• 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!

Obama Heralds 1.1M Private Sector Jobs Created Since Jan.

Yeah, I stand by tall blondes are fun, so? :coffeepap

"Obama Herales 1.1M Private sector Jobs Created since January" so are you telling me that the President lied? The official numbers show a net of 4 million jobs lost.
 
"Obama Herales 1.1M Private sector Jobs Created since January" so are you telling me that the President lied? The official numbers show a net of 4 million jobs lost.

Nope. I don't know for sure if that number is accurate or not. But I do some jobs were created, yes. ANd the only ones the president can take credit for are the ones that used money he worked to have spent on those jobs.
 
Nope. I don't know for sure if that number is accurate or not. But I do some jobs were created, yes. ANd the only ones the president can take credit for are the ones that used money he worked to have spent on those jobs.

Oh, I see, so now the President can create or save jobs when you have stated that the President and Congress don't have any affect on the jobs. Which is it?
 
Boo Radley said:
Nope. I don't know for sure if that number is accurate or not. But I do some jobs were created, yes. ANd the only ones the president can take credit for are the ones that used money he worked to have spent on those jobs.

Oh, I see, so now the President can create or save jobs when you have stated that the President and Congress don't have any affect on the jobs. Which is it?

this ought to be good....
 
Oh, I see, so now the President can create or save jobs when you have stated that the President and Congress don't have any affect on the jobs. Which is it?

Read better. You're not stating my position correctly. Even creating jobs is not controlling the economy. As you note, dispite creating jobs, the economy was not controlled or saved. It merely helped some not suffer as much as they would or could have. That is not control.
 
Read better. You're not stating my position correctly. Even creating jobs is not controlling the economy. As you note, dispite creating jobs, the economy was not controlled or saved. It merely helped some not suffer as much as they would or could have. That is not control.

I don't think you even understand your OWN position. Now jobs apparently don't affect the economy either? Glad to hear that unemployment also doesn't affect the economy. You really are confused.
 
I don't think you even understand your OWN position. Now jobs apparently don't affect the economy either? Glad to hear that unemployment also doesn't affect the economy. You really are confused.

Again, read better. I'll repeat my argument for just as I wrote it before: While I don't argue the government has no effect, I do argue it has no siginificant effect. The government cannot control the economy as other factors mean much more than anything the government does.

Now, read slower. Take notes. Maybe ask someone to help. :coffeepap
 
Quote Boo Radley

Now, read slower. Take notes. Maybe ask someone to help.

Nah, better not, it will just get me a early Xmas card from a mod. :mrgreen:
 
Again, read better. I'll repeat my argument for just as I wrote it before: While I don't argue the government has no effect, I do argue it has no siginificant effect. The government cannot control the economy as other factors mean much more than anything the government does.

Now, read slower. Take notes. Maybe ask someone to help. :coffeepap

Now apparently it all depends on the definition of significant? Did you support Clinton as well? You really don't have a clue how our economy works as you are all over the place now yet still backed into a corner. Let's see you convince anyone else that a 3.6 trillion dollar Federal Govt. doesn't impact the economy? That doesn't fly nor does your argument on any other issue. you really need to cut your losses.
 
Nah, better not, it will just get me a early Xmas card from a mod. :mrgreen:

I assure you that reading isn't a problem but following the Boo bouncing ball is.
 
Now apparently it all depends on the definition of significant? Did you support Clinton as well? You really don't have a clue how our economy works as you are all over the place now yet still backed into a corner. Let's see you convince anyone else that a 3.6 trillion dollar Federal Govt. doesn't impact the economy? That doesn't fly nor does your argument on any other issue. you really need to cut your losses.

I even define for you: The government cannot control the economy as other factors mean much more than anything the government does.

There's no bouncing and nothign that is ahrd to follow.
 
Now apparently it all depends on the definition of significant? Did you support Clinton as well? You really don't have a clue how our economy works as you are all over the place now yet still backed into a corner. Let's see you convince anyone else that a 3.6 trillion dollar Federal Govt. doesn't impact the economy? That doesn't fly nor does your argument on any other issue. you really need to cut your losses.

I even define for you: The government cannot control the economy as other factors mean much more than anything the government does.

There's no bouncing and nothing that is hard to follow.
 
I even define for you: The government cannot control the economy as other factors mean much more than anything the government does.

There's no bouncing and nothign that is ahrd to follow.

You are losing it, take a deep breath, get away from the computer, and come back with a clearer head. No one buys the rhetoric that a 3.6 trillion dollar Federal Govt. with 60% of that entitlement spending doesn't impact the economy. I am sure a day or two would allow you to come back with a clearer mind.
 
I assure you that reading isn't a problem but following the Boo bouncing ball is.

Talk about a bouncing ball, go look at your post today, starting with your first one where you say “you are still diverting from the thread topic “and the rest of your post are devoted to diverting from the thread topic. :lamo
 
Talk about a bouncing ball, go look at your post today, starting with your first one where you say “you are still diverting from the thread topic “and the rest of your post are devoted to diverting from the thread topic. :lamo

The thread topic is about Obama heralds 1.1M Private Sector jobs created since January and everything I have posted is on topic. Obama and his control of the economy, the 4 million net job lost, Boo's claim that he doesn't impact the economy. So which is it as you liberals all try to defend each other?
 
You are losing it, take a deep breath, get away from the computer, and come back with a clearer head. No one buys the rhetoric that a 3.6 trillion dollar Federal Govt. with 60% of that entitlement spending doesn't impact the economy. I am sure a day or two would allow you to come back with a clearer mind.

:coffeepap
 
Again, read better. I'll repeat my argument for just as I wrote it before: While I don't argue the government has no effect, I do argue it has no siginificant effect. The government cannot control the economy as other factors mean much more than anything the government does.

That's the first time I've ever heard anything like that..

Historically governments have had dramatic effects on economies, depending on their economic philosophies and individual economic freedoms of the people.

All we need do is look at a map, or an appropriate graph, to see that economies vary wildly from country to country, and almost always because of the actions, or inactions, of their governments. To claim that governments have no significant effect on economies flies in the face of all historical and visible evidence. It is a ridiculous argument.
 
Last edited:
That's the first time I've ever heard anything like that..

Historically governments have had dramatic effects on economies, depending on their economic philosophies and individual freedoms of the government.

All we have to do is look at a map, or an appropriate graph, to see that economies vary wildly, and almost always because of the actions, or inactions, of their governments. To claim that governments have no significant effect on economies flies in the face of all historical and visible evidence. It is a ridiculous argument.

Sure they vary considerably, and certain a government that exerts control of an economy has more effect than one that doesn't. But even they fail, and do so because other factors can outweigh their control.

But, you're mixing things up a little. Leaders try to control the economy. In or system, government tries to deal with problems through regulation, limiting harm or inequities, but they don't interfer in any way that would actually control sucess or failure of the over companies or employment or even growth. They can try to limit the pain of failure, or encourage business to take risks. But the government does not create jobs or grow the economy. Other factors have a much greater influence than the government.
 
Back
Top Bottom