• 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.
Easy....Republicans. The more unemployed....the more people are willing to work for peanuts.

Why? Republicans are the party of the rich. The worse shape the economy is in, the worse their portfolios and 401K and home values are. So, in a nutshell, no.
 
So far all I'm seeing as far as to why Obama should get any credit is "he isn't a Republican".
 
So far all I'm seeing as far as to why Obama should get any credit is "he isn't a Republican".

He shouldn't get any credit because he's a politician. The best way for the government to ensure job creation is to stop trying to create jobs and let the market work. Not much has been done by the federal government recently, which is the best anyone could ask for.
 
So you can't list a single Obama policy that led to the drop in unemployment either.

The "ignore ridiculous GOP policy proposals" is the crown jewel of achievements.
 
Corporations are hoarding Trillions and using large percentages of their profits to buy back shares and Banks are chosing to earn nothing on Trillions of dollars in excess reserves instead of investing it back into the economy.
This is because America is a consumer economy, and the consumers have been restrained through low/under employment and low wages & wage growth (though these factors appear to be slowly improving).

Corporations don't use money to create jobs - they create jobs in response to consumer demand.

The corps are sitting on money because there's no demand for it to be used elsewhere.
 
He shouldn't get any credit because he's a politician. The best way for the government to ensure job creation is to stop trying to create jobs and let the market work. Not much has been done by the federal government recently, which is the best anyone could ask for.

Yup, pretty much. The job of the POTUS isn't to create private sector jobs. The POTUS can't create private sector jobs. And Obama has no specific policy that was intended to create private sector jobs. There is nothing specific or measurable.
 
This is your standard reply to anyone who provides valid data analysis to support the point that the U.S. economy is the global beacon of light. Normative rantings that lack positive support will continue to fail.

Its far better than the standard replies that come from the left. That is to ignore the shrinking Middle class , the growing wealth disparity and the Millions of struggling American families because your more loyal to your Political affiliation than you are to the truth.

It actually takes reality into account and doesn't ignore the plight of Millions of Americans who are struggling to make ends meet in a disastrous Obama economy.

The Democrat party would much rather push false narratives about economic recoveries than acknowledge that their policies have anything to do with our economic issues.

They're not above ignoring outright large populations of impoverished citizens. A look at inner cities across America is a great example of that.

Hell this thread is a great example of that.

So someone needs to be honest enough to call BS on their pretend recovery and since we know you're incapable of that I am left with no choice but to expose whats essentially propaganda disguised as a objective economic analysis.
 
He shouldn't get any credit because he's a politician. The best way for the government to ensure job creation is to stop trying to create jobs and let the market work. Not much has been done by the federal government recently, which is the best anyone could ask for.
Perhaps.

But markets only work efficiently when well-regulated.

This isn't as easy as, "Free everything, and let what may, happen". (not saying you claimed this)

And the subject of regulation is where much of the debate lies.
 
So you can't list a single Obama policy that led to the drop in unemployment either.
I can.

1) The auto bailout.

2) The stimulus package. Not as much effect as it should, but it made a dent.

3) Continuing and extending TARP. (Bush 43 also gets some credit for this.)

4) Accepting Fed policies, ranging from QE's to the current hesitation to raise interest rates.

5) The ACA made it possible for more people to go into business for themselves, as they were now able to get health insurance on their own -- something very difficult to do, at anything resembling acceptable premiums, prior to the ACA's guaranteed issue provisions.

5a) We have NOT seen employers firing staffers, or busting them en masse down to part-time, to avoid ACA provisions.

We should also note there is no indication that the tiny raise in top marginal tax rates has not crippled the US economy, or employment.
 
I can.

1) The auto bailout.

2) The stimulus package. Not as much effect as it should, but it made a dent.

3) Continuing and extending TARP. (Bush 43 also gets some credit for this.)

4) Accepting Fed policies, ranging from QE's to the current hesitation to raise interest rates.

5) The ACA made it possible for more people to go into business for themselves, as they were now able to get health insurance on their own -- something very difficult to do, at anything resembling acceptable premiums, prior to the ACA's guaranteed issue provisions.

5a) We have NOT seen employers firing staffers, or busting them en masse down to part-time, to avoid ACA provisions.

We should also note there is no indication that the tiny raise in top marginal tax rates has not crippled the US economy, or employment.

1) Perhaps. Though the auto industry is not that big of an employer overall. Ford would've survived no matter what.

2) Explain

3) Bush gets credit for this.

4) Not his policies.

5) Need actual evidence.

6) Need actual evidence.
 
I can.

1) The auto bailout.

2) The stimulus package. Not as much effect as it should, but it made a dent.

3) Continuing and extending TARP. (Bush 43 also gets some credit for this.)

4) Accepting Fed policies, ranging from QE's to the current hesitation to raise interest rates.

5) The ACA made it possible for more people to go into business for themselves, as they were now able to get health insurance on their own -- something very difficult to do, at anything resembling acceptable premiums, prior to the ACA's guaranteed issue provisions.

5a) We have NOT seen employers firing staffers, or busting them en masse down to part-time, to avoid ACA provisions.

We should also note there is no indication that the tiny raise in top marginal tax rates has not crippled the US economy, or employment.

Can you post a link that shows how many private jobs the auto bailouts (I assume the ones that Bush 43 proposed in December of 2008) created?

Can you post a link to show me how many private sector jobs the ACA created? TARP? Fed policies?
 
1) Perhaps. Though the auto industry is not that big of an employer overall. Ford would've survived no matter what.

2) Explain

3) Bush gets credit for this.

4) Not his policies.

5) Need actual evidence.

6) Need actual evidence.

Proof is a powerful tool.
 
Yup, pretty much. The job of the POTUS isn't to create private sector jobs.
That depends on who you ask.

Government can create private jobs via stimulus programs. E.g. dedicate $10 billion to infrastructure jobs, then hire private firms to build roads.

It is the job of government to do this during a recession, since the failure to do so can deepen the recession. And of course, when we need the work to be done.


The POTUS can't create private sector jobs. And Obama has no specific policy that was intended to create private sector jobs. There is nothing specific or measurable.
He did, and it has. See above post. ;)
 
This is because America is a consumer economy, and the consumers have been restrained through low/under employment and low wages & wage growth (though these factors appear to be slowly improving).

Corporations don't use money to create jobs - they create jobs in response to consumer demand.

The corps are sitting on money because there's no demand for it to be used elsewhere.

LOL !

Soo we just need the Government to mandate arbitrary cost increases and a " living wage " and all is good, huh ?

The Corporations and the " Rich " are just going to go along with it because God knows there's NO other investment opportunities anywhere else in the world.......Lol

They're hoarding capital because the US economy is too risky of a investment under this President. They're hoarding Capital because they're responding to foolish AND current economy killing legislation and tax increases.

Really, whats wrong with you people ?

You don't incentivize new investment with threats of mandated cost increases based on insubstantial left wing talking points.

You don't incentivize new investment by demonizing Investors and job creators and you damn sure don't incentivize new investment by debasing and borrowing and spending.

When will you people ever learn that the " Rich " and investors and Corporations will ALWAYS have options that include investing in overseas markets and simply siting on their Capital.

When France's Hollande ( dip**** Socialist ) raised taxes on the " rich " outside investment into Frances economy dropped 77 percent the following year and the " Rich " simply moved.

Simple minded left wing initiatives that raise taxes and mandate arbitrary cost increases CAUSE disparity, not fix it.
 
That depends on who you ask.

Government can create private jobs via stimulus programs. E.g. dedicate $10 billion to infrastructure jobs, then hire private firms to build roads.

It is the job of government to do this during a recession, since the failure to do so can deepen the recession. And of course, when we need the work to be done.



He did, and it has. See above post. ;)

Most of the stimulus dollars were gone before 2013. They aren't creating private sector jobs today and haven't created any measurable number of private sector jobs for a few years. That isn't contributing to the recent drop in unemployment numbers, and as Obama found so amusing, those shovel ready jobs weren't as shovel ready as he assumed. The projects that stimulus funded are mostly all over. In 2010 I couldn't drive on a road here in NH without seeing a stimulus sign. Those jobs are long completed.

Keep in mind too that not all of the $800+ billion didn't do to projects.
 
The same applies to you as well.
Alright, fair enough.

I could have been more gracious in my response, since I'm sure you were speaking euphemistically there.
 
A rarely used one it seems.

I think the Republicans who control Congress are responsible for the unemployment rate drop. And the reason for that is "because I think so". I don't need to prove it with any kind of metrics.

See how that works?
 
Can you post a link that shows how many private jobs the auto bailouts (I assume the ones that Bush 43 proposed in December of 2008) created?

Can you post a link to show me how many private sector jobs the ACA created? TARP? Fed policies?

Auto bailout saved 1.5 million U.S. jobs -study | Reuters

CBO: Stimulus added up to 3.3M jobs - Josh Boak - POLITICO.com

Obamacare Is Spurring Startups and Creating Jobs - Bloomberg Business

No, CBO did not say Obamacare will kill 2 million jobs - The Washington Post
John Boehner says Obamacare is
The ACA: Losing Jobs vs. Choosing Not to Work

Yes, proof IS a powerful tool. :D

It's difficult to quantify the benefits of preventing a total meltdown of the global finance system (TARP, Fed/Treasury policies, stress tests etc). However, you can look at the Great Depression -- an instance where those mechanisms did not exist or failed to do what they should -- and count the number of jobs lost.
 
Auto bailout saved 1.5 million U.S. jobs -study | Reuters

CBO: Stimulus added up to 3.3M jobs - Josh Boak - POLITICO.com

Obamacare Is Spurring Startups and Creating Jobs - Bloomberg Business

No, CBO did not say Obamacare will kill 2 million jobs - The Washington Post
John Boehner says Obamacare is
The ACA: Losing Jobs vs. Choosing Not to Work

Yes, proof IS a powerful tool. :D

It's difficult to quantify the benefits of preventing a total meltdown of the global finance system (TARP, Fed/Treasury policies, stress tests etc). However, you can look at the Great Depression -- an instance where those mechanisms did not exist or failed to do what they should -- and count the number of jobs lost.

None of that explains why the unemployment rate is dropping today.

Can you please post a link that shows what policies Obama has implemented that have lowered the unemployment rate over the time of his Presidency?

By the way, you should read the first link a little more carefully. "Savings jobs" doesn't lower the unemployment rate. Savings jobs prevents the unemployment rate from increasing.
 
Its far better than the standard replies that come from the left.

Standard replies from the left? Your position is entirely normative. When someone points to a rising dollar, bad weather, reduction in capEx from oil, etc..., you reply with the same. When someone posts that job gains were weak, you reply with the same. When someone posts about record low continuing unemployment claims, you reply with the same.

See the pattern? You are a partisan hack.

That is to ignore the shrinking Middle class , the growing wealth disparity and the Millions of struggling American families because your more loyal to your Political affiliation than you are to the truth.

I don't see many people ignoring these issues. And for the record, i am not a democrat. I just oppose extremism to the fullest. It just so happens that the Republican party is dominated by extremist kooks.

It actually takes reality into account and doesn't ignore the plight of Millions of Americans who are struggling to make ends meet in a disastrous Obama economy.

You've yet to provide any policy that would help alleviate these issues. Harping on large scale macro policy due to changes in micro-structural economic evolution is beyond obnoxious. Contrary to the popular dogmatic beliefs among you and your fellow extremists, a flat tax or "fair tax" would only benefit high income earners (those with already hefty savings rates). If you study economics in a serious light, you don't call on macro-policy to address structural issues.

The Democrat party would much rather push false narratives about economic recoveries than acknowledge that their policies have anything to do with our economic issues.

Sorry, but GDP and employment growth is very much real. The false narratives arise from those who wish to nit-pick generally positive economic data, desperately hoping to find an imperfection.

They're not above ignoring outright large populations of impoverished citizens. A look at inner cities across America is a great example of that.

Again, you can't address this with macro-policy.

So someone needs to be honest enough to call BS on their pretend recovery and since we know you're incapable of that I am left with no choice but to expose whats essentially propaganda disguised as a objective economic analysis.

You cannot refute my objective economic analysis because it is entirely data dependent. I promise that when a politician proposes nationalizing industry, or pushes for ridiculous regulation, i'll be one of the first to speak against it. Your premise is based around economic reality not meeting your expectations. A moderate fiscal response, even with accommodative monetary policy, was never going to bring a recovery on par with the average break to the upside. Yes, Obama and his advisers (as well as the majority of the financial and economic community) underestimated the severity of the crisis. This was reflective from their stimulus proposal. Could the ARRA have been more targeted and stimulative? Absolutely! It just goes to show perfection is only a requisite for the opposition who is not currently occupying the White House. Conservatives have taken it to an extreme that is likely to have long term consequences.
 
1) Perhaps. Though the auto industry is not that big of an employer overall.
1.5 million jobs is about 1% of the US workforce, and a pretty decent number of jobs.


Ford would've survived no matter what.
Incorrect. If GM and Chrysler tanked, they would have taken a large number of suppliers with them; it would have tanked huge swaths of the US auto industry. That's why Ford was right there in DC, pushing Congress to bail out its competitors.


2) Explain
CBO: Stimulus added up to 3.3M jobs - Josh Boak - POLITICO.com


3) Bush gets credit for this.
He gets PARTIAL credit for this, and for listening to Paulson & Bernanke. However, almost all TARP activity was during Obama's term. Oh, and it almost broke even.

4) Not his policies.
He chose Geithner; he could've pushed out or leaned on Bernanke. Firing wouldn't have gone over well, but he could've done it.

5) Need actual evidence.
Let me google that for you


6) Need actual evidence.
Of what? Are you seriously trying to tell me that you believe the US economy has tanked since Obama raised top marginal tax rates by (iirc) 4% a year or so ago?
 
None of that explains why the unemployment rate is dropping today.
lol.... Yes, keeping the economy from completely tanking a few years ago, and adding millions of jobs, has nothing to do with the subsequent and steady gains in jobs since then.


Can you please post a link that shows what policies Obama has implemented that have lowered the unemployment rate over the time of his Presidency?
I already have. Please try to keep up.


By the way, you should read the first link a little more carefully. "Savings jobs" doesn't lower the unemployment rate. Savings jobs prevents the unemployment rate from increasing.
lol

I'm sorry, but I'm not impressed by your extremely and unjustifiably narrow interpretation of economics.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom