• 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!

Breaking: Agreement has been reached on raising the debt limit....

Moderator's Warning:
Guys, the topic is the debt deal. Let's actually talk about that here.
 
Re: Obama: We have a deal

Suggest you move to a more pro growth state that doesn't rely solely on govt. spending. Just like a liberal relying on state and local govt. spending. You do realize the taxpayers are tapped out.

As austerity rises, "Central Falls Becomes Second Muni Casualty of 2011" will be a same story, different name type of ordeal throughout the Obama presidency. Note that Obama and his policies have nothing to do with muni default.
 
Re: Obama: We have a deal

No, that doesn't include discouraged workers or workers that are under employed

You can add these numbers for discouraged workers to the total

Discouraged workers
2008 467 396 401 412 400 420 461 381 467 484 608 642
2009 734 731 685 740 792 793 796 758 706 808 861 929
2010 1065 1204 994 1197 1083 1207 1185 1110 1209 1219 1282 1318
2011 993 1020 921 989 822 982

Until you provide an accurate u-6 figure, your argument is useless.
 
Re: Obama: We have a deal

No one is disputing that Obama inherited a recession, what is your excuse for the decline in GDP growth every month since the first qtr of 2010 with the exception of the booming 1.3% GDP growth? You need to get over your Bush Derangement Syndrome, he isn't on the ballot and all we hear from "your" President are excuses

Well, when evaluating how far Obama has come,don't you think it's relevant to look at where he started? I do.

Then, instead of just pointing at numbers and saying "SEE!", as is your wont, it might be helpful to analyze what's behind the numbers. Why has GDP growth slowed? Is it Obama's fault no matter the reason? I mean, if our economy is being affected by contagion from the European debt crisis, which it is, is that Obama's fault? Or if the economy was slowed by supply line interruption from the Japan Tsunami, which it was, is that Obama's fault, too? Of if the slowdown is in part a result of stimulus running out, and the republicans are adamant in their refusal to approve further stimulus, which they are, is that Obama's fault, too?

I guess I just don't think that Obama is as powerful as you make him out to be.
 
Re: Obama: We have a deal

Sorry, but that negative 6.7 GDP contraction was on Bush's watch. As were the the preceding months of GDP contraction.


An interesting thing you do here...If I am right in reading this, the negative GDP you are looking at were in the first two quarters of '09, and by the final two quarters GDP was at 3.8% positive.

Now you look at when Obama took over and it is a direct slide downward. to today's 1.4% and you argue that Obama's GDP numbers are better than the last quarters of Bush?

I may be economically illiterate on a macro scale, and confess when the discussion gets to the point of discussing different minutia about the economic drivers, and stats, my eyes glaze over....But NOWHERE in my former education of math does 1.4% equal greater than 3.8%...

Anything stating such is spin pure and simple.

j-mac
 
Re: Obama: We have a deal

You might want to check the U.S. Constitution, I haven't seen anything there that say he's in charge of GDP growth. But, even if it were his job, look at the first quarter of 2009, although he was President then, you would have to blame Bush. That's if you were honest.:mrgreen:

You helped put this man in the WH because of the promises he made. These are contrary to the promises but apparently that doesn't matter to you as it is more about ideology and never about results. What is the direction Obama is taking this country. 40% of the people now support him. Most realize those promises were campaign rhetoric that turned out to be lies. You are doing everything possible to justify your vote. My question is why would anyone have a tag line, Obama 2012, with these kind of results? What is it about liberalism that creates such loyalty?
 
Re: Obama: We have a deal

Well, when evaluating how far Obama has come,don't you think it's relevant to look at where he started? I do.

Then, instead of just pointing at numbers and saying "SEE!", as is your wont, it might be helpful to analyze what's behind the numbers. Why has GDP growth slowed? Is it Obama's fault no matter the reason? I mean, if our economy is being affected by contagion from the European debt crisis, which it is, is that Obama's fault? Or if the economy was slowed by supply line interruption from the Japan Tsunami, which it was, is that Obama's fault, too? Of if the slowdown is in part a result of stimulus running out, and the republicans are adamant in their refusal to approve further stimulus, which they are, is that Obama's fault, too?

I guess I just don't think that Obama is as powerful as you make him out to be.

I gave you reasons the GDP declined but you don't want reasons, you want to ignore the actual results because of the great smile, teleprompter rhetoric, and youthful movements. Looks to me like you are trying to justify your support for this empty suit. Results matter more than rhetoric, one of these days you will learn that
 
Re: Obama: We have a deal

Until you provide an accurate u-6 figure, your argument is useless.

The U-6 number is 16.2% and with a labor force of 153 million that is over 24 million unemployed or under employed
 
Re: Obama: We have a deal

An interesting thing you do here...If I am right in reading this, the negative GDP you are looking at were in the first two quarters of '09, and by the final two quarters GDP was at 3.8% positive.

Now you look at when Obama took over and it is a direct slide downward. to today's 1.4% and you argue that Obama's GDP numbers are better than the last quarters of Bush?

I may be economically illiterate on a macro scale, and confess when the discussion gets to the point of discussing different minutia about the economic drivers, and stats, my eyes glaze over....But NOWHERE in my former education of math does 1.4% equal greater than 3.8%...

Anything stating such is spin pure and simple.

j-mac

What I'm saying, quite simply, is that the economy was contracting sharply when Obama was handed the reins, and that it is now growing, albeit not as fast as anyone would like. Presidents can influence these macro trends to a degree, but they simply do not have the power to control them absolutely. My feeling is that Obama has done most of the right things, and about as much as he could do given the toxic political climate.
 
Re: Obama: We have a deal

What specifically did Bush do to lose those jobs?
His and Republicans policies which led to the financial meltdown. Democrats share some of the blame but not as much since they took over just 11 months before the Bush Great Recession began, there's not much they could have done had they even tried, which they didn't, to prevent the housing bubble.

As for the lost jobs, amazing how you ignore there was still a net job gain during the Bush years but that doesn't matter to an ideologue like you.
I was talking about the Bush Great Recession.

8,000,000 jobs lost.
Hey, I know, let's use your math of calculating the underemployed for that period and see what numbers we get, shall we?...

Dec/2007: U6=8.8%; LF=153,936,000; Underemployed=13,546,368
Jun/2009: U6=16.5%; LF=154,754,000; Underemployed=25,534,410

Total underemployed during Bush's Great Recession: 11,988,042

Wait, let's do that for Bush's first 29 months in office, ok?

Jan/2001: U6=7.3%; LF=143,800,000; Underemployed=10,497,400
Jun/2003: U6=10.3%; LF=147,400,000; Underemployed=15,146,768

Total underemployed during Bush's first 29 months: 4,649,368

How about Bush's entire administration, ok?

Jan/2001: U6=7.3%; LF=143,800,000; Underemployed=10,497,400
Jan/2009: U6=14%; LF=154,185,000; Underemployed=21,585,900

Total underemployed during Bush's 8 years in office: 11,088,500
 
Re: Obama: We have a deal

The U-6 number is 16.2% and with a labor force of 153 million that is over 24 million unemployed or under employed

How does this negate Shiek's comment?
 
Re: Obama: We have a deal

As austerity rises, "Central Falls Becomes Second Muni Casualty of 2011" will be a same story, different name type of ordeal throughout the Obama presidency. Note that Obama and his policies have nothing to do with muni default.

Obama and his policies? What exactly are those policies? An 800 billion stimulus that failed? Obamacare which scares the hell out of small businesses? Delegation of responsibilities? Bush is taking the blame for everything that has happened and is going to happen apparently. Good leaders can never delegate responsibility but that is what Obama is doing. It is always someone else's fault for his own failures. Name for me the economic policy Obama has that will generate positive net job growth and a strong GDP from the private sector?
 
Re: Obama: We have a deal

His and Republicans policies which led to the financial meltdown. Democrats share some of the blame but not as much since they took over just 11 months before the Bush Great Recession began, there's not much they could have done had they even tried, which they didn't, to prevent the housing bubble.


I was talking about the Bush Great Recession.

8,000,000 jobs lost.
Hey, I know, let's use your math of calculating the underemployed for that period and see what numbers we get, shall we?...

Dec/2007: U6=8.8%; LF=153,936,000; Underemployed=13,546,368
Jun/2009: U6=16.5%; LF=154,754,000; Underemployed=25,534,410

Total underemployed during Bush's Great Recession: 11,988,042

Wait, let's do that for Bush's first 29 months in office, ok?

Jan/2001: U6=7.3%; LF=143,800,000; Underemployed=10,497,400
Jun/2003: U6=10.3%; LF=147,400,000; Underemployed=15,146,768

Total underemployed during Bush's first 29 months: 4,649,368

How about Bush's entire administration, ok?

Jan/2001: U6=7.3%; LF=143,800,000; Underemployed=10,497,400
Jan/2009: U6=14%; LF=154,185,000; Underemployed=21,585,900

Total underemployed during Bush's 8 years in office: 11,088,500

That is your opinion, don't vote for him in 2012. As for Obama declining GDP growth every qtr since 2010 which is after the recession ended and I see no economic plan to grow the private sector and grow the economy.

Under employed and unemployed today is over 24 million, 16.2% X 154 million
 
Re: Obama: We have a deal

That is your opinion, don't vote for him in 2012. As for Obama declining GDP growth every qtr since 2010 which is after the recession ended and I see no economic plan to grow the private sector and grow the economy.

And as you have been told a plethora of times, this was when stimulus spending/(insert your unit of time) was at it's relative maximum. There is an amazing correlation between the derivative of stimulus spending and that of economic output between the dates in question.

Care to comment on this correlation?

Here is a nice chart:
stimulus_timing.png
 
Last edited:
Re: Obama: We have a deal

What is the republican plan to grow the private sector and grow the economy?
 
Re: Obama: We have a deal

And as you have been told a plethora of times, this was when stimulus spending/(insert your unit of time) was at it's relative maximum. There is an amazing correlation between the derivative of stimulus spending and that of economic output between the dates in question.

Care to comment on this correlation?

Which goes to show that Obama didn't generate any positive economic activity in the private sector and the only growth was from Govt. spending. I would have thought someone as intelligent as you would have figured that out
 
Re: Obama: We have a deal

What is the republican plan to grow the private sector and grow the economy?

Cut corporate tax rates, provide healthcare waivers to all businesses for Obamacare, reduce inheritence taxes, and extend indefinitely the Bush tax cuts
 
Re: Obama: We have a deal

Which goes to show that Obama didn't generate any positive economic activity in the private sector and the only growth was from Govt. spending. I would have thought someone as intelligent as you would have figured that out

The president does not generate economic activity from the private sector; this must be understood before you go any step further.

Why no comment on the stimulus correlation to growth?
 
Re: Obama: We have a deal

Under the context of your rebuttal to Sheik. Try again!

There is no response to Sheik because Sheik is stuck in the past. Nothing that happened during the Bush term is relevant now as there never has been a President in modern history two years after the end of a recession have these kind of numbers. Unemployment higher than when he took office, Employment lower than when he took office, economic growth is stagnant. Does it really matter what Bush did 2 1/2 years after Obama took office?

Obama record, 15.1 million officially unemployed TODAY 2 1/2 years later, 16.2% total unemployment or underemployment over 24 million TODAY, 4 trillion added to the debt as of the end of fiscal year 2011, and a rising misery index(7.83 to 12.67).
 
Re: Obama: We have a deal

Cut corporate tax rates, provide healthcare waivers to all businesses for Obamacare, reduce inheritence taxes, and extend indefinitely the Bush tax cuts

Which will force the long term federal deficit to expand in an exponential fashion.

Why are you in favor of health care subsidization from the federal government (the increased costs you speak of)?
 
Re: Obama: We have a deal

The president does not generate economic activity from the private sector; this must be understood before you go any step further.

Why no comment on the stimulus correlation to growth?

The President did nothing to support growth in the private sector with his stimulus package and then Obamacare. Business cannot print money and operates on a five year plan. Since there is no certainty private business is sitting on the sidelines waiting to see what they will need to fund the liberal appetite for spending
 
Re: Obama: We have a deal

Which will force the long term federal deficit to expand in an exponential fashion.

Why are you in favor of health care subsidization from the federal government (the increased costs you speak of)?

A waiver isn't subsidizing private business. Obamacare does nothing to lower costs and in fact increases costs on small businesses. Without waivers they are forced into the system.
 
Re: Obama: We have a deal

Cut corporate tax rates, provide healthcare waivers to all businesses for Obamacare, reduce inheritence taxes, and extend indefinitely the Bush tax cuts

So basically what you want to do is drive the the debt higher and higher by cutting revenue without any appreciable spending cuts? Our effective corporate taxes are already the lowest in the industrial world. If we cut them further companies will just accumulate more cash. Extending Obamacare waivers to everyone will accomplish nothing. Reducing the inheritance tas further will affect almost no one.

If that's the republican plan then it's a recipe for disaster.
 
Back
Top Bottom