecedented Turn

Ockham said:
If revenues are up, it's despite the current administrations policies not because of them. A little reminder - this is the "cash for clunkers" and "shovel ready jobs" administration.
Click to expand...

Plus they have a D after their name. Whenever you bring home a D, your parents aren't likely to be happy. Letters matter, you know.
 
Kushinator said:
You can always tell the weakness of ones position when they have to tout CBO projections.
Click to expand...

on the one hand, I agree that static analysis is deeply inherently flawed, on the other:

5269558397_64406aeb94_z.jpg
 
Ockham said:
So you say, but then you fail to demonstrate by action.
Click to expand...
I haven't done anything in this thread but point out the ridiculous nature of your posts. The failure in your posts is nearly overwhelming at times.
Ockham said:
If revenues are up, it's despite the current administrations policies not because of them.
Click to expand...
But when they go down, it's entirely because of the administration's policies, right? Unless it's good they go down, then it had nothing to do with the administration's policies.

People like you are just too predictable. You make me laugh so much.
 
jonny5 said:
Because there is no causation there. And the main indicator, GDP growth, is still slow.
Click to expand...

A President does not have to cause results for them to occur during their administration. Your issue is purely partisan; lacking any and all substance.
 
jonny5 said:
Because there is no causation there. And the main indicator, GDP growth, is still slow.
Click to expand...

It was slow, but not so much right now. The past two quarters it's been above it's historic rate. There's never been a time in history, until now, that anyone ever called 4% growth "slow".
 
imagep said:
It was slow, but not so much right now. The past two quarters it's been above it's historic rate. There's never been a time in history, until now, that anyone ever called 4% growth "slow".
Click to expand...

You do realize that is a quarterly rate annualized?
 
Conservative said:
You do realize that is a quarterly rate annualized?
Click to expand...


Yes, but I guess I should have made that more clear. So you don't think that an annual GDP rate of growth of around 4% is good? It's only averaged 2.8% during my lifetime.
 
imagep said:
Yes, but I guess I should have made that more clear. So you don't think that an annual GDP rate of growth of around 4% is good? It's only averaged 2.8% during my lifetime.
Click to expand...

According to liberals Obama inherited the worst recession since the Great Depression so yes this recovery isn't enough to put people back to work and that makes it a disaster especially with over 7 trillion added to the debt and lost shovels for shovel ready jobs.
 
Conservative said:
According to liberals Obama inherited the worst recession since the Great Depression so yes this recovery isn't enough to put people back to work and that makes it a disaster especially with over 7 trillion added to the debt and lost shovels for shovel ready jobs.
Click to expand...

Based upon what I read in the papers, we have created enough new jobs during the recovery to more than offset every job lost during the Great Bush Recession. Is this not factual? Or are you saying that "Obama is cooking the books"?
 
imagep said:
Based upon what I read in the papers, we have created enough new jobs during the recovery to more than offset every job lost during the Great Bush Recession. Is this not factual? Or are you saying that "Obama is cooking the books"?
Click to expand...

When the recession began there were 146.6 million working Americans, today 7 years later there are 147.2 million. Is that what you call a success? Now since you call it the Bush recession please tell me what the Democrat Controlled Congress did from January 2007 to January 2011? Hard to believe there wasn't any population growth but from what I have read many of those jobs created during this Obama recovery are part time jobs. Is that not factual?
 
Conservative said:
When the recession began there were 146.6 million working Americans, today 7 years later there are 147.2 million. Is that what you call a success?
Click to expand...
When it dropped down to 138 million? Sure, that's a success. Not a great success, perhaps, but considering that fewer people want to work now than pre-recession, I'll call it a success.
 
pinqy said:
When it dropped down to 138 million? Sure, that's a success. Not a great success, perhaps, but considering that fewer people want to work now than pre-recession, I'll call it a success.
Click to expand...

Yep, that would be a liberal success. Guess those shovels never got to those shovel ready jobs as promised? Just another broken Obama promise? Obama took office with 142 million working Americans. Guess maybe the stimulus was sold to "stupid voters" as well. what do you think?
 
Conservative said:
Yep, that would be a liberal success. Guess those shovels never got to those shovel ready jobs as promised? Just another broken Obama promise? Obama took office with 142 million working Americans. Guess maybe the stimulus was sold to "stupid voters" as well. what do you think?
Click to expand...

Nit-picking but they're not all Americans. The survey doesn't ask about citizenship, only country of birth.

Obama took office about halfway through the main jobs loss. It's complete speculation (on both sides) as to whether Obama's policies made things better or whether things got better despite him. But 147 million up from 138 million in just under 5 years? Slow, but clearly an improvement.
 
Conservative said:
When the recession began there were 146.6 million working Americans, today 7 years later there are 147.2 million. Is that what you call a success?
Click to expand...

Would it have been more of a success if we hadn't have replaced all those jobs we lost during the recession?

Now since you call it the Bush recession please tell me what the Democrat Controlled Congress did from January 2007 to January 2011? Hard to believe there wasn't any population growth but from what I have read many of those jobs created during this Obama recovery are part time jobs. Is that not factual?
Click to expand...

If you blame Obama for the job losses and weak economy during the recovery from the recession, then it's fair enough to blame Bush for the recession since it started on his watch and the majority of it was on his watch. In reality, and in all fairness, I think you and I both know that presidents don't really cause every event that happens in the world, they just happen to be president when those events happen, so we attribute those events to them. It just happened on their watch.
 
pinqy said:
Nit-picking but they're not all Americans. The survey doesn't ask about citizenship, only country of birth.

Obama took office about halfway through the main jobs loss. It's complete speculation (on both sides) as to whether Obama's policies made things better or whether things got better despite him. But 147 million up from 138 million in just under 5 years? Slow, but clearly an improvement.
Click to expand...

Why would you measure success from the low point in the recession and not when the recession began? Also as has been pointed out a great number of jobs created are part time jobs for people looking for full time jobs. Seems to me that you have very low standards. Compare this to the Reagan term if you truly want to see the difference, numbers when the recession began would be a better measurement of success. Further it does seem that the electorate doesn't give Obama much credit these days
 
imagep said:
Would it have been more of a success if we hadn't have replaced all those jobs we lost during the recession?



If you blame Obama for the job losses and weak economy during the recovery from the recession, then it's fair enough to blame Bush for the recession since it started on his watch and the majority of it was on his watch. In reality, and in all fairness, I think you and I both know that presidents don't really cause every event that happens in the world, they just happen to be president when those events happen, so we attribute those events to them. It just happened on their watch.
Click to expand...

The recession ended in June 2009 and the stimulus was passed and signed in February 2009. You want to give Obama credit but no responsibility for the very poor recovery and the lies again about shovel ready jobs.
 
Conservative said:
Yep, that would be a liberal success. Guess those shovels never got to those shovel ready jobs as promised? Just another broken Obama promise? Obama took office with 142 million working Americans. Guess maybe the stimulus was sold to "stupid voters" as well. what do you think?
Click to expand...

Some did, some didn't. I agree that it was a leadership failure, at all levels, including states that refused to take the money, and local leaders who couldn't manage the projects.

And while correlation doesn't prove causation, it's interesting to note that the recession officially ended just three months into the Obama presidency, and during the same month that the spendulous bill was signed into law. The job recovery started just a few months after that. So there is no way that you can prove that the stimulous bill didn't help, it obviously did. The only real question here is if it was the best way to stimulate our economy, and if it was worth the cost.

No president, regardless of party, would have allowed the economic situation to continue going down the drain, without attempting some sort of stimulous. Maybe a different president could have done a better job, that's highly likely, but it's also possible that they could have done a worse job. I'm not particularly a fan of the spendulous bill, I think it was poorly constructed, and even more poorly implemented.
 
imagep said:
Some did, some didn't. I agree that it was a leadership failure, at all levels, including states that refused to take the money, and local leaders who couldn't manage the projects.

And while correlation doesn't prove causation, it's interesting to note that the recession officially ended just three months into the Obama presidency, and during the same month that the spendulous bill was signed into law. The job recovery started just a few months after that. So there is no way that you can prove that the stimulous bill didn't help, it obviously did. The only real question here is if it was the best way to stimulate our economy, and if it was worth the cost.

No president, regardless of party, would have allowed the economic situation to continue going down the drain, without attempting some sort of stimulous. Maybe a different president could have done a better job, that's highly likely, but it's also possible that they could have done a worse job. I'm not particularly a fan of the spendulous bill, I think it was poorly constructed, and even more poorly implemented.
Click to expand...

Here is the problem that liberals don't want to address and in part why Obama's JAR is so low and why he got destroyed last Tuesday. The American electorate just doesn't doesn't see it your way. Between discouraged workers, under employed, and stagnant wages Obama is getting the credit he deserves.


Labor Force Statistics from the Current Population Survey
Original Data Value

Series Id: LNU05026645
Not Seasonally Adjusted
Series title: (Unadj) Not in Labor Force, Searched For Work and Available, Discouraged Reasons For Not Currently Looking
Labor force status: Not in labor force
Type of data: Number in thousands
Age: 16 years and over
Job desires/not in labor force: Want a job now
Reasons not in labor force: Discouragement over job prospects (Persons who believe no job is available.)
Years: 2004 to 2014

Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Annual
2004 432 484 514 492 476 478 504 534 412 429 392 442 466
2005 515 485 480 393 392 476 499 384 362 392 404 451 436
2006 396 386 451 381 323 481 428 448 325 331 349 274 381
2007 442 375 381 399 368 401 367 392 276 320 349 363 369
2008 467 396 401 412 400 420 461 381 467 484 608 642 462
2009 734 731 685 740 792 793 796 758 706 808 861 929 778
2010 1065 1204 994 1197 1083 1207 1185 1110 1209 1219 1282 1318 1173
2011 993 1020 921 989 822 982 1119 977 1037 967 1096 945 989
2012 1059 1006 865 968 830 821 852 844 802 813 979 1068 909
2013 804 885 803 835 780 1027 988 866 852 815 762 917 861
2014 837 755 698 783 697 676 741 775 698 770
Click to expand...
 
Conservative said:
Why would you measure success from the low point in the recession and not when the recession began?
Click to expand...
If you fell down 10 steps, and then walked up 6 of them, would you say you've just walked up 6 steps or that you walked up -4 steps? And when you got back to the top, would you say you hadn't walked up any steps at all?

Also as has been pointed out a great number of jobs created are part time jobs for people looking for full time jobs.
Click to expand...
That number did go way up, but has leveled off since 2011. Hasn't really improved, but hasn't gotten worse.
Seems to me that you have very low standards. Compare this to the Reagan term if you truly want to see the difference, numbers when the recession began would be a better measurement of success. Further it does seem that the electorate doesn't give Obama much credit these days
Click to expand...
Let's compare part time for economic reasons, couldn't find full time work.
fredgraph.png
 
pinqy said:
If you fell down 10 steps, and then walked up 6 of them, would you say you've just walked up 6 steps or that you walked up -4 steps? And when you got back to the top, would you say you hadn't walked up any steps at all?

That number did go way up, but has leveled off since 2011. Hasn't really improved, but hasn't gotten worse.

Let's compare part time for economic reasons, couldn't find full time work.
fredgraph.png
Click to expand...

I see nothing here that would indicate that the electorate didn't understand the Obama economic results. This has been a terrible recovery and since Obama was elected he lost 12% of his support from his own base going from 53% to 41% JAR. He lost 4 million votes in re-election and his arrogance and incompetence cost him the Congress last Tuesday. That seems to be reality

By the way if I had fallen that many steps it wouldn't have taken me 7 years to get back up to the top
 
Conservative said:
Here is the problem that liberals don't want to address and in part why Obama's JAR is so low and why he got destroyed last Tuesday. The American electorate just doesn't doesn't see it your way. Between discouraged workers, under employed, and stagnant wages Obama is getting the credit he deserves.
Click to expand...

Obama wasn't on the ballot last Tuesday. Not at my voting place anyhow. If he was, he must have won, because I keep hearing that he's gonna be president for the next couple of years.
 
Conservative said:
According to liberals Obama inherited the worst recession since the Great Depression so yes this recovery isn't enough to put people back to work and that makes it a disaster especially with over 7 trillion added to the debt and lost shovels for shovel ready jobs.
Click to expand...

and conservatives don't acknowledge that Obama inherited the worst recession since the great depression? Really?

Is that an example of mutability of the past?
 
Dittohead not! said:
and conservatives don't acknowledge that Obama inherited the worst recession since the great depression? Really?
Click to expand...
They believe in parts of it. They believe it if they can criticize Obama for it, but not if it criticizes Bush or hurts the "Reagan is our savior" argument.
 
imagep said:
Obama wasn't on the ballot last Tuesday. Not at my voting place anyhow. If he was, he must have won, because I keep hearing that he's gonna be president for the next couple of years.
Click to expand...

Look, I know you are smarter than this, Obama said his policies were on the ballot last Tuesday.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom