• 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. Unemployment Falls to Lowest Level Since May 2008[W:489, 497]

Status
Not open for further replies.
Then what would you call touting Obama's economic numbers as a success? It is all relative and about context along with basic civics

In his term, more than 10 million jobs have been created and the worst financial crisis since the 1930's has been averted.

Nothing to write off on the basis of partisan rhetoric. This would have likely occurred regardless of the executive, as McCain/Romney wouldn't have reduced government spending or lowered taxes.
 

Not sure what chart you are using but I am using the actual GDP Chart in 80's dollars


Table 1.1.5. Gross Domestic Product

[Billions of dollars]

Last Revised on: April 29, 2015 - Next Release Date May 29, 2015

Line

1980

1981

1982

1983

1984

1 Gross domestic product 2,862.5 3,211.0 3,345.0 3,638.1 4,040.7 4,346.7 4,590
 
In his term, more than 10 million jobs have been created and the worst financial crisis since the 1930's has been averted.

Nothing to write off on the basis of partisan rhetoric. This would have likely occurred regardless of the executive, as McCain/Romney wouldn't have reduced government spending or lowered taxes.

That is your opinion not supported by BLS and further many of the jobs created are low paying and part time work. Guess that doesn't matter to you. Also highest number of Discouraged workers even after 7.6 trillion added to the debt and a massive stimulus program designed for shovel ready jobs
 
Last edited:
Not sure what chart you are using but I am using the actual GDP Chart in 80's dollars

You are using non-seasonally adjusted ANNUAL numbers and NOT seasonally adjusted QUARTERLY numbers to see when and what the numbers were closer to his taking office.
 
You are using non-seasonally adjusted ANNUAL numbers and NOT seasonally adjusted QUARTERLY numbers to see when and what the numbers were closer to his taking office.

You seem to have a problem with actual numbers and always want to apply stipulations to them. Not sure exactly what your problem is but regardless the numbers beat the hell out of Obama's and led to winning re-election with 49 states. Seems that the people then and the electorate today disagree with you.
 
You seem to have a problem with actual numbers and always want to apply stipulations to them. Not sure exactly what your problem is but regardless the numbers beat the hell out of Obama's and led to winning re-election with 49 states. Seems that the people then and the electorate today disagree with you.
There you go again, equating popularity and myth-making to economic reality. I am not so deeply embedded or invested with Obama as you are with Raygun, I hate that he did not spend and invest in either real terms or as a percent of the economy as Raygun, I hate that he is pushing neoliberal trade policy, I hate that he continued the bailout of the banks and did next to nothing for home owners in distress, but I hate even more the absolute dishonesty of you and your ilks rhetoric about this admin and the glorification of St.Ronnie's. He was an Alzheimer victim for not all, most of his terms, he was totally dependent upon his cabinet to put together any sort of budget and was beholden to advisers like Greenspan when doubling payroll taxes while simultaneously cutting top marginal rates more than half....as spending went through the roof. It was all pure voodoo, totally insane.
 
And there probably would have been, if it weren't for the Great Bush Recession in between then and now. Maybe you didn't notice.

7 years in and you people are still blaming Bush ?

How on earth do you expect to be taken seriously when you parrot nonsense like that ?
 
"U.S. Unemployment Falls to Lowest Level Since May 2008"

....and the labor participation rate is the lowest since the great depression. Take your pick.

Yea those damn baby boomers just won't die. Bastards.
 
7 years in and you people are still blaming Bush ?

How on earth do you expect to be taken seriously when you parrot nonsense like that ?

How does time passing change history? Bush will always be to blame for the 2008 Great Recession. No matter how many years pass and even when we are all dead, the history books will tell the same sad story. In 2008 the Republicans crashed our economy worse than any recession since the 1930's and Bush was at the helm. Embrace it.
 
7 years in and you people are still blaming Bush ?

How on earth do you expect to be taken seriously when you parrot nonsense like that ?
3 years posting, and you are still ignoring context?

How on Earth do you expect to be taken seriously when you act so nonsensically?
 
There you go again, equating popularity and myth-making to economic reality. I am not so deeply embedded or invested with Obama as you are with Raygun, I hate that he did not spend and invest in either real terms or as a percent of the economy as Raygun, I hate that he is pushing neoliberal trade policy, I hate that he continued the bailout of the banks and did next to nothing for home owners in distress, but I hate even more the absolute dishonesty of you and your ilks rhetoric about this admin and the glorification of St.Ronnie's. He was an Alzheimer victim for not all, most of his terms, he was totally dependent upon his cabinet to put together any sort of budget and was beholden to advisers like Greenspan when doubling payroll taxes while simultaneously cutting top marginal rates more than half....as spending went through the roof. It was all pure voodoo, totally insane.

Yea he cut taxes and revenue INCREASED shortly thereafter. Its a paradox, I know...I wish liberals could understand that.

Ive always wondered why liberals support the government confiscating the peoples money. Is it because of that "fair share" bull****? Hasnt anyone noticed that liberals will NEVER say what FAIR SHARE actually means? They will never put a number on it....probably because they want ALL of it.
 
many of the jobs created are … part time work

Part-time for economic reasons:

Dec 2009 — 9.1 million
Apr 2015 — 6.6 million

Employed full-time:

Dec 2009 — 110.6 million
Apr 2015 — 120.8 million

I don't pretend to know a whole lot about this stuff. I'm more than convinced that no one I've come across around here does. pinqy comes the closest. But you sure do seem t' think that you do. I can assure you that you don't.

On the issue of popularity: "Obama equals Ronald Reagan popularity as economy, gas prices boost job approval," Washington Times, Apr 26, 2015

Reading the comments on this page:

"Is Forbes magazine correct when they say that President Obama outperforms President Reagan on jobs, growth and investing?," Quora, Sept 17, 2014

… I'm reminded that I don't want to get involved in a back-and-forth with partisans and ideologues. The people who have a balanced perspective, who realize that there's only so much you can do as president to affect these things (and that has been noted around here by some), who realize that you run into serious limitations when comparing administrations that are nearly thirty years apart in a world economy that changes so much so rapidly, are probably the ones who have the clearest understanding of all these numbers. I'd like to see the discussions at DP move more in that direction. Otherwise, it's all just sort of DoPey.
 
Speaking of Jack, I wonder how we would have gone at Ike's U-3 numbers.

unemp_1950_1959.jpg

It doesn't look like handouts are gonna be the issue. Well, it will be for some, of course.

fed_welfare_perc_GDP_1999_2019.jpg
 
Moderator's Warning:
Enough. Stop insulting each other and discuss the topic and the topic only. If you are incapable of doing that without attacking other posters, leave the thread.
 
Yea he cut taxes and revenue INCREASED shortly thereafter. Its a paradox, I know...I wish liberals could understand that.

Ive always wondered why liberals support the government confiscating the peoples money. Is it because of that "fair share" bull****? Hasnt anyone noticed that liberals will NEVER say what FAIR SHARE actually means? They will never put a number on it....probably because they want ALL of it.
The revenue increase that followed the tax cuts was smaller in proportion to the previous eight and the eight years following (Clinton's term actually) Revenue as a percentage of GDP also declined and resided below either of the bookend administrations. There's simply no credible measure that would suggest revenues were greater than they would have been had the tax brackets remained the same :shrug:
 
Last edited:
TPP is not, by and large, a trade agreement. It is a further extension of copyright and patent protections for corporations, giving them greater rights to sue individual states govts when protection laws are enforced. It is NAFTA on steroids as far as that is concerned, so if you are against TPP (which any good little Hayekian should hold an opposite position to yours), then how can you argue in favor of neoliberalism? The TPP is neoliberalism, it is the freeing of corporations.

TPP is a "free trade" agreement. It's a deal that eliminate tariffs on goods and services and tears down a host of non-tariff barriers. Basically it's gonna make it easier for Asian countries to send their products to the US. It's basically a specific WTO/Doha deal with 10 countries. Only 5 of the chapters actually deal with trade issues and the rest deals with creating a legal system (court) that allows TPP members (companies) can argue for changes in laws at all levels (local, state and federal). ;)

Just cause it's called free trade doesn't mean the agreement is just about free trade.
 
There seems to be a pattern forming here. But of course, the naysayers are going to deride this good news as well.

U.S. Unemployment Falls to Lowest Level Since May 2008 - Bloomberg Business

[/FONT][/COLOR]
Can someone in the right please concede that Obama is, and has been, GOOD for the economy?

Ninety two million able bodied people of working age are unemployed, not looking for work and not counted in the unemployment rate published by the government. How good has Obama been from them?
 
There you go again, equating popularity and myth-making to economic reality. I am not so deeply embedded or invested with Obama as you are with Raygun, I hate that he did not spend and invest in either real terms or as a percent of the economy as Raygun, I hate that he is pushing neoliberal trade policy, I hate that he continued the bailout of the banks and did next to nothing for home owners in distress, but I hate even more the absolute dishonesty of you and your ilks rhetoric about this admin and the glorification of St.Ronnie's. He was an Alzheimer victim for not all, most of his terms, he was totally dependent upon his cabinet to put together any sort of budget and was beholden to advisers like Greenspan when doubling payroll taxes while simultaneously cutting top marginal rates more than half....as spending went through the roof. It was all pure voodoo, totally insane.

That is your opinion but the public disagrees with you as do most who lived and worked during that period of time when they looked at their bank account. Apparently you have no understanding of leadership at all and expect a President to be King. How dare Reagan rely on his cabinet for a budget for after all what the hell do they know about their department and what it costs to run it.

You are absolutely stunning in your total ignorance of leadership. That probably comes from lack of experience. No problem, many people have the same problem. Reagan was about personal responsibility and not govt. responsibility. he was about delegating authority to get the job done and he promoted the greatness of America. That Shiny City on a Hill resonated with the public. Too bad liberals just don't get it and probably never will.

Never have I seen such a poor negative group of people as there are in this forum promoting liberalism and demonizing Reagan results. Reagan is gone and yet people who weren't even born or lived during the Reagan spout the leftwing rhetoric just like you. You, my friend are part of the problem not part of the solution. Personal responsibility doesn't appear to exist in your world. Too bad.
 
Yea he cut taxes and revenue INCREASED shortly thereafter. Its a paradox, I know...I wish liberals could understand that.
Not as a percent of GDP, they declined:

US_TAXGDP1210.gif


And in nominal levels they were fairly flat from 80 to 82, with a decline in 83. Of course the big winners were corporations that saw levels decline 43% from 80 to 83.

Historical Amount of Revenue by Source

Ive always wondered why liberals support the government confiscating the peoples money......
Oooh...my turn!

"Because freedom is not free"'
 
I understand perfectly that BC pushed neolibereal policy, whether it was NAFTA, the massive cuts to poverty programs or deregulation under Rubin and Greenspan...all of that increased wealth inequality.

Bullchit, steel, auto, electronics....these industries did not decline in the US because of "domestic overproduction", imports of these items more than made up for the declines.

By again eliminating the policy of "race to the bottom" which allows the downward pressure on wages and domestic production. You further augment the desirability of a population by investing in education.

TPP is not, by and large, a trade agreement. It is a further extension of copyright and patent protections for corporations, giving them greater rights to sue individual states govts when protection laws are enforced. It is NAFTA on steroids as far as that is concerned, so if you are against TPP (which any good little Hayekian should hold an opposite position to yours), then how can you argue in favor of neoliberalism? The TPP is neoliberalism, it is the freeing of corporations.

No, they exist....in other countries, it is that we have allowed neoliberalists to write our US industrial policy.


TPP is a "free trade" agreement. It's a deal that eliminate tariffs on goods and services and tears down a host of non-tariff barriers. Basically it's gonna make it easier for Asian countries to send their products to the US. It's basically a specific WTO/Doha deal with 10 countries. Only 5 of the chapters actually deal with trade issues and the rest deals with creating a legal system (court) that allows TPP members (companies) can argue for changes in laws at all levels (local, state and federal). ;)

Just cause it's called free trade doesn't mean the agreement is just about free trade.



The bread of your sandwich contradicts, while the meat just repeats what I said.

Empty calories.

Further, you have completely abandoned your claim that the decline in US manufacturing was due to "overproduction"....which is a good thing for you to do.
 
The revenue increase that followed the tax cuts was smaller in proportion to the previous eight and the eight years following (Clinton's term actually)

Doesnt that just prove that tax cuts work? :confused:

If cutting taxes increases revenue then I dont exactly understand why ANYONE would be against them....unless they are feeding off the clueless slobbering masses for votes. Ive always said that jealous people vote Democrat...this just proves it.

Revenue as a percentage of GDP also declined

So what? That is because the GDP went up...I assume you know what a fraction is, correct?
 
Moderator's Warning:
GENTLEMEN. Civility please. Topical posts please. Inflammatory lingo to a minimum. Consider this a warning before correctional mayhem ensues.







5thElemtPolice.jpg
 
Doesnt that just prove that tax cuts work? :confused:

If cutting taxes increases revenue then I dont exactly understand why ANYONE would be against them....unless they are feeding off the clueless slobbering masses for votes. Ive always said that jealous people vote Democrat...this just proves it.



So what? That is because the GDP went up...I assume you know what a fraction is, correct?

Isn't it amazing how many people worry so much about how much someone else makes or pays in taxes? Seems they believe the Federal Govt. which has created an 18.2 trillion dollar debt needs the money more than the actual taxpayers who pay the bills. That is liberalism.
 
If cutting taxes increases revenue then I dont exactly understand why ANYONE would be against them.
It didn't, either in real terms or as a percent of income. Nor did it cause GDP to increase. You are operating on voodoo economics.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom