• 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!

November Deficit Highest on Record

Well, that's for certain. You clearly have absoutely no tolerance for any belief that does not confirm 100% with your beliefs. So much so that you go off on childish tantrums whenever anyone asks you to actually prove your arguments.



And no one would believe you anyways. Someone who claims to have worked in the private sector but has publicly stated he does not care about processing data into usable forms is a liar.
Every business needs processed data to make decisions on. And processed data comes from processing raw data. You have explicitly stated you do not care about processing data. Therefore you are 100% without question lying about your "experience."



Pointing out how your arguments are wrong, stupid and completely without value does not mean my arguments are not related to the thread topic.

But we all know you cannot win an argument against me. About time you stopped trying.

There you have it fans. OC has awarded himself a unanimous decision.:mrgreen:

so what do you get for your win?
 
What most economists will tell you is that TARP saved the economy and much of TARP was paid back in 2009 and we came out of recession in June 2009, long before much of the Obama stimulus could have had any impact. Still the Obama stimulus added 4 million to the unemployment roles because it did nothing to promote the private sector and all that money did was increase the debt. No one seems interested in explaining how Nov. 2010 had the highest deficit on record. Obama keeps touting that things are better so with 4 million more unemployed and the highest deficit on record I keep waiting for Obama to explain exactly what is getting better? How about Independent Thinker, give it your best shot.

I'm sick so I'll give you my minimum shot.

The stimulus did not elimintate jobs. What? Did they give money to projects based on the promise to lay people off? :lol:

It's not the private sector's debt. You seem to want to pretend that government debt means that the private sector must lay people off. That isn't the case.

November was the highest month due to stimulus money being dispersed I believe.

All this doom and gloom you are offering amuses me. You said that the recession ended then you went on show how the economy is not doing well. Who exactly did the recession end for? ;)
 
I am not ignoring the Obama debt that was necessary because of the terrible economic conditions that Bush left him with.

It simply has nothing to do with the case for the tax rates under the Clinton years being fine and dandy and helping to create prosperity and a budget surplus.

You really need to stop reading leftwing publications and start reading the non partisan sites to verify the rhetoric. The U.S. Treasury site will not show any budget surplus during the Clinton years and since that is the checkbook of the United States comments to the contrary are bogus. If there was a budget surplus the debt would have gone down but it didn't so please explain to me us where that surplus was.

Apparently you don't understand that there are two parts to the debt, public debt and intergovt. holdings. What Administrations have been doing since the late 60's is take from the Intergovt. holdings(SS) and using that money on budget to show a lower deficit. Replacing that money in the Intergovt. Holdings with IOU's doesn't lower the deficit or debt but instead increases it. Public Debt can be reduced but since the intergovt. holdings debt went up the total debt went up which it did under Clinton.

Now with regard to the so called Bush economic disaster that led to the NOVEMBER 2010 DEFICIT, please tell us all how the Democrat controlled Congress allowed that to happen and what they did to prevent it? Seems you think we elect a King instead of a President who is subject to implementing Congressional legislation. I find it difficult to understand how GW Bush leaving office in January 2009 left economic conditions in Nov. 2010 that set a record deficit. Would love to hear you explain that?
 
I'm sick so I'll give you my minimum shot.

The stimulus did not elimintate jobs. What? Did they give money to projects based on the promise to lay people off? :lol:

It's not the private sector's debt. You seem to want to pretend that government debt means that the private sector must lay people off. That isn't the case.

November was the highest month due to stimulus money being dispersed I believe.

All this doom and gloom you are offering amuses me. You said that the recession ended then you went on show how the economy is not doing well. Who exactly did the recession end for? ;)

Better get back on your meds because you are way off. The stimulus was signed in February 2009 and it is now 2010 so tell me why stimulus money which is a short term program was still being spent over 20 months later? The stimulus was sold that it would keep unemployment from exceeding 8% and that it would be spent on shovel ready jobs. It did neither. As for saving jobs, there is no guarantee that those jobs couldn't have been saved by the states where the responsibilities lie but regardless the facts show 4 million jobs lost and 3 trillion added to the debt.
 
I am not ignoring the Obama debt that was necessary because of the terrible economic conditions that Bush left him with.

It simply has nothing to do with the case for the tax rates under the Clinton years being fine and dandy and helping to create prosperity and a budget surplus.

Letting the tax cuts expire and going back to the Clinton tax rates would not work now. Economic circumstances are much different.
 
I'm sick so I'll give you my minimum shot.

The stimulus did not elimintate jobs. What? Did they give money to projects based on the promise to lay people off? :lol:

It's not the private sector's debt. You seem to want to pretend that government debt means that the private sector must lay people off. That isn't the case.

November was the highest month due to stimulus money being dispersed I believe.

All this doom and gloom you are offering amuses me. You said that the recession ended then you went on show how the economy is not doing well. Who exactly did the recession end for? ;)

Why There's No Joy Over the Recession's End - Rick Newman (usnews.com)

For all the drama of the last few years, the final act of the Great Recession was remarkably anticlimactic. A group of economists from the National Bureau of Economic Research, a private, nonprofit group, has finally decided that the recession ended in June 2009. That's the point at which economic activity
stopped falling and began rising. Economists call this a "trough," since it's the low point at which the economy bottomed out. It took 15 months to know this for sure because the number-crunchers like to have a year's worth of data to analyze—and there's no hurry to make a determination that has little effect on the real economy.
 
Why There's No Joy Over the Recession's End - Rick Newman (usnews.com)

For all the drama of the last few years, the final act of the Great Recession was remarkably anticlimactic. A group of economists from the National Bureau of Economic Research, a private, nonprofit group, has finally decided that the recession ended in June 2009. That's the point at which economic activity
stopped falling and began rising. Economists call this a "trough," since it's the low point at which the economy bottomed out. It took 15 months to know this for sure because the number-crunchers like to have a year's worth of data to analyze—and there's no hurry to make a determination that has little effect on the real economy.

These economists obviously are leaving some data out of their definition of recession. Unemployment figures obviously don't figure in to their algorithms. Are there any unemployed economists?
 
The unemployed need a different kind of "trickle" IMO.

What many of the unemployed need is some tough love. Imagine going to an interview and have a 2-3 year gap in their resume. How do you think that interview is going to go? According to the labor dept. there were 3.6 million job openings last week, almost the amount that Obama's economy has lost, and yet the chronically unemployed have no interest in taking A job but instead are looking for THE job. Too many people used to getting paid for doing nothing and like that arrangement.
 
What many of the unemployed need is some tough love. Imagine going to an interview and have a 2-3 year gap in their resume. How do you think that interview is going to go? According to the labor dept. there were 3.6 million job openings last week, almost the amount that Obama's economy has lost, and yet the chronically unemployed have no interest in taking A job but instead are looking for THE job. Too many people used to getting paid for doing nothing and like that arrangement.

So a person who used to have a middle class job should take a minimum wage job, right?

How does that solve the shrinkage of the middle class?
 
So a person who used to have a middle class job should take a minimum wage job, right?

How does that solve the shrinkage of the middle class?

I would hire someone in a heartbeat who took a lower paying job in a tough economy vs. taking unemployment. It is short term, not long term and in the short term tough choices have to be made. Imagine the interview

“noticed that in last two years you performed tasks outside your area of expertise at a pay level much lower than you were used to getting” Please explain

“yes, there were no jobs in my field available due to the economy so rather than take unemployment benefits I decided it was more important to work doing anything”

What do you think the employer would say next?
 
What do you think the employer would say next?

He'd say, "You must not be competent in your chosen field since you couldn't find a job in it. Thank you for your interest, but we've decided to go in a different direction."
 
I would hire someone in a heartbeat who took a lower paying job in a tough economy vs. taking unemployment. It is short term, not long term and in the short term tough choices have to be made. Imagine the interview

“noticed that in last two years you performed tasks outside your area of expertise at a pay level much lower than you were used to getting” Please explain

“yes, there were no jobs in my field available due to the economy so rather than take unemployment benefits I decided it was more important to work doing anything”

What do you think the employer would say next?

"Our entry level pay rate is 25 cents over what you currently make. Is that okay?"
 
He'd say, "You must not be competent in your chosen field since you couldn't find a job in it. Thank you for your interest, but we've decided to go in a different direction."

Nope, hired thousands of people and always took the ones that showed initiative and drive, refusing to take unemployment. If someone took unemployment once they would do it again and that costs the employer. Second, being an employer I understood market conditions and knew there were no jobs in that field available but respected the individual's decision to keep working, keep getting up in the morning, and realizing that that person learned a lot in that lower paying job. Your short term thinking says a lot about you.
 
"Our entry level pay rate is 25 cents over what you currently make. Is that okay?"

I never paid minimum wage to any employee so the person that took a minimum wage job to keep from taking unemployment shows me a strong desire on the part of that individual to actually work. I would take the .25 less if that was all that was available before I ever would take unemployment and would guarantee you my work ethic wouldn't have me at minimum wage long.

If unemployment was the only option, it wouldn't take me 2-3 years to get a job like apparently some out there.
 
So a person who used to have a middle class job should take a minimum wage job, right?

How does that solve the shrinkage of the middle class?

It gets people off of unemployment and the economy moving. Once things improve the person looks for a job that better fits his education and skill level moving up to better pay. One does not take a low paying job to stay their but to get by till better opportunities come along.
 
What do you think the employer would say next?

That is ludacrious. An employer would not hire someone not qualified if that situtation took place. Furthermore, your firms share of the unemployment would be tiny compared to the cost of providing mandatory benefits. From a business position, your stance is highly unprofitable.
 
Furthermore, your firms share of the unemployment would be tiny compared to the cost of providing mandatory benefits.

Oh? Then why hire anyone, ever?

Speaking of "ludacrious" . . .
 
Oh? Then why hire anyone, ever?

Speaking of "ludacrious" . . .

Because the firm has/or will have demand that cannot be serviced with current staffing levels and that level of demand will bring is net revenue higher then the cost of the employee.
 
Because the firm has/or will have demand that cannot be serviced with current staffing levels and that level of demand will bring is net revenue higher then the cost of the employee.

And why do you assume this is not the case in the example he cited, which you were answering? Companies generally don't interview if they're not looking to hire.
 
And why do you assume this is not the case in the example he cited, which you were answering? Companies generally don't interview if they're not looking to hire.

Right, especially in this market, given the choice of two individuals, one who remained employed during difficult economic times by taking lower paying jobs because jobs in their field weren't available and one who was on unemployment for 2-3 years I will always give the benefit of doubt to the person who worked instead of drawing unemployment.
 
Right, especially in this market, given the choice of two individuals, one who remained employed during difficult economic times by taking lower paying jobs because jobs in their field weren't available and one who was on unemployment for 2-3 years I will always give the benefit of doubt to the person who worked instead of drawing unemployment.

It would be in the plus column for me as well. If it's between two candidates with identical credentials, one who worked wherever he could, and the other who decided to wait it out until they could find something in the field, I go with the former. Any competent hirer would.
 
And why do you assume this is not the case in the example he cited, which you were answering? Companies generally don't interview if they're not looking to hire.

First, because his scenario was hiring for people working in jobs not in their expertise. And because the rational behind hiring him was purely because he took a lower paying job then unemployment. And actually companies do interview purely to keep abreast of potential hires, even if they aren't interested in filling positions. Firms may create positions merely to grab an excellent candidate even if they don't have work for them at the current date. Call it denial of talent to competitors.
 
Because the firm has/or will have demand that cannot be serviced with current staffing levels and that level of demand will bring is net revenue higher then the cost of the employee.

Hiring more personel, is going to bring in more revenue? That's the dumbest **** I've ever heard of.

You certainly do not have any real world experience.
 
Back
Top Bottom