• 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....

Re: Obama: We have a deal

Conservative said:
Would be happy to when you show me how Bush lost 8 million jobs and created the recession?
Click to expand...
My pleasure ...

Bush's Great Recession began in Dec/2007, the total number of unemployed+discouraged workers was:

8,033,000

Bush's Great Recession ended in Jun/2009, the total number of unemployed+discouraged workers was:

15,569,000

Grand total jobs lost during Bush's Great Recession: 7,536,000 -- or rounded to 8 million.

Any more questions?

Conservative said:
The recession ended 4 months after Obama took office hardly time for him to make a difference. The 24 million unemployed and under Employed Americans, .4% and 1.3% GDP growth in the first two qtrs of 2011 are two years later. Just a simple fact that you want to ignore. GW Bush didn't have 24 million unemployed or under employed plus .4% and 1.3% GDP growth two years after the end of the 2001 recession.
Click to expand...
How come you struggle with providing the same information more than once? You are constantantly "adjusting" your figures as though you really don't know what the actual figures are. Now the recession ended in May, '09? Before you said June.
 
Re: Obama: We have a deal

AdamT said:
No, Britain is not trying to privatize it's health care system. They are talking about possibly opening it up to *some* livel of private competition, but the plans have already been scaled back due to heavy opposition from the public and the medical community. Get your facts straight. NHS services to be opened up to competition | Society | The Guardian
Click to expand...

If the single pay was working so well they wouldn't do that at all. My facts are straight, the public sector promoting cradle to grave coverage doesn't give a damn about costs but only coverage and sounds a lot like you. Costs have to be paid and apparently you have no problem as long as someone else pays it. Europe is trying to unravel the entitlement mentality there just like you are embracing it here
 
Re: Obama: We have a deal

Sheik Yerbuti said:
My pleasure ...

Bush's Great Recession began in Dec/2007, the total number of unemployed+discouraged workers was:

8,033,000

Bush's Great Recession ended in Jun/2009, the total number of unemployed+discouraged workers was:

15,569,000

Grand total jobs lost during Bush's Great Recession: 7,536,000 -- or rounded to 8 million.

Any more questions?


How come you struggle with providing the same information more than once? You are constantantly "adjusting" your figures as though you really don't know what the actual figures are. Now the recession ended in May, '09? Before you said June.
Click to expand...

What specifically did Bush do to lose those jobs? Recession ended in June 2009 and here we are two years later and those are the Obama numbers.

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.
 
Last edited:
Re: Obama: We have a deal

Conservative said:
If the single pay was working so well they wouldn't do that at all. My facts are straight, the public sector promoting cradle to grave coverage doesn't give a damn about costs but only coverage and sounds a lot like you. Costs have to be paid and apparently you have no problem as long as someone else pays it. Europe is trying to unravel the entitlement mentality there just like you are embracing it here
Click to expand...

Your facts are wrong. Britain is not trying to privatize it's health care system. Neither is France. In fact France has always had private doctors and hospitals and optional private insurance. Britain is somewhat unique insofar as it is a completely government run operation. That is not a system I would emulate. The French model is better.
 
Re: Obama: We have a deal

Conservative said:
What specifically did Bush do to lose those jobs? Recession ended in June 2009 and here we are two years later and those are the Obama numbers.

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.
Click to expand...

The fact that the recession technically ended does not mean that the economy suddenly started booming. It just means that GDP stopped contracting.
 
Re: Obama: We have a deal

Sheik Yerbuti said:
My pleasure ...

Bush's Great Recession began in Dec/2007, the total number of unemployed+discouraged workers was:

8,033,000

Bush's Great Recession ended in Jun/2009, the total number of unemployed+discouraged workers was:

15,569,000

Grand total jobs lost during Bush's Great Recession: 7,536,000 -- or rounded to 8 million.

Any more questions?


How come you struggle with providing the same information more than once? You are constantantly "adjusting" your figures as though you really don't know what the actual figures are. Now the recession ended in May, '09? Before you said June.
Click to expand...

Don't see the 8 million job losses so you probably should call BLS and tell them they screwed up

Employment

2001 137778
2002 135701
2003 137417
2004 138472
2005 140245
2006 143142
2007 146032
2008 146421
2009 142221

Unemployment

2001 6023
2002 8182
2003 8520
2004 8370
2005 7784
2006 7059
2007 7085
2008 7628
2009 11919
 
Re: Obama: We have a deal

Conservative said:
What specifically did Bush do to lose those jobs? Recession ended in June 2009 and here we are two years later and those are the Obama numbers.

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.
Click to expand...
The term recession is about GDP growth, it's NOT about employment as you damned well know.
 
Re: Obama: We have a deal

AdamT said:
The fact that the recession technically ended does not mean that the economy suddenly started booming. It just means that GDP stopped contracting.
Click to expand...

Obama stimulus program was for shovel ready jobs. Now he admits that the shovel ready jobs "weren't so shovel ready." It was sold on creating shovel ready jobs.

As for the GDP contracting, looks like it is contracting now, over two years after the end of the recession after a pretty good 2010. Why? Looks like you and Sheik are among the 40% that still support this empty suit. What are you seeing that they aren't?
 
Re: Obama: We have a deal

pbrauer said:
The term recession is about GDP growth, it's NOT about employment as you damned well know.
Click to expand...

First Qtr 2011 GDP .4%
Second Qtr. GDP 1.3%

Thanks for getting this back on track and allowing me to point out that wonderful Obama economy.
 
Re: Obama: We have a deal

Conservative said:
Don't see the 8 million job losses so you probably should call BLS and tell them they screwed up

Employment

2001 137778
2002 135701
2003 137417
2004 138472
2005 140245
2006 143142
2007 146032
2008 146421
2009 142221

Unemployment

2001 6023
2002 8182
2003 8520
2004 8370
2005 7784
2006 7059
2007 7085
2008 7628
2009 11919
Click to expand...

He is citing the U-6 measure....
 
Re: Obama: We have a deal

Goldenboy219 said:
He is citing the U-6 measure....
Click to expand...

Not quite but nice try

Labor Force Statistics from the Current Population Survey
Original Data Value

Series Id: LNS13000000
Seasonally Adjusted
Series title: (Seas) Unemployment Level
Labor force status: Unemployed
Type of data: Number in thousands
Age: 16 years and over
 
Re: Obama: We have a deal

Conservative said:
First Qtr 2011 GDP .4%
Second Qtr. GDP 1.3%

Thanks for getting this back on track and allowing me to point out that wonderful Obama economy.
Click to expand...

Pay attention; as state and local government spending continues to dry up, weak output growth will continue.
 
Re: Obama: We have a deal

Sheik Yerbuti said:
Posts #245 and #247 explains why I believe it wouldn't work and post #249 contains an alternate solution. What else do you want?
Click to expand...

Your current solution already exists and it obviously is not working. The two branches [legislative and executive] are out of control when it comes to spending. Your solution is to have that out of control spending continue. Oh well, I tried to find a better solution. *sigh*
 
Re: Obama: We have a deal

pbrauer said:
The term recession is about GDP growth, it's NOT about employment as you damned well know.
Click to expand...

Sort of like saying, "hey, I shot him in the stomach three days ago and he just died today. Not MY fault!" :lol:
 
Re: Obama: We have a deal

pbrauer said:
The term recession is about GDP growth, it's NOT about employment as you damned well know.
Click to expand...

Obama GDP growth. Is this what you had in mind? Can you name for me what President had this kind of GDP performance two years after the end of a recession

2009
-6.7
-0.7
1.7
3.8

2010
3.9
3.8
2.5
2.3

2011
0.4
1.3
 
Re: Obama: We have a deal

Conservative said:
Obama GDP growth. Is this what you had in mind? Can you name for me what President had this kind of GDP performance two years after the end of a recession

2009
-6.7
-0.7
1.7
3.8

2010
3.9
3.8
2.5
2.3

2011
0.4
1.3
Click to expand...

Sorry, but that negative 6.7 GDP contraction was on Bush's watch. As were the the preceding months of GDP contraction.
 
Re: Obama: We have a deal

Goldenboy219 said:
Pay attention; as state and local government spending continues to dry up, weak output growth will continue.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Re: Obama: We have a deal

AdamT said:
Sorry, but that negative 6.7 GDP contraction was on Bush's watch. As were the the preceding months of GDP contraction.
Click to expand...

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
 
Re: Obama: We have a deal

Bringing the topic back...

I found this proposed Continuing Resolution from the House (H.ConRes 68) very interesting. Once again, Congress gets it wrong. The reason the President cannot use clause 4 of the 14th Amendment to the Constitution to take matters pertaining to the nation's debt in his own hands is:

14th Amendment, clause 5:

5. The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.
Click to expand...

Therefore, this HCR will never work! Such an measure would merely be an abdication of Congress' enumerated power to ensure "the full faith and credit of the U.S." onto the President. As such, if if the President had submitted a budget plan (which he had), this is still Congress' problem to fix!

Conservative said:
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
Click to expand...

I would say it is the result of:

1) the massive firing or forced layoffs of federal and state employees coupled with the fact that;

2) commercial and investment banks have placed rebuilding their liquidity rather than make loans, and;

3) the States have yet to act on public-private contracts for which they accepted Stimulus fund in-part for; and,

4) recent natural disasters.

All four combined have hampered or hindering job growth. Unfortunately, some people refuse to see that.
 
Last edited:
Re: Obama: We have a deal

Conservative said:
Not quite but nice try

Labor Force Statistics from the Current Population Survey
Original Data Value

Series Id: LNS13000000
Seasonally Adjusted
Series title: (Seas) Unemployment Level
Labor force status: Unemployed
Type of data: Number in thousands
Age: 16 years and over
Click to expand...

Sheik Yerbuti said:
unemployed+discouraged workers
Click to expand...

Which would most accurately be categorized by u-6.
 
Re: Obama: We have a deal

msnbc, today: "ten signs the double dip recession has begun"

Friday's news on GDP shows the double dip has arrived — an expansion of only 1.3 percent and consumer spending up 0.1 percent in the second quarter. Astonishingly low by any account. The debt ceiling trouble and lack of a longer term resolution to the deficit will make it worse.

The U.S. has entered a second recession. It may not be as bad as the first. Economists say that the Great Recession began in December 2007 and lasted until July 2009. That may be the way that the economy was seen through the eyes of experts, but many Americans do not believe that the 2008-2009 downturn ever ended.
Click to expand...

10 signs the double-dip recession has begun - Business - US business - msnbc.com

the ten signs listed and discussed by the home of rachel and ed are---inflation, low investment yields, autos, oil, the budget, the chinese slowdown, unemployment, the debt ceiling (its anti stimulative effect), a credit crunch and housing

fyi
 
Re: Obama: We have a deal

Goldenboy219 said:
Which would most accurately be categorized by u-6.
Click to expand...

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
 
Re: Obama: We have a deal

Conservative said:
Obama GDP growth. Is this what you had in mind? Can you name for me what President had this kind of GDP performance two years after the end of a recession

2009
-6.7
-0.7
1.7
3.8

2010
3.9
3.8
2.5
2.3

2011
0.4
1.3
Click to expand...

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 must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom