• 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!

Jobless Rate Rises to 9.8 Percent, Highest Since April(edited)

Re: Unemployment rate hits 9.8%. Hope and Change?

Kandahar;1059136292]American Recovery and Reinvestment Act.



American Recovery and Reinvestment Act.

Which did absolutely nothing to stimulate and grow the economy thus creating jobs. I pointed out the facts regarding both the Obama and the Bush tax cuts and people today are still benefiting from the Bush tax cuts, at least those still working. Can you say the same thing about the Obama tax cuts?


The fact that you seem wholly oblivious to the policies that Obama has actually enacted (as opposed to political rhetoric) is not my fault.

Then since I am oblivious to the policies that Obama has actually enacted, please enlighten me and tell me what he has done to improve things. Results matter not rhetoric. Obama campaigned for the job, said he could fix it and hasn't so I anxiously await your list of Obama policies and accomplishments since the results don't show positive results.

If you had a list of taxes he cut, then why did you ask me whose taxes were cut?

To show you how foolish your argument is.


I would assume that the Bush tax cuts affected the economy more, since they were larger. They also lasted for a much longer period of time than was necessary to stimulate the economy during a recession, and unnecessarily added to the deficit during good economic times.

Right, and you if you are working are still benefiting from the Bush tax cuts and want to know how you keeping more of what you earn is a cost to the Federal Govt? Can you explain to me how tax revenue went up after the Bush, Reagan, JFK tax cuts and still are going down after the Obama tax cuts?
 
Re: Unemployment rate hits 9.8%. Hope and Change?

The actual recession started before that. That's just when the financial institutions (the entity government is concerned with) started feeling it. Our production capabilities have slowly been dwindling for quite some time now. The reason we're at the state we are now is because of corporatism and government protections of the corporate elite.

There is one non partisan entity, NBER, the records and reports the recession. Take that issue up with them.
 
Re: Unemployment rate hits 9.8%. Hope and Change?

Unemployment is a lagging economic indicator. Of course there are more unemployed people now than there were when the recession started. Or to rephrase that, of course there are more unemployed people following a period of layoffs and slow growth than there were following a period of job creation and fast growth.

You are right, this lagging indicator is worse than any other recession unemployment data in history. How do you explain it?
 
Re: Unemployment rate hits 9.8%. Hope and Change?

Which did absolutely nothing to stimulate and grow the economy thus creating jobs. I pointed out the facts regarding both the Obama and the Bush tax cuts and people today are still benefiting from the Bush tax cuts, at least those still working. Can you say the same thing about the Obama tax cuts?




Then since I am oblivious to the policies that Obama has actually enacted, please enlighten me and tell me what he has done to improve things. Results matter not rhetoric. Obama campaigned for the job, said he could fix it and hasn't so I anxiously await your list of Obama policies and accomplishments since the results don't show positive results.



To show you how foolish your argument is.




Right, and you if you are working are still benefiting from the Bush tax cuts and want to know how you keeping more of what you earn is a cost to the Federal Govt? Can you explain to me how tax revenue went up after the Bush, Reagan, JFK tax cuts and still are going down after the Obama tax cuts?

There is no point having a discussion with someone who only see's what they want. Tax revenue increases with population growth, inflation, and economic growth. Tax revenue has increased since Obama stepped into office, must have been a result of his policy:roll:
 
Re: Unemployment rate hits 9.8%. Hope and Change?

Exactly. I would think, however, that the "real" unemployment number has been showing a lot more signs of progress than the official number, since we have had net job creation for many months now.



Really? where is the link to that information? Business owners that shutdown their businesses and contract workers aren't counted in the unemployment number. The American people spoke on Nov. 2 and it does appear that they aren't buying your rhetoric.
 
Re: Unemployment rate hits 9.8%. Hope and Change?

There is no point having a discussion with someone who only see's what they want. Tax revenue increases with population growth, inflation, and economic growth. Tax revenue has increased since Obama stepped into office, must have been a result of his policy:roll:

so we haven't had any population growth, inflation, and economic growth the last two years? Why did NBER report the end of the recession without economic growth?
 
Re: Unemployment rate hits 9.8%. Hope and Change?

Which did absolutely nothing to stimulate and grow the economy thus creating jobs. I pointed out the facts regarding both the Obama and the Bush tax cuts and people today are still benefiting from the Bush tax cuts, at least those still working. Can you say the same thing about the Obama tax cuts?

I really don't understand what you're so pissed off about, if you acknowledge that people are still benefiting from the Bush tax cuts. I mean, you believe that low taxes encourage growth, right? Well, taxes are the same or lower under Obama as they were under Bush, so if it were that simple than the economy should be great.

Conservative said:
Then since I am oblivious to the policies that Obama has actually enacted, please enlighten me and tell me what he has done to improve things. Results matter not rhetoric. Obama campaigned for the job, said he could fix it and hasn't so I anxiously await your list of Obama policies and accomplishments since the results don't show positive results.

Sorry, I'm more interested in discussing which economic policies work best, than the various facets of why Obama is a big sucky meanie liar-face.

As for what policies he has implemented, I already told you. Stimulus spending, low taxes, fiscal assistance to states, avoiding odious labor regulations, and reappointing a Fed chairman who has encouraged easy money.

Conservative said:
To show you how foolish your argument is.

You showed me how foolish my argument was by asking me for a list of whose taxes Obama cut as though that was an absurd idea...and then providing exactly such a list? Yeah, you sure showed me. :lol:

Conservative said:
Right, and you if you are working are still benefiting from the Bush tax cuts and want to know how you keeping more of what you earn is a cost to the Federal Govt? Can you explain to me how tax revenue went up after the Bush, Reagan, JFK tax cuts and still are going down after the Obama tax cuts?

Bush tax cuts - Decreased tax revenue enormously, because Bush started from a relatively low base tax rate.
Reagan tax cuts - Also decreased tax revenue significantly, albeit not as much as Bush because Reagan was starting from a much higher base tax rate than Bush.
JFK tax cuts - Increased tax revenue slightly, because JFK was starting from a much higher base tax rate than either Bush or Reagan.

Obama tax cuts - Decreased tax revenue for the same reason as the Bush tax cuts, albeit not as much because the cuts themselves were smaller.

In any case, I'm more interested in getting the economy back on track than I am in balancing the budget. The US is not in any immediate danger of a debt crisis. There will be plenty of time to worry about the deficit once the economy recovers. In the mean time, the best policy is to encourage economic growth through high government spending and low taxes (i.e. a deficit).
 
Last edited:
Re: Unemployment rate hits 9.8%. Hope and Change?

Kandahar;1059136336]I really don't understand what you're so pissed off about, if you acknowledge that people are still benefiting from the Bush tax cuts. I mean, you believe that low taxes encourage growth, right? Well, taxes are the same or lower under Obama as they were under Bush, so if it were that simple than the economy should be great.

Lower tax rates always encourage growth but business always is forward thinking not live for today like liberals. Forward looking there are uncertainties and rightly so.

Sorry, I'm more interested in discussing which economic policies work best, than the various facets of why Obama is a big sucky meanie liar-face.

I prefer results to rhetoric and not that my plan is better than yours or that your dad can beat up my dad. Results matter, not rhetoric. The results are what are sinking Obama as more and more people are questioning the rhetoric. I am a pro growth, pro private sector, pro personal responsibility individual and that worked well for me the past 64 years.


You showed me how foolish my argument was by asking me for a list of whose taxes Obama cut as though that was an absurd idea...and then providing exactly such a list? Yeah, you sure showed me. :lol:

Right, you made a big deal about the Obama tax cuts as being a big part of the stimulus when the reality is it was a tax cut with strings attached along with a rebate check that once spent was gone. I then gave you the Bush tax cuts and rightly told you that you are still benefiting from that tax cut thus because of having more spendable income need less of that so called govt. help.

Bush tax cuts - Decreased tax revenue enormously, because Bush started from a relatively low base tax rate.
Reagan tax cuts - Also decreased tax revenue significantly, albeit not as much as Bush because Reagan was starting from a much higher base tax rate than Bush.
JFK tax cuts - Increased tax revenue slightly, because JFK was starting from a much higher base tax rate than either Bush or Reagan.

Really? Have you told that to the checkbook of the U.S. the U.S. Treasury site?

Current Report: Combined Statement of Receipts, Outlays, and Balances of the United States Government (Combined Statement): Publications & Guidance: Financial Management Service

Year Total Rev Income tax
2000 3,132 2202.8
2001 3,118 2163.7
2002 2,987 2002.1
2003 3,043 2047.9
2004 3,265 2213.2
2005 3,659 2546.8
2006 3,996 2807.4
2007 4,197 2951.2
2008 4,072 2790.3


So not sure where you get your information but I prefer Treasury data which show your claims to be bogus if not downright lies.

Obama tax cuts - Decreased tax revenue for the same reason as the Bush tax cuts, albeit not as much because the cuts themselves were smaller.

Obama tax revenue is down because we have 4 million more unemployed paying less in taxes. He has done nothing to create an atmosphere to create jobs.

In any case, I'm more interested in getting the economy back on track than I am on balancing the budget. The US is not in any immediate danger of a debt crisis. There will be plenty of time to worry about the deficit once the economy recovers. In the mean time, the best policy is to encourage economic growth through high government spending and low taxes (i.e. a deficit).


It may take the 2012 elections to do that. Nothing Obama is doing is going to put the economy on track. If he does what Clinton did then maybe things will get better. We have and continue to try the high govt. spending but our economy isn't built on govt. spending,it is built on the private sector growth. Provide the private sector incentives to grow jobs and they will.
 
Last edited:
Re: Unemployment rate hits 9.8%. Hope and Change?

Ah, but wait, Mr. Whovian. You left off important pieces of info from the portions of the article you quoted (your post #39). Allow me to correct you and then put some things into perspective:

The administration says 79 percent of the increases in recent years are from departments related to the war on terrorism: Justice, Defense, Homeland Security, State and Veterans Affairs.

After years of decline at the end of the Cold War, the Defense Department is restaffing. Mr. Obama estimated that the Pentagon will have 720,000 employees this year and 757,000 employees next year - up from a low of 649,000 in 2003.

The data also show that the Department of Homeland Security will grow by 7,000 a year in 2010 and 2011, and the Veterans Affairs Department will grow by 12,000 in 2010 and an additional 4,000 in 2011.

Peter R. Orszag, Mr. Obama's budget director, also said more people have been hired to oversee outside contracts.

"Over the past eight or nine years, those contracts have doubled in size. The acquisition work force has stayed constant. It's not too hard to figure out that oversight of those contracts has not kept pace with what it should be," Mr. Orszag said.

So, again, I say to all those who have this "Obama = BIG GOVERNMENT", I think you need to think again because clearly the government had it's largest increase under none other than....





....former President GEORGE W. BUSH!!!

Now, let's put things in perspective...

If you're an advocate of counterterrorism, then some of the civilian contractors are justified.

If you're concerned for our servicemen and women receiving adequate care once they return from combat operations, then the increase in the VA staff is justified.

If you want the cases against these terrorist in Gitmo to be iron clad and prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law and NOT be tried for "lessor inclusive offenses", i.e., we captured a suspected terrorist on the battle field, but he was only a chauffer for the Al Quaida mastermind, then the hiring of paralegals within the DOJ is justified becasue there are still several cases pending to be tried.

And if you want to deter would-be terrorist from obtaining VISAs to come to the U.S., then new hires within the State Department is justified.

But let's me be perfectly clear: I fully understand the turf-wars that go on with each new administration that comes to power. However, like most Conservatives who dread big government, inefficiency and waste, I also understand that with each new administration very few are willing to streamline the various agencies and "clean house", thereby bringing the various agencies together and cutting out those agencies that don't work or streamlining the process to make the viable agencies work more efficiently. The Obama administration appears to understand that for the here and now due to the enormity of the problems our nation is currently facing, i.e., the War in Afghanistan, the overall fight against terrorism, taking care of our wounded veterans, bringing captured terrorist to justice, and oversight of the many contract entities within Washington, DC, it makes sense to increase civilian staff numbers in order to meet the government's needs in the areas addressed. For as the article clearly indicates, gov't contract(ors) have doubled in size over the last 8-9 years and have largely gone un-supervised (oversight).

So, let's tell it like it is instead of "telling it like you want it to be".

'Nuff said.
 
Last edited:
Re: Unemployment rate hits 9.8%. Hope and Change?

We are past the normal "lag" time. What we have now is the same crap that happened with FDR when he turned a recession into the Depression. Below is how a conservative does it compared to this socialist marxist idiot in the WH:

recovery-graphs400.jpg


Then this:

Since 2008, the private work force hemorrhaged more than 8 million jobs, but Washington added more than 200,000 positions, taking the federal head count (excluding the military and Post Office workers) to more than 2 million.

Federal pay has likewise been shielded from the recession. The average federal employee makes $123,000, including benefits worth $41,800 -- more than twice what average private-sector workers earn.

Read more: First, roll back Bam's spending hikes - NYPOST.com

Obama and the Democrats have taken steps which not only were exceedingly poor bang-for-the-buck, but which have now prolonged the economic morass. Conservatives said that his plans were a fail in the beginning, and Obama rammed them through with his Dem majorities anyway .......... and behold they are massive failures. Got a deeper hole though :doh
 
Re: Unemployment rate hits 9.8%. Hope and Change?

750k x 24= 18 million; 18 million + 8.5 million = 26.5 million; 26.5 million/ 154 million = 17.2% The last time we had the unemployment rate over 11% was prior to 1939.
Right... and during the Great Depression unemployment hit about 25% before it started to go down -- 37% if you want to talk about non-farm payroll. And I think the average for the whole decade is still over 18%.

So yes, it would take over two years to get to the levels seen during the Great Depression.

But the details aren't important, I was merely putting the claim into perspective. In the 30's, the unemployment rate shot up over 21%. We've gone less than 5%.
 
Re: Unemployment rate hits 9.8%. Hope and Change?

Stimulus spending, low taxes, fiscal assistance to the states, and (not really an Obama policy as much as a Fed policy) easy access to capital. Additionally, he has not seriously pursued any policies that would hinder the labor market like card check, as many feared he would.
With an increasing unemployment rate, you say stimulus spending has incented private sector job growth?

Can you please link to something showing the fiscal assistance given to various states, and there corresponding job growth?

Because he did not pursue something like 'card check', that equates to a policy that incented private sector job growth in your mind?

wow.
 
Re: Unemployment rate hits 9.8%. Hope and Change?

There is no need for the Dept. of Homeland Security and all this other stupid federal crap. Withdraw from the stupid middle east, and the stupid you know whos will leave us alone. Get rid of the stupid empire, and the stupid third worlders will start killing each other instead of us.

Then we come home and cut the federal govt. down to size.
 
Re: Unemployment rate hits 9.8%. Hope and Change?

Lower tax rates always encourage growth but business always is forward thinking not live for today like liberals. Forward looking there are uncertainties and rightly so.

I'm in favor of resolving the debate on the extension of the Bush tax cuts too, but it really defies logic to think that the uncertainty over a POSSIBLE modest increase in taxes is responsible for such a huge differential in unemployment.

If that isn't what you're talking about, you're going to need to be more specific what "uncertainties" you're talking about.

Conservative said:
Right, you made a big deal about the Obama tax cuts as being a big part of the stimulus when the reality is it was a tax cut with strings attached along with a rebate check that once spent was gone. I then gave you the Bush tax cuts and rightly told you that you are still benefiting from that tax cut thus because of having more spendable income need less of that so called govt. help.

Again, if you acknowledge that the Bush tax cuts are still in place and that taxes are the same or lower under Obama, I'm really not clear on what you're so pissed off about if you think that low taxes are all that's necessary to have a booming economy.

Conservative said:
Really? Have you told that to the checkbook of the U.S. the U.S. Treasury site?

Current Report: Combined Statement of Receipts, Outlays, and Balances of the United States Government (Combined Statement): Publications & Guidance: Financial Management Service

Year Total Rev Income tax
2000 3,132 2202.8
2001 3,118 2163.7
2002 2,987 2002.1
2003 3,043 2047.9
2004 3,265 2213.2
2005 3,659 2546.8
2006 3,996 2807.4
2007 4,197 2951.2
2008 4,072 2790.3

Yep, that looks like a pretty substantial decrease to me. The tax cuts were implemented in 2001. It took three years to get back to the SAME revenue as we had in 2001. It took four years to get back to the same revenue and repay the revenue lost in the years between, assuming that the tax revenue would not have increased at ALL without the Bush tax cuts. Assuming a fairly realistic 3% increase without the tax cuts, it took EIGHT years. If you assume much more than 3%, it still hasn't happened and probably won't anytime soon.

Now don't get me wrong, I don't hold Bush entirely responsible for that. Some of it was caused by the 2001 recession, to which the tax cuts were partially a RESPONSE. Yet you're going to hold Obama responsible for not generating revenue in the 21 months since the American Recovery & Reinvestment Act. Makes perfect sense. :roll:

Conservative said:
So not sure where you get your information but I prefer Treasury data which show your claims to be bogus if not downright lies.

Only if you assume that the tax revenue would not have increased at all on its own without the Bush tax cuts over the span of eight years, which is quite a dubious assumption.

Conservative said:
Obama tax revenue is down because we have 4 million more unemployed paying less in taxes. He has done nothing to create an atmosphere to create jobs.

Your brilliant and not at all simplistic economic theory:
Low taxes = Good.
Taxes under Bush: Low. Therefore, good.
Taxes under Obama: Equally low, or even lower. Therefore, bad. He must be destroying jobs.

What's the difference? Obama is a Democrat. :roll:

Conservative said:
It may take the 2012 elections to do that. Nothing Obama is doing is going to put the economy on track. If he does what Clinton did then maybe things will get better. We have and continue to try the high govt. spending but our economy isn't built on govt. spending,it is built on the private sector growth. Provide the private sector incentives to grow jobs and they will.

I really don't know what you're talking about, and you have quite an odd view of history if you think that Clinton reduced government spending.
 
Re: Unemployment rate hits 9.8%. Hope and Change?

Ah, but wait, Mr. Whovian. You left off important pieces of info from the portions of the article you quoted (your post #39). Allow me to correct you and then put some things into perspective:



So, again, I say to all those who have this "Obama = BIG GOVERNMENT", I think you need to think again because clearly the government had it's largest increase under none other than....


....former President GEORGE W. BUSH!!! ............
But lookie here:

More federal workers' pay tops $150,000
The number of federal workers earning $150,000 or more a year has soared tenfold in the past five years and doubled since President Obama took office, a USA TODAY analysis finds.
More federal workers' pay tops $150,000 - USATODAY.com

Now you can go back and say "LOOK. ... LOOK .. things increased under Bush too !!!
But let me point out some things for you:

1) Bush was President during 9-11 and the entire creation of Homeland Security. Love it, hate it, it was done; and GB had some good economic times from 2003-2007 when pay increases were expected.

2) We keep hearing how Obama inherited job losses of 700K per month, and that the job losses that kept happening for at least a year after he became Presbo were not his fault. But the pay increases that more than doubled the number of employees making over $150K since Obama took office, at a time when the rest of America was hemmorhaging jobs and income, are all Obama. While the country was in this massive tail-spin in the private sector, Obama was handing out candy to government employees.
 
Re: Unemployment rate hits 9.8%. Hope and Change?

Again, if you acknowledge that the Bush tax cuts are still in place and that taxes are the same or lower under Obama, I'm really not clear on what you're so pissed off about if you think that low taxes are all that's necessary to have a booming economy.
How many times does he need to repeat his point on uncertainty?

Yep, that looks like a pretty substantial decrease to me. The tax cuts were implemented in 2001. It took three years to get back to the SAME revenue as we had in 2001.
No, for the most part, the tax cuts were implemented in 2003.
 
Re: Unemployment rate hits 9.8%. Hope and Change?

With an increasing unemployment rate, you say stimulus spending has incented private sector job growth?

Yes. It provides jobs to contractors, consultants, and direct hires whom the government employs for some specific purpose, often related to infrastructure. The unemployment rate, as mentioned before, is hardly relevant. The economy is a massive ship with tugboats pulling it in all different directions. No government policy can get them to all pull it the same way; at most they can just get more of them to pull it in one direction.

Whovian said:
Can you please link to something showing the fiscal assistance given to various states, and there corresponding job growth?

State assistance was part of the American Recovery & Reinvestment Act. It was not as large as it should have been, but it was included. The act included $87 billion to help states with Medicaid, $21 billion to help states with education, and $3 billion to help states with energy. Additionally, it included the $4.4 billion Race to the Top program which will reward states for education reform.
American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Whovian said:
Because he did not pursue something like 'card check', that equates to a policy that incented private sector job growth in your mind?

No, it's just a restraint on his own party.
 
Re: Unemployment rate hits 9.8%. Hope and Change?

Kandahar;1059136414]I'm in favor of resolving the debate on the extension of the Bush tax cuts too, but it really defies logic to think that the uncertainty over a POSSIBLE modest increase in taxes is responsible for such a huge differential in unemployment.

It has nothing to do with "modest increase in taxes" but the idea that Democrats are promoting deficit reduction while promoting another increase in unemployment benefits and doing nothing to create incentive to grow jobs.

If that isn't what you're talking about, you're going to need to be more specific what "uncertainties" you're talking about.

Any potential increase in taxes or costs of doing business is an uncertainty. That uncertainty can be eliminated by repealing Obamacare and extending the Bush tax cuts.

Again, if you acknowledge that the Bush tax cuts are still in place and that taxes are the same or lower under Obama, I'm really not clear on what you're so pissed off about if you think that low taxes are all that's necessary to have a booming economy.

Not pissed at all personally but am pissed about the intellectual dishonesty of the Obama supporters and this Administration. Lower taxes only provide individuals with more personal income that are one step towards a growing economy. The fact is 47% of the income earners last year paid ZERO Federal income taxes and Obama is worried about the top 2%. Make sense to you? How much revenue is being lost by that 47% not paying any income taxes vs raising taxes on the top 2%? This is all about principle and again the debate on whose money is it and who has the right to spend it.

Yep, that looks like a pretty substantial decrease to me. The tax cuts were implemented in 2001. It took three years to get back to the SAME revenue as we had in 2001. It took four years to get back to the same revenue and repay the revenue lost in the years between, assuming that the tax revenue would not have increased at ALL without the Bush tax cuts. Assuming a fairly realistic 3% increase without the tax cuts, it took EIGHT years. If you assume much more than 3%, it still hasn't happened and probably won't anytime soon.

Not surprising that you don't understand the Bush tax cuts and what happened. The Bush tax cuts were identical to the Obama tax cuts in that in 2001 they were rebates that once gone were gone. That was generated under the Democrat Congress. In 2003 withholding rates were reduced and that meant more take home pay in EACH paycheck and that is when the revenue grew. You may have been in school at the time and not old enough to understand what happened. I do suggest better research.

Now don't get me wrong, I don't hold Bush entirely responsible for that. Some of it was caused by the 2001 recession, to which the tax cuts were partially a RESPONSE. Yet you're going to hold Obama responsible for not generating revenue in the 21 months since the American Recovery & Reinvestment Act. Makes perfect sense. :roll:

All I can say about Obama is "see, I told you so." He is a far left ideologue that knows everything except what drives this economy and that is the private sector. His resume showed someone totally unqualified to be in the office he holds and those lack of qualifications are shown in the results generated.


Only if you assume that the tax revenue would not have increased at all on its own without the Bush tax cuts over the span of eight years, which is quite a dubious assumption.

So Obama's answer is to increase the taxes on 2% of the population? His answer is to increase costs on businesses? My question to you is why do you and others believe that the govt. needs the money more than the individual? You use simple math whereas most conservatives focus on growth. I prefer two taxpayers paying fifty cents to 1 taxpayer paying a dollar in taxes. Figure out why?

Your brilliant and not at all simplistic economic theory:
Low taxes = Good.
Taxes under Bush: Low. Therefore, good.
Taxes under Obama: Equally low, or even lower. Therefore, bad. He must be destroying jobs.

What's the difference? Obama is a Democrat. :roll:

LOL, nice spin, I grew up a Democrat, played JFK in my civics class, voted Democrat for years, Obama is no Democrat, Obama doesn't believe in the principles which made this country great nor the principles of JFK as I posted.

Obama did not lower taxes, he gave a rebate check which reduced tax revenue but didn't lower taxes. No withholding changes took place and as a result people with more income that actually did pay taxes paid more under Obama.

I really don't know what you're talking about, and you have quite an odd view of history if you think that Clinton reduced government spending.

Who said Clinton reduced govt. spending? I was talking about Clinton going to the Center
 
Last edited:
Re: Unemployment rate hits 9.8%. Hope and Change?

So How's that $787 billion stimulus package working out for you so far?

Still believe Obama that unemployment won't go above 8%.

image6301445x_370x278.jpg


We have seen that billions have have gone to places we were initially never told about like NBC and GE get 24.9 million in Stimulus money.

Does anyone wonder why, NBC, GE gets this cash?

If you do your possibly suffering from lack of mental acuity and or never heard of the Olbermann. Matthews, Schultz, Obama propaganda machine on MSNBC.

03c1729de4fc133f25cae1d4370026a3.jpg
 
Re: Unemployment rate hits 9.8%. Hope and Change?

I wasn't aware that we were not still in a recession. The high unemployment would suggest that we are. Also, no one actually expected things to change overnight, not even the most staunch supporters of Obama. Hope and change are pretty good. If anything, we want more hope and more change. The main criticism by Obama's supporters is that he's not doing enough, not that the things he's doing are wrong.

So yes, hope and change are infinitely preferable to repression and fear.
Recession was over in 2009, didn't you get the memo?
 
Re: Unemployment rate hits 9.8%. Hope and Change?

Recession was over in 2009, didn't you get the memo?

Addendum...that 9.8% doesnt come close to telling the whole picture re unemployment...
 
Re: Unemployment rate hits 9.8%. Hope and Change?

Let's be realistic, things that would create jobs are fostering invention and creativity, reducing the desire for businesses to move overseas (yep, probably cutting some taxes), and focus on changing the short term viewpoints of corporate leaders. Instead of just trying to jack up the stock price this quarter, a focus on steady growth over the long term would actually create more jobs. This would require a massive re-thinking of the market system and would probably call for a lot more regulation in what businesses are allowed to do. Corporate American has proven that it causes mischief when we aren't watching.
 
Re: Unemployment rate hits 9.8%. Hope and Change?

Let's be realistic, things that would create jobs are fostering invention and creativity, reducing the desire for businesses to move overseas (yep, probably cutting some taxes), and focus on changing the short term viewpoints of corporate leaders. Instead of just trying to jack up the stock price this quarter, a focus on steady growth over the long term would actually create more jobs. This would require a massive re-thinking of the market system and would probably call for a lot more regulation in what businesses are allowed to do. Corporate American has proven that it causes mischief when we aren't watching.

LOL, you know, when I find a corporation that is "screwing" the public, I stop buying from that corporation thus stop funding them. Wish I could do that with the govt. Do you realize that less than 20% of business in this country are those large corporations that you love to hate?
 
Re: Unemployment rate hits 9.8%. Hope and Change?

NBER says we are out of the recession and economic growth indicates that we are out of the recession but it is a jobless recovery and that jobless recovery is due to Obama economic policies that do not promote private sector growth.

Thanks for confirming that rhetoric trumps results in your world. Take that rhetoric to the grocery store with you to buy for the family? How has that message affected world and economic results? Why is it in your world that actual results are ignored and you continue to buy the rhetoric?

Would you be saying the same if Bush was president right now? Somehow I doubt it.
 
Back
Top Bottom