• 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

First, because his scenario was hiring for people working in jobs not in their expertise.

No it wasn't. And even if it were, so what? You generally don't hire someone just because. You hire them because you need work done.

And because the rational behind hiring him was purely because he took a lower paying job then unemployment.

That's not what he said.

And actually companies do interview purely to keep abreast of potential hires, even if they aren't interested in filling positions.

Not any company I've ever hired for (which includes several very large ones). Accepting resumes and keeping them on file, sure. Interviews, no. Only if actually looking to fill a position. It's a waste of time and resources otherwise. Isn't that your whole beef with the scenario in the first place?


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.

It can happen, but that wouldn't be what he was talking about.
 
Hiring more personel, is going to bring in more revenue? That's the dumbest **** I've ever heard of.

Really? Tell me, can you operate a new oil drilling platform with no new staff when your current staff are completely busy? Tell me, if you hire new staff to run the platform which brings in additional revenue, have those staff brought in more revenue? Say, if an auditing firm just got selected for a massive new audit but didn't have the current staff to run the audit and was in real danger of losing that account because of lack of staff, would bringing in new staff to run the audit generate more revenue? During the holidays, if a retailer does not hire new staff and lines back out the door to the point where customers put back their items and leave, has the lack of additional staff cost revenue?

You certainly do not have any real world experience.

See above.

You can flee as fast as your legs can carry you from the thread now Apdst.
 
No it wasn't.

Actually it appears so based on the post.

And even if it were, so what? You generally don't hire someone just because. You hire them because you need work done.

Why would you hire someone if they didn't have the expertise in the work you need done? That makes no sense. Furthermore, hiring them purely because they worked for less is ignoring the realities of your cost structure.

That's not what he said.

Actually it is. Furthermore, he did not give any other rational.

Not any company I've ever hired for (which includes several very large ones).

Whoa. What makes you think they got to you if they had no intention of hiring? If they had no intention of hiring, why bother get the person who actually does the hiring involved? Waste of time.

Isn't that your whole beef with the scenario in the first place?

My whole beef is the notion that he'd hire solely because the guy worked for less. That he'd rather hire him then bear the cost of unemployment tax on his business. That makes no sense. Hire this guy and pay all of these costs or pay next to nothing comparatively for unemployment for this guy.

It can happen, but that wouldn't be what he was talking about.

Then we have interpreted his post differently.
 
No it wasn't. And even if it were, so what? You generally don't hire someone just because. You hire them because you need work done.



That's not what he said.



Not any company I've ever hired for (which includes several very large ones). Accepting resumes and keeping them on file, sure. Interviews, no. Only if actually looking to fill a position. It's a waste of time and resources otherwise. Isn't that your whole beef with the scenario in the first place?




It can happen, but that wouldn't be what he was talking about.

Amazing, how someone can be so wrong and claim to be so smart is beyond me. How can anyone hire a candidate that has been unemployed for 2-3 years is beyond me especially when you have people out there that are qualified and have taken lower paying jobs to remain off unemployment. Those are the people I want, not the entitlement mentality people who were unemployed but could have worked. We have a lot of book smart street stupid individuals telling others how to manage their businesses when the reality is they have never run a business.
 
Actually it appears so based on the post.

This is the entirety of what he said:

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?

He seems to agree with me that he intended this in the regular course of hiring.


Why would you hire someone if they didn't have the expertise in the work you need done? That makes no sense.

He never said that's what he'd do. That's what you read into it.


Furthermore, hiring them purely because they worked for less is ignoring the realities of your cost structure.

Only if he's following your self-serving construct, which he doesn't appear to me to be doing.

Why would you assume he meant anything other than the regular course of hiring, especially as he clarified what he was referring to later? That's baggage YOU bring, not he.


Actually it is. Furthermore, he did not give any other rational.

Doesn't appear to be -- and if he doesn't, that doesn't give you license to make all kinds of assumptions, which you did.



Whoa. What makes you think they got to you if they had no intention of hiring? If they had no intention of hiring, why bother get the person who actually does the hiring involved? Waste of time.

This made me laugh out loud. You must not have much experience with large companies if you think they just randomly interview people without any need expressed by the departments where the jobs would actually be.


My whole beef is the notion that he'd hire solely because the guy worked for less. That he'd rather hire him then bear the cost of unemployment tax on his business. That makes no sense. Hire this guy and pay all of these costs or pay next to nothing comparatively for unemployment for this guy.

That's not what he said. You're making things up. He said he'd be willing to hire someone if they showed that they want to work BY not sitting at home and collecting unemployment and instead taking a lower-paying job.

As I said, given the choice between applicants who would do that and applicants who wouldn't, the hiring choice is obvious. Well, maybe not to you, apparently.


Then we have interpreted his post differently.

Yes, and my interpretation was correct. It's pretty much the interpretation anyone with experience in hiring would first come to, anyway.
 
Two years later? The recession ended in June 2009 yet every month of 2010 the unemployment was higher and since he signed the stimulus 4 million jobs have been lost. There are over 16 million unemployed Americans so what do you think the deficit would be if those 16+ million were working again and paying their "fair share" in taxes? Obama has done nothing to put people back to work as the numbers show and therein lies the problem. It has nothing to do with Bush.

I know how badly you want to defend Clinton but you don't have a clue what the tax rates were under Clinton and what the people actually paid in taxes just like you bought the 22 million number which has been shown to be wrong. Liberalism has made a fool out of you and you refuse to accept it.
The fool.... The. King of the fools, would be anyone who deludes themselves into willfully believing that no job creation under bush and a huge debt is somehow someway better than 18 millio new jobs under Clinton and a surplus.
 
you mean Paris Hilton keeping more of HER money? You don't seem to have as much of a concern as to how tax dollars are spent but instead focus on taking more money from individuals who earned it?

Over the past few months I have posted the line items out of the Federal Budget and every time I have done that it is ignored by "radicals" who don't want the facts but instead want to promote class warfare.

Paris Hilton pays a lot of taxes because she spends a lot of money. I am sure she has several residents, flys all around the country and the world and employs a lot of people, who by the way also pay taxes, etc., However, she probably doesn't pay a lot of income tax because she has a lot of wealth that is not considered income. It is just accumulated wealth. Paris is doing her part. She is not sitting around counting her money, she is spending it. We will never be able to pay off our debt with taxes alone. We need spending cuts first then come to us with tax proposals. The government must first show us that it can cut spending. Until they set an example for us they should shut the hell up about raising taxes. Show us that our money is not just going to prop up your political career by buying off your constituents.
 
The fool.... The. King of the fools, would be anyone who deludes themselves into willfully believing that no job creation under bush and a huge debt is somehow someway better than 18 millio new jobs under Clinton and a surplus.

Since that isn't the topic of this thread that isn't what I am saying at ll but don't let that fact get in the way of your Bush bashing. There was no surplus under Clinton according to the official records just like he didn't create 22 million jobs. Not sure where you get your information but it is making you look foolish. Stop buying the liberal rhetoric and actually get the facts.
 
Since that isn't the topic of this thread that isn't what I am saying at ll but don't let that fact get in the way of your Bush bashing. There was no surplus under Clinton according to the official records just like he didn't create 22 million jobs. Not sure where you get your information but it is making you look foolish. Stop buying the liberal rhetoric and actually get the facts.
You are the one looking foolish continuing to ignore the massive job creations under Clinton ....18 million by your numbers and leaving a surplus.. Go on, play ideological ostrich and hide from reality pretending the last decade has been better for most Americans.
 
You are the one looking foolish continuing to ignore the massive job creations under Clinton ....18 million by your numbers and leaving a surplus.. Go on, play ideological ostrich and hide from reality pretending the last decade has been better for most Americans.

Since that isn't the topic of the thread I haven't been ignoring it. I posted the numbers which is an acknowledgement of the job creation. You seem to ignore why that job creation occurred and seem to believe it was due to higher taxes. Couldn't have anything to do with the GOP Take over of Congress, could it? Let me ask a very simple question, did Clinton sign budgets with more or less spending than he proposed?

As for your claim of a surplus again I ask you to provide non partisan, verifiable facts of that statement. If there was a surplus then that surplus is required to go against the debt and the debt rose each year of the Clinton term. There was no yearly budget surplus under Clinton and you can get the numbers at the U.S. Treasury Department which is the checkbook of the United States.

http://www.heritage.org/research/re...-the-clinton-tax-hike-produced-the-1990s-boom
 
Last edited:
As for your claim of a surplus again I ask you to provide non partisan, verifiable facts of that statement. If there was a surplus then that surplus is required to go against the debt and the debt rose each year of the Clinton term. There was no yearly budget surplus under Clinton and you can get the numbers at the U.S. Treasury Department which is the checkbook of the United States.

And that's using the bogus debt number anyways, which excludes all the unfunded liabilities for SS and Medicare. The accurate debt figure today is $54 Trillion, not $13 Trillion or whatever.

Correction: that is using the deficit and not addressing the debt.
 
Last edited:
And that's using the bogus debt number anyways, which excludes all the unfunded liabilities for SS and Medicare. The accurate debt figure today is $54 Trillion, not $13 Trillion or whatever.

Correction: that is using the deficit and not addressing the debt.

Deficits lead to the debt and regardless of the number, there never was a budget surplus under Clinton nor were 22 million jobs created as Haymarket claims
 
Really? Tell me, can you operate a new oil drilling platform with no new staff when your current staff are completely busy? Tell me, if you hire new staff to run the platform which brings in additional revenue, have those staff brought in more revenue? Say, if an auditing firm just got selected for a massive new audit but didn't have the current staff to run the audit and was in real danger of losing that account because of lack of staff, would bringing in new staff to run the audit generate more revenue? During the holidays, if a retailer does not hire new staff and lines back out the door to the point where customers put back their items and leave, has the lack of additional staff cost revenue?



See above.

You can flee as fast as your legs can carry you from the thread now Apdst.

As usual, you missed the point. Perhaps you can send me another PM hackin' on me. However, the point is, you don't hire new personel to operate a drilling rig, if there's no new wells to drill, because no one is buying oil.

That's how it works out here in ther real world. No new business, no new employees. Not: more new tax breaks, more new employees. The latter is the most idiotic thing I've ever heard of.
 
Conservative
You creid FOUL when I linked to a media source of info on tax and jobs telling me to use the authoritative govt stats. But now, you want to support your own right wing opinion by presenting other right wing opinion from they hyper partisan Heritage Society.



sorry but not buying what either of you are selling.

I am on a plane into new Orleans and it's about to land. I will be back on Friday to pick this up. In the meantime. It's a culinary vacation for my wife and I.
 
Conservative
You creid FOUL when I linked to a media source of info on tax and jobs telling me to use the authoritative govt stats. But now, you want to support your own right wing opinion by presenting other right wing opinion from they hyper partisan Heritage Society.



sorry but not buying what either of you are selling.

I am on a plane into new Orleans and it's about to land. I will be back on Friday to pick this up. In the meantime. It's a culinary vacation for my wife and I.

Enjoy your vacation, I will be here when you get back. All I pointed out to you was actual data that refuted the media report. You bought the media report and ignored the actual data finally admitting that you looked at the wrong line. It looks to me like that isn't the only wrong line you looked at. Go to the U.S. Treasury site and get the debt by year and show me the Clinton surplus. Then ask yourself why the media lied to you?
 
Deficits lead to the debt and regardless of the number, there never was a budget surplus under Clinton nor were 22 million jobs created as Haymarket claims

I agree, no budget surplus. Much of the deficit in the past decade was to reconstitute all of the defense and intelligence cuts made under Clinton.

I do think there was 18 - 22 million jobs created, but it CERTAINLY was not due to tax increases. That is just idiotic. There are so many factors in play with a growing economy and the new industries (computers, software, internet, cell phones) we led the world with.

I do not think increasing taxes right now is beneficial (one side calls it a tax increase, which it would be, while the other side calls is rolling back tax cuts. Same ****ing difference). But I also don't think preserving the tax cuts or even increasing them is sufficient to solve our problems of a languid economy, sufficient to bring the unemployment rate (even if it were accurately accounted for) of 9.8% or whatever back to under 5%. I agree with obvious child that a new industry is needed. I am intrigued by his mention of government lending to loosen up credit.
 
I agree, no budget surplus. Much of the deficit in the past decade was to reconstitute all of the defense and intelligence cuts made under Clinton.

I do think there was 18 - 22 million jobs created, but it CERTAINLY was not due to tax increases. That is just idiotic. There are so many factors in play with a growing economy and the new industries (computers, software, internet, cell phones) we led the world with.

I do not think increasing taxes right now is beneficial (one side calls it a tax increase, which it would be, while the other side calls is rolling back tax cuts. Same ****ing difference). But I also don't think preserving the tax cuts or even increasing them is sufficient to solve our problems of a languid economy, sufficient to bring the unemployment rate (even if it were accurately accounted for) of 9.8% or whatever back to under 5%. I agree with obvious child that a new industry is needed. I am intrigued by his mention of government lending to loosen up credit.

Finance industry makes a ton of money lending it out, you would think that direct govt loans would be a money making proposition for America, but then again, the people doing the lending will be govt employees....
If you thing private industry on Wall Street bears watching....:shock:
 
Finance industry makes a ton of money lending it out, you would think that direct govt loans would be a money making proposition for America, but then again, the people doing the lending will be govt employees....
If you thing private industry on Wall Street bears watching....:shock:

True enough. It will probably be the same folks who loosened the lending rules for Fanny Mae and Freddie Mac. Damn, the financial industry is so ****ing opaque: from CDS and derivatives, stocks, commodities, bonds, to the franctional banking system led by the fed. I saw an article in either the Wash Post or the NYT talking about how the top commercial banks have a club they have created to protect their interests in trading in the derivatives market and excluding other banks from entry. That kinda sounds like a cartel to me. There is just a ****load of funny business that seems to go on in the financial industry.
 
Conservative
You creid FOUL when I linked to a media source of info on tax and jobs telling me to use the authoritative govt stats. But now, you want to support your own right wing opinion by presenting other right wing opinion from they hyper partisan Heritage Society.



sorry but not buying what either of you are selling.

I am on a plane into new Orleans and it's about to land. I will be back on Friday to pick this up. In the meantime. It's a culinary vacation for my wife and I.

Who would wanna go to New Orleans, in this weather?
 
Like the great Bernie Sanders asks "when is enough enough"?

When I decide I've had enough, and that I have managed to earn more and what I do with it is none of the Feds, Obama's or your business.

I hope you don't mind if I come into your house and help myself to the fruits of your labor?

.
 
As usual, you missed the point.

Not at all. You attempted to get a hit on me and you totally screwed it up once again providing me additional areas to whack you.

Perhaps you can send me another PM hackin' on me. However, the point is, you don't hire new personel to operate a drilling rig, if there's no new wells to drill, because no one is buying oil.

Perhaps you should read what I wrote. Without additional employees to service jobs, the revenue from those jobs won't come in, ergo, the employees bring in additional revenue. Furthermore, any employee that goes out and gets a new account has generated revenue proving you once again are wrong on everything you open your mouth on.

That's how it works out here in ther real world. No new business, no new employees. Not: more new tax breaks, more new employees. The latter is the most idiotic thing I've ever heard of.

Then perhaps you should take that up with the person who said it: you.

Run away Apdst. You do it so well.
 
Last edited:
Not at all. You attempted to get a hit on me and you totally screwed it up once again providing me additional areas to whack you.



Perhaps you should read what I wrote. Without additional employees to service jobs, the revenue from those jobs won't come in, ergo, the employees bring in additional revenue. Furthermore, any employee that goes out and gets a new account has generated revenue proving you once again are wrong on everything you open your mouth on.



Then perhaps you should take that up with the person who said it: you.

Run away Apdst. You do it so well.

So, if you were a BCO, you would hire people, that you didn't need, just to get a chicken**** tax credit?

Piece of advise: stay in school, you won't make it in the real world.
 
They will need much more if Reid is able to pass his pork laden omnibus spending bill
 
So, if you were a BCO, you would hire people, that you didn't need, just to get a chicken**** tax credit?

Do you enjoy fabricating arguments to substitute for lack of any discernible skill?

Piece of advise: stay in school, you won't make it in the real world.

Piece of advice. Learn to spell and stop making **** up to compensate for your own debate skill failures.

You insulted me on arguing that additional employees bring in additional revenue. I cited several examples of you being, as usual, 100% wrong. And then you fabricated outright lies to compensate for your lack of any skill whatsoever.

For someone who said my argument was the stupidest thing he's ever heard, I guess you think that jobs and accounts can service themselves without any employees. Now that is idiotic.
 
Back
Top Bottom