• 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!

Private sector sheds 39,000 jobs in September

Stay focues. regardless of whose responsibility it was, the money saved those jobs, and when that money was gone, so were some of the jobs. It has nothing to do with buying anything but the facts.

That is your opinion, it is mine that the Federal Taxpayer had no business saving state education jobs and it is further my opinion that the states would have come up with the money. It is all about whose responsibility is it, Federal or State. Further it is about about the definition of what is a stimulus. If Obama had stated he was going to bail out the states instead of creating a stimulus for shovel ready jobs then you would have a successful argument but that wasn't the purpose of the stimulus. The fact is Obama lied to the American people to get his bailout package packed and sold it on creation of jobs buy funding "shovel ready" infrastructure jobs. Teachers are not shovel ready projects, nor is the bailout of union pensions or other state programs.
 
No. To keep teachers working. Your skewed spin is simply inaccurate.

I have to jump on this one. Maybe there are people naive enough to really believe the B.S. of "keeping teachers in their jobs". I do not think you are that naive. You understand that money given to states is fungible. So giving money to states allows states to avoid making decisions on where to cut spending. There are a ton of options nefore laying off teachers and I think you understand it.

At least to people like me who would like to have a real debate on issues, when this junk is thrown around is truth really makes this site less interesting.
 
Last edited:
of course they do, as do business and corporations. but you can't argue that there is only one reason for something. We need teachers beyond union wants and desires.

Will not happen as long as teacher unions have democrats in their pockets with the vast money they give to elections
 
of course they do, as do business and corporations. but you can't argue that there is only one reason for something. We need teachers beyond union wants and desires.

Yes, we need teachers and they are funded by state and local taxes not Federal Taxes. Saving their jobs is a state responsibility not a Federal Responsibility. Obama stimulus plan was not sold on basis that the money was going to be used to "save" teachers' jobs.
 
Yes, we need teachers and they are funded by state and local taxes not Federal Taxes. Saving their jobs is a state responsibility not a Federal Responsibility. Obama stimulus plan was not sold on basis that the money was going to be used to "save" teachers' jobs.

He didn't break down whihc jobs, but those jobes, we know, were saved regardless of who you believe is responsbile for them.
 
Will not happen as long as teacher unions have democrats in their pockets with the vast money they give to elections

What won't happen? I feel like you were reading something else as your response seems to being addressing something I didn't say.
 
He didn't break down whihc jobs, but those jobes, we know, were saved regardless of who you believe is responsbile for them.

What we don't know and never will know is whether or not the states could have saved those jobs without Federal Intervention. There is a bigger issue here, is that what you expected from the Stimulus plan? Is that how it was sold? Is that the role of the Federal Govt. to bailout inefficient state governments?

I thought the stimulus was supposed to fund "shovel ready" jobs? Seems again you and the public that bought into the Obama rhetoric were duped.
 
What we don't know and never will know is whether or not the states could have saved those jobs without Federal Intervention. There is a bigger issue here, is that what you expected from the Stimulus plan? Is that how it was sold? Is that the role of the Federal Govt. to bailout inefficient state governments?

I thought the stimulus was supposed to fund "shovel ready" jobs? Seems again you and the public that bought into the Obama rhetoric were duped.

Apparently Boo doesn't have a response, not surprising.
 
What we don't know and never will know is whether or not the states could have saved those jobs without Federal Intervention. There is a bigger issue here, is that what you expected from the Stimulus plan? Is that how it was sold? Is that the role of the Federal Govt. to bailout inefficient state governments?

I thought the stimulus was supposed to fund "shovel ready" jobs? Seems again you and the public that bought into the Obama rhetoric were duped.

But we do know. Once the money was gone, states lost those jobs. not all states are out of that money, but in those in which it was used up, they lost those teachers.

As for me not answering, doood, I'm not here 24 / 7. Give a little time, and try to remember this has been answered before with links. Maybe you should mark them so you can go back when the question arises in your mind again. ;)
 
But we do know. Once the money was gone, states lost those jobs. not all states are out of that money, but in those in which it was used up, they lost those teachers.

As for me not answering, doood, I'm not here 24 / 7. Give a little time, and try to remember this has been answered before with links. Maybe you should mark them so you can go back when the question arises in your mind again. ;)

No, sorry you don't know, those jobs were not lost they were projected to go and we all know what Obama projections mean. Guess you don't have an answer to the question about the purpose of the stimulus. Was it sold on saving "teacher's jobs?"
 
What won't happen? I feel like you were reading something else as your response seems to being addressing something I didn't say.

No you act like unions are not an influence here. The teahers union have great power
 
But we do know. Once the money was gone, states lost those jobs. not all states are out of that money, but in those in which it was used up, they lost those teachers.

Which states are those?
 
No, sorry you don't know, those jobs were not lost they were projected to go and we all know what Obama projections mean. Guess you don't have an answer to the question about the purpose of the stimulus. Was it sold on saving "teacher's jobs?"

Aren't teacher jobs jobs? or are teachers not worthy?
 
Aren't teacher jobs jobs? or are teachers not worthy?

Teacher's jobs are state responsibility, not the Federal Responsibility. Noticed that you didn't answer my question regarding how the stimulus was sold. What Obama did was bailout the teacher's unions with stimulus funds which are hardly shovel ready projects.
 
Teacher's jobs are state responsibility, not the Federal Responsibility. Noticed that you didn't answer my question regarding how the stimulus was sold. What Obama did was bailout the teacher's unions with stimulus funds which are hardly shovel ready projects.

Doesn't matter to the claim. They are jobs, aren't they? And do students and people not suffer more than unions if teacher jobs are lost?
 
Doesn't matter to the claim. They are jobs, aren't they? And do students and people not suffer more than unions if teacher jobs are lost?

Most suffer when the market drops as well but you aren't concerned about how the market is doing. Keep diverting which is all you do. The stimulus plan was for shovel ready jobs, not bailing out teacher's unions. All Obama did is what liberals always do, allow someone else to shirk their responsibilities which in this case was allow states not to make the tough choices. There are never consequences in the liberal world when the reality is liberalism is a total and complete failure as the actual results show.
 
Most suffer when the market drops as well but you aren't concerned about how the market is doing. Keep diverting which is all you do. The stimulus plan was for shovel ready jobs, not bailing out teacher's unions. All Obama did is what liberals always do, allow someone else to shirk their responsibilities which in this case was allow states not to make the tough choices. There are never consequences in the liberal world when the reality is liberalism is a total and complete failure as the actual results show.

You do make leaps. You should refrain from making calls on what I'm concerned about. And states have bene quite thankful for the help for the most part, and as a person who cares about education, so am I. But, the question was about saving jobs. The answer is those jobs were saved.
 
You do make leaps. You should refrain from making calls on what I'm concerned about. And states have bene quite thankful for the help for the most part, and as a person who cares about education, so am I. But, the question was about saving jobs. The answer is those jobs were saved.

What has happened is that states under liberal control have never had to make the tough choices thanks to Obama. That seems to be what liberals do, bailout failures. Obama claims that things could have been worse and you buy it. I claim that those jobs could have been saved without spending "shovel ready" stimulus money on those state issues. The American people were sold a bill of goods and only those like you continue to buy the rhetoric.
 
What has happened is that states under liberal control have never had to make the tough choices thanks to Obama. That seems to be what liberals do, bailout failures. Obama claims that things could have been worse and you buy it. I claim that those jobs could have been saved without spending "shovel ready" stimulus money on those state issues. The American people were sold a bill of goods and only those like you continue to buy the rhetoric.

Poor, poor states. And it was so different under republican spending. :lol: :lamo :lamo
 
Poor, poor states. And it was so different under republican spending. :lol: :lamo :lamo

Poor, poor states? Again keep diverting from the claims Obama made to sell the stimulus plan. This money was for shovel ready jobs not state bailouts.
 
Poor, poor states? Again keep diverting from the claims Obama made to sell the stimulus plan. This money was for shovel ready jobs not state bailouts.

Because that isn't the question we were debating. You diverted to it when you realized you were wrong. ;)
 
Because that isn't the question we were debating. You diverted to it when you realized you were wrong. ;)

Private sector shedding 39,000 jobs is the topic of this thread. Teachers are public sector jobs and had nothing to do with the Stimulus sales pitch by Obama.
 
Private sector shedding 39,000 jobs is the topic of this thread. Teachers are public sector jobs and had nothing to do with the Stimulus sales pitch by Obama.

we're 175 post in, and we were talking about jobs saved.
 
Back
Top Bottom