• 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.
Fenton said:
do 5 minutes of research before showing up here and making a fool of yourself ?
Click to expand...

I don't like to pass over comments made by others. Yer an exception. I'm going to make a mental list of those topics I will ignore in yer posts. So far it includes housing and, now, Keynesian policy. I'm sure yer not worth listening to on that one as well.
 
DA60 said:
since he took office
Click to expand...

This is the fatal flaw in yer analysis, as pinqy suggested. Can you understand that?

Let's say a crew of firefighters shows up at a structure that is becoming engulfed. They put out the fire, but as they're accomplishing that, a portion of the building is destroyed. During the next few weeks, a construction crew works to rehabilitate the damaged sections. At a time near the end of that work, you could correctly say that the building is in marginally worse shape than it was before the fire. Would it make sense to argue that the firefighters and construction workers did a lousy job?
 
pinqy said:
Why didn't you actually bother to do research first? Why would you just post something you made up with no consideration for reality?
Click to expand...

Get over it. I don't even believe government numbers.
 
mmi said:
I don't like to pass over comments made by others. Yer an exception. I'm going to make a mental list of those topics I will ignore in yer posts. So far it includes housing and, now, Keynesian policy. I'm sure yer not worth listening to on that one as well.
Click to expand...

Yes, you ignore what you cannot rebut intelligently.

Why post at all then ?

If you're simply going to run away after being corrected what's the point of debate ?
 
Fenton said:
Yes, you ignore what you cannot rebut intelligently.
Click to expand...

No, I would not ignore that. Otoh, there are other things I would ignore, if you catch my drift.

>>Why post at all then ?

There's no problem with that — I just pass by yers.

>>If you're simply going to run away after being corrected what's the point of debate ?

You have not "corrected" me.
 
tres borrachos said:
Your incredibly idiotic post about Keynes had nothing - zero - to do with that link that I posted. I wasn't arguing the merits of the stimulus spending, nor the economics behind it - the poster asked me to prove that most of the stimulus money was spent before 2013, and that link showed how the stimulus money was spent, and when.
Click to expand...

No it didn't! The blog piece was an incredibly short-sighted take on the success of the stimulus at restoring economic activity. There was an imbedded link to this graph, but you made no reference to it. Not to mention, it was written in 2011 (before final revisions to the ARRA expenditures were calculated). The data from that chart turned out to be incomplete.

The chart i provided shows what you claimed you were showing:
fredgraph.png


Your clueless and sanctimonious posts show how far behind the discussion you are. You jumped in to drone endlessly about a post I made to someone else, and that was not at all related to your self serving, off topic and boring rant.
Click to expand...

Your inability to properly parrot what someone else said/wrote is not my problem. The blog piece didn't say what you thought it did. Who goes to a blog to find data for a debate on macroeconomic policy?

Now, go away and post your liberal, Obama loving posts to someone who cares what you think and someone who wants to debate the merits of the stimulus with you. I don't fall into either one.
Click to expand...

I made no mention of liberalism or Obama loving. Your response fails on all accounts because you've bitten off more than you can chew, and now are trying to substitute valid thought with a bitchy attitude. Sorry, that simply won't cut it. If you don't want be called out, refrain from making ultra-partisan talking points lacking the least bit of economic rationale.
 
Fenton said:
Yes, you ignore what you cannot rebut intelligently.
Click to expand...

Quite the fascinating comment given your history of running away.
 
fmw said:
Get over it. I don't even believe government numbers.
Click to expand...

Nonsense! You are quick to site government numbers that fit your narrative. When you're called out for misrepresentation, you hide behind your disbelief of the same government numbers you (attempted) to site.

:lol:
 
Kushinator said:
No it didn't! The blog piece was an incredibly short-sighted take on the success of the stimulus at restoring economic activity. There was an imbedded link to this graph, but you made no reference to it. Not to mention, it was written in 2011 (before final revisions to the ARRA expenditures were calculated). The data from that chart turned out to be incomplete.

The chart i provided shows what you claimed you were showing:
fredgraph.png




Your inability to properly parrot what someone else said/wrote is not my problem. The blog piece didn't say what you thought it did. Who goes to a blog to find data for a debate on macroeconomic policy?



I made no mention of liberalism or Obama loving. Your response fails on all accounts because you've bitten off more than you can chew, and now are trying to substitute valid thought with a bitchy attitude. Sorry, that simply won't cut it. If you don't want be called out, refrain from making ultra-partisan talking points lacking the least bit of economic rationale.
Click to expand...

I'd like to point out that tres was lying when she claimed " wasn't arguing the merits of the stimulus spending" and that she was merely trying "prove that most of the stimulus money was spent before 2013, and that link showed how the stimulus money was spent, and when"

If you trace back the posts, you will see that she certainly did argue about the merits of the stimulus spending, even going so far as to trot out that old trope about shovel-ready projects.
 
tres borrachos said:
Huh? You say that the GOP controlled "both branches of government, including both the house & senate" for the entire 8 years of Bush 43's Presidency. Not accurate. In 2006 the Democrats won both the House and the Senate. What point were you trying to make?
Click to expand...
I stand corrected.

When I was double checking the linked data in my post I missed the 110th Congress, where the Dems did indeed control the house.

Thank you for pointing that error out.

However the senate was 49-49 (+2 independents), so with Mr. Cheney as the Senate tie-breaking vote the GOP retained control. Since the 2 Indies caucus with the Dems I see how you might think that signifies Dem control, but as we see with Joe Lieberman for example, his vote could not be counted upon, and he often voted against the Dems.

Irrespective of all this, Mr. Bush still wielded veto control then, just as Mr. Obama currently does now. The buck has to stop somewhere.
 
Kushinator said:
No it didn't! The blog piece was an incredibly short-sighted take on the success of the stimulus at restoring economic activity. There was an imbedded link to this graph, but you made no reference to it. Not to mention, it was written in 2011 (before final revisions to the ARRA expenditures were calculated). The data from that chart turned out to be incomplete.

The chart i provided shows what you claimed you were showing:
fredgraph.png




Your inability to properly parrot what someone else said/wrote is not my problem. The blog piece didn't say what you thought it did. Who goes to a blog to find data for a debate on macroeconomic policy?



I made no mention of liberalism or Obama loving. Your response fails on all accounts because you've bitten off more than you can chew, and now are trying to substitute valid thought with a bitchy attitude. Sorry, that simply won't cut it. If you don't want be called out, refrain from making ultra-partisan talking points lacking the least bit of economic rationale.
Click to expand...

I like your rants, but the facts are that liberalism is a complete failure. You have acknowledged that for the last 100 yrs we have run deficits. Yet what do we have to show for it. Not a damn thing except 18.2 trillion in debt and growing. With all that deficit spending we have more poor, more on food stamps, more in section 8 housing, more blacks unemployed than ever before, the labor participation rate is at it's lowest point. Etc etc etc.

We have achieved all this by borrowing and spending, and yet you continue to champion more borrowing an spending to increase more poor, and a worse off middle class, and more blacks unemployed, and more on food stamps etc. etc.

Then we have the top 10 poorest cities run by democrats and the top 10 most dangerous cities run by democrats in spite of all this 18.2 trillion in debt and growing... What do you not understand that liberal policies are a complete failure
 
Born Free said:
I like your rants, but the facts are that liberalism is a complete failure. You have acknowledged that for the last 100 yrs we have run deficits. Yet what do we have to show for it. Not a damn thing except 18.2 trillion in debt and growing. With all that deficit spending we have more poor, more on food stamps, more in section 8 housing, more blacks unemployed than ever before, the labor participation rate is at it's lowest point. Etc etc etc.

We have achieved all this by borrowing and spending, and yet you continue to champion more borrowing an spending to increase more poor, and a worse off middle class, and more blacks unemployed, and more on food stamps etc. etc.

Then we have the top 10 poorest cities run by democrats and the top 10 most dangerous cities run by democrats in spite of all this 18.2 trillion in debt and growing... What do you not understand that liberal policies are a complete failure
Click to expand...

Kushinator provides actual data; you provide ignorant rhetoric. Color me unsurprised.
 
Kobie said:
Kushinator provides actual data; you provide ignorant rhetoric. Color me unsurprised.
Click to expand...

Remember, facts have a liberal bias.
 
Tettsuo said:
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?
Click to expand...

You're joking, right?

These things are cyclical. However, it should have never dropped as deep as it did, or for as long as it did, and it happened after democrats took the house and senate in the 2006 elections.
 
Back to the short amount of time the DEMs held the House and Senate before the Bush/Cheney meltdown during the last half of 2008.

Is Obama responsible for the 2.2 million jobs lost during his first three months--the 10.4% UE at its peak.
Which of course gives him a higher % overall.

Or does McConnell get credit for 2014 being the best year in 15 years for jobs because he's a ****in liar ?

Lord of Planar said:
You're joking, right?

These things are cyclical. However, it should have never dropped as deep as it did, or for as long as it did, and it happened after democrats took the house and senate in the 2006 elections.
Click to expand...
 
Kushinator said:
Nonsense! You are quick to site government numbers that fit your narrative. When you're called out for misrepresentation, you hide behind your disbelief of the same government numbers you (attempted) to site.

:lol:
Click to expand...

The word would be cite not site. I didn't realize that I'm quick at anything. That's encouraging.
 
Kushinator said:
No it didn't! The blog piece was an incredibly short-sighted take on the success of the stimulus at restoring economic activity. There was an imbedded link to this graph, but you made no reference to it. Not to mention, it was written in 2011 (before final revisions to the ARRA expenditures were calculated). The data from that chart turned out to be incomplete.

The chart i provided shows what you claimed you were showing:
fredgraph.png




Your inability to properly parrot what someone else said/wrote is not my problem. The blog piece didn't say what you thought it did. Who goes to a blog to find data for a debate on macroeconomic policy?



I made no mention of liberalism or Obama loving. Your response fails on all accounts because you've bitten off more than you can chew, and now are trying to substitute valid thought with a bitchy attitude. Sorry, that simply won't cut it. If you don't want be called out, refrain from making ultra-partisan talking points lacking the least bit of economic rationale.
Click to expand...

Christonacracker, can your posts be any more obnoxious? I copied in the wrong link. It was supposed to be this:

What is Recovery.gov?

If Nimby has no idea how to find out what stimulus money was spent and when, that isn't my fault. And unlike you Liberals, I don't claim to be perfect. I made a posting mistake. And you took my mistake and rambled on incessantly to me about crap I not only am not posting about - I don't care about it. This thread was supposed to be a cheerleading session for Obama, something which attracted you in here. I'm not a sheep. I don't give credit to any President when it isn't due.

Bitten off more than I can chew by asking one of the resident Obama lovers to articulate what he did specifically to create private sector jobs in 2015? Nice try.

Now, go away, please. You are boring.
 
Chomsky said:
I stand corrected.

When I was double checking the linked data in my post I missed the 110th Congress, where the Dems did indeed control the house.

Thank you for pointing that error out.

However the senate was 49-49 (+2 independents), so with Mr. Cheney as the Senate tie-breaking vote the GOP retained control. Since the 2 Indies caucus with the Dems I see how you might think that signifies Dem control, but as we see with Joe Lieberman for example, his vote could not be counted upon, and he often voted against the Dems.

Irrespective of all this, Mr. Bush still wielded veto control then, just as Mr. Obama currently does now. The buck has to stop somewhere.
Click to expand...

The buck stopped with Bush just as it does with Obama. Agreed.

However, veto control or no veto control really doesn't change the gist of this thread, which is an attempt to credit Barack Obama with private sector job creation in 2015. That's as ridiculous as crediting George W. Bush with private sector job creation between 2001-2009. You can't. It doesn't appear that people on here know much about the economy or the political climate of this country if they think the recent Presidents created private sector jobs. Even a stimulus package is simply using taxpayer/government money to create jobs. That is false creation. Give me a few billion dollars and I can create jobs too. The good private sector job creation is the one that comes about because of non-governmental intervention and forces.

Barack Obama has not put forth a policy that created private sector jobs. He can't.
 
Born Free said:
You have acknowledged that for the last 100 yrs we have run deficits. Yet what do we have to show for it. Not a damn thing except 18.2 trillion in debt and growing. With all that deficit spending we have more poor, more on food stamps, more in section 8 housing, more blacks unemployed than ever before, the labor participation rate is at it's lowest point. Etc etc etc.
Click to expand...

Since 1929, real disposable personal income per capita has increased by more than 440% (570% since 1933).

fredgraph.png


As you can see, you're hopelessly outmatched.
 
tres borrachos said:
Christonacracker, can your posts be any more obnoxious? I copied in the wrong link. It was supposed to be this:

What is Recovery.gov?
Click to expand...

You've taken the obnoxious tone. Is it my fault you didn't bother to read the links you post, even after i point out how they didn't support your strawman? Nope.

And unlike you Liberals, I don't claim to be perfect. I made a posting mistake. And you took my mistake and rambled on incessantly to me about crap I not only am not posting about - I don't care about it.
Click to expand...

Who is claiming perfection (these strawmen continue to amuse)? You made a mistake, and when it gets pointed out, you double down with a bitchy attitude. There was an obvious interest in the link given you were the one who provided it. That i pointed out the faults of the professors reasoning should come as no surprise.

This thread was supposed to be a cheerleading session for Obama, something which attracted you in here. I'm not a sheep. I don't give credit to any President when it isn't due.
Click to expand...

You started the partisan nonsense with post #4

tres borrachos said:
I think this is very good news. But what specific Obama policy brought unemployment down? How is this attributable to him?
Click to expand...

Why is it that economically illiterate conservatives bring up Obama in every thread; is it out of desperateness?

Bitten off more than I can chew by asking one of the resident Obama lovers to articulate what he did specifically to create private sector jobs in 2015? Nice try.
Click to expand...

Your initial contribution and following responses have been a series of strawmen and partisan nonsense. It was you who made attempts to derail the thread into "but, but, but... Obama didn't create these jobs" mudslinging fest.

Now, go away, please. You are boring.
Click to expand...

Why should i go away? You've contributed absolutely nothing of substance to this discussion. A thread pertaining to labor market dynamics is boring unless it carries a hyper-partisan theme? :lamo
 
tres borrachos said:
Christonacracker, can your posts be any more obnoxious? I copied in the wrong link. It was supposed to be this:

What is Recovery.gov?

If Nimby has no idea how to find out what stimulus money was spent and when, that isn't my fault. And unlike you Liberals, I don't claim to be perfect. I made a posting mistake. And you took my mistake and rambled on incessantly to me about crap I not only am not posting about - I don't care about it. This thread was supposed to be a cheerleading session for Obama, something which attracted you in here. I'm not a sheep. I don't give credit to any President when it isn't due.

Bitten off more than I can chew by asking one of the resident Obama lovers to articulate what he did specifically to create private sector jobs in 2015? Nice try.

Now, go away, please. You are boring.
Click to expand...

No, you ARE sheep. You're sheep because you hate Obama for no valid reason. You're sheep because you believe that Republicans are actually fiscally conservative. You're sheep because you believe that Republicans have been good on national security. You're sheep because you believe the nonsense the GOP is feeding you daily and not basing your opinion on facts.

My point for the thread? Showing the sheep for what they are. We are 7 years into Obama's presidency and on day one, Republicans have said over and over again that Obama owns this economy, that Obama can't point to the failures of Bush and say it was his fault we're in the hole we were in. Now that the tide has turned, you can't man up and give Obama his due.

I'm still waiting for Obamacare to destroy America.
 
Much speculating & debating as to Presidential involvement in the economy can be done here, perhaps to never be resolved.

But it cannot be denied the economy is in far better shape as Mr. Obama prepares to leave office, versus when Mr. Bush was leaving office.
 
Kobie said:
Kushinator provides actual data; you provide ignorant rhetoric. Color me unsurprised.
Click to expand...

Liberals controlling the 10 poorest cities in the US and the 10 most dangerous cities in the US is not ignorant rhetoric. The ignorance is you standing up for failure.
 
Born Free said:
Liberals controlling the 10 poorest cities in the US and the 10 most dangerous cities in the US is not ignorant rhetoric. The ignorance is you standing up for failure.
Click to expand...
It would be more accurate to say that neo-liberal economic policy (free market/low tax/low barrier) has caused the dramatic erosion of manufacturing in most if not all of these "democratic cities" wherein those govts had next to no impact upon the national neo-liberal policies....but the understanding of these ideas would require more than what is being displayed by the simplistic rhetoric spewed consistently in your "arguments".
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom