• 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!

Employers add no net jobs in Aug.; rate unchanged

Status
Not open for further replies.
AdamT said:
No one was lying except the people claiming there was no surplus. People who deny the surplus are either being intentionally deceptive, or they simply don't understand the difference between the debt held by the public and intergovernmental debt.
Click to expand...

There was no surplus as the Treasury data shows so tell me was the Treasury Dept. lying? Since you are so concerned about lies, then ask the Treasury why the actual numbers don't show a surplus. Bush was reacting just like Clinton supporters are reacting to CBO projections again which didn't account for 9/11 or the Clinton recession caused by the dot.com bubble bursting.
 
The Barbarian said:
Bush had nine months to prevent 9/11 so you tell me what did Clinton do during his 8 years to prevent 9/11

start you list here

1.____________________________________________
Click to expand...

Well, that excuses Bush. He did have to do anything if Clinton didn't. It's that personal responsibility thing again. :coffeepap
 
Conservative said:
Yes, you are entitled to your OPINION.

Regarding spending, Bush and Congress spent too much but Bush didn't create 4 trillion in debt in 2 1/2 years nor did Bush have a net job loss, bail out union pensions d1squised as stimulus, have a declining labor force by driving people out of the labor market but then again Bush isn't the issue here, Obama and his results are. Those results will be on the ballot in 2012 and he has no economic plan in place to change the economic results. 16.2% unemployment and under employment is why his JAR is so low but guess what spending more money is what he is going to call for to improve the economy. Isn't that was the 2009 Stimulus was supposed to do?
Click to expand...

The amount doesn't matter. He did nearly double the debt. That's significant no matter how you look at it. You can't excuse him by pointing to anyone else. You either believe it is wrong for all, and condem all, or you play partisan nonsense. it is as simple as that.
 
Conservative said:
There was no surplus as the Treasury data shows so tell me was the Treasury Dept. lying? Since you are so concerned about lies, then ask the Treasury why the actual numbers don't show a surplus. Bush was reacting just like Clinton supporters are reacting to CBO projections again which didn't account for 9/11 or the Clinton recession caused by the dot.com bubble bursting.
Click to expand...

Again, learn the difference between the debt held by the public and intergovernmental debt. The Treasury is not lying AND there was a budget surplus.
 
The Barbarian said:
About as useless as asking you to think, you complain about one side .. then run around making excuses for the spending from your side .. . so you are any different how ? Bush added near 6t to our debt in 8 years .. . or about 750B a year .. . that's a bad enough record, Obama in his first three years is going to add 3.6T to our debt, or 1.2T per year .. .if he is to last 8 years .. .that means he is going to add 9.6t making our national debt over 20T dollars

Now I'm sorry, but I thought Obama was elected to fix our problems, not make them worse. While you prefer to talk about what Bush did, I prefer to talk about what is going on now, but maybe you weak minded liberals feel that living in the past .. . you will be able to change it .
Click to expand...

No where have I made excuses. That is simply a projection on your part. I say quite clearly that both spend, that it is not a republican or democrat issue.

And no Obama was not elected to fix our economy. Anyone on either side who thought that was and is misguided. No president can "FIX" our economy. They don't have the power to do anything like that. Obama was just the better choice in the election.

And while you prefer to speak to what is now, when a republican takes office and spending continues, as it has repeatedly in the past, you'll likely be as silent as many were during the Bush years. Do you really think Conservative will be denouncing conservatives for their spending should that happen? Really?

:lamo :lamo
 
Last edited:
AdamT said:
Again, learn the difference between the debt held by the public and intergovernmental debt. The Treasury is not lying AND there was a budget surplus.
Click to expand...

When you take money from SS and put it on budget you affect the public debt but as was shown there was no surplus there either, but there was a PROJECTED surplus. Still find it interesting that you are so concerned about revenue going to politicians who created the 14.6 trillion dollar debt. Just like a liberal, it is always about more revenue and not the failure of social spending that has yet to solve a social problem.
 
AdamT said:
He was in the Clinton AND Bush administrations. I'm quite familiar with him. Are you claiming that the declassified January 2001 memo is a fake? :lol:
Click to expand...

I am claiming that conspiracy theories are part of the story that you love to promote. There are other memos from Clarke that supported the actions of Bush so it seems that it all depends on the way the wind is blowing as to which way he will respond. Guess I still wonder what 9/11 has to do with the results today? Don't you just love the unity that Obama is promoting? Maybe all os SOB's need to get on board, right?
 
Boo Radley said:
Well, that excuses Bush. He did have to do anything if Clinton didn't. It's that personal responsibility thing again. :coffeepap
Click to expand...

Why booooo it's the very same reasoning you are using to excuse the debt Obama is occurring by pointing fingers back at Bush .. . So I guess it's that personal responsibility thing yet again huh ?
 
Boo Radley said:
No where have I made excuses. That is simply a projection on your part. I say quite clearly that both spend, that it is not a republican or democrat issue.

And no Obama was not elected to fix our economy. Anyone on either side who thought that was and is misguided. No president can "FIX" our economy. They don't have the power to do anything like that. Obama was just the better choice in the election.

And while you prefer to speak to what is now, when a republican takes office and spending continues, as it has repeatedly in the past, you'll likely be as silent as many were during the Bush years. Do you really think Conservative will be denouncing conservatives for their spending should that happen? Really?

:lamo :lamo
Click to expand...

Denouncing the spending in the past does what to address the spending today?
 
Conservative said:
There was no surplus as the Treasury data shows so tell me was the Treasury Dept. lying? Since you are so concerned about lies, then ask the Treasury why the actual numbers don't show a surplus. Bush was reacting just like Clinton supporters are reacting to CBO projections again which didn't account for 9/11 or the Clinton recession caused by the dot.com bubble bursting.
Click to expand...

The surplus in social security was used to purchase treasuries, thereby shifting cash from one part of the balance sheet to the other. But make no mistake, a real surplus occurred!
 
Conservative said:
I am claiming that conspiracy theories are part of the story that you love to promote. There are other memos from Clarke that supported the actions of Bush so it seems that it all depends on the way the wind is blowing as to which way he will respond. Guess I still wonder what 9/11 has to do with the results today? Don't you just love the unity that Obama is promoting? Maybe all os SOB's need to get on board, right?
Click to expand...

There is no conspiracy theory here. There is just the fact that Bush didn't turn his attention to al Qaeda for the first eight months of his presidency. Go ahead and post up those other Clarke memos you're talking about. :popcorn2:
 
Conservative said:
Denouncing the spending in the past does what to address the spending today?
Click to expand...

The federal government would have had far more ammunition to combat this recession in absence of the erroneous deficit spending of the Bush administration.
 
Goldenboy219 said:
The surplus in social security was used to purchase treasuries, thereby shifting cash from one part of the balance sheet to the other. But make no mistake, a real surplus occurred!
Click to expand...

Then tell it to the Treasury Dept which shows debt rising every year of the Clinton years?
 
Conservative said:
When you take money from SS and put it on budget you affect the public debt but as was shown there was no surplus there either, but there was a PROJECTED surplus. Still find it interesting that you are so concerned about revenue going to politicians who created the 14.6 trillion dollar debt. Just like a liberal, it is always about more revenue and not the failure of social spending that has yet to solve a social problem.
Click to expand...

Clinton did the same thing that presidents did before him and after him. But you can't use one set of numbers to claim Clinton didn't run a surplus and another set of numbers to minimize Reagan/Bush deficits -- which is exactly what conservatives do.
 
Goldenboy219 said:
The federal government would have had far more ammunition to combat this recession without the erroneous deficit spending of the Bush administration.
Click to expand...

Like all liberals it is about spending more money and never addressing where the money was spent. Again the stimulus IMO was big enough but was spent wrong so now we are going to hear about more spending requests?
 
AdamT said:
Clinton did the same thing that presidents did before him and after him. But you can't use one set of numbers to claim Clinton didn't run a surplus and another set of numbers to minimize Reagan/Bush deficits -- which is exactly what conservatives do.
Click to expand...

Doesn't matter what Clinton did or what Bush did only what Obama is DOING. You cannot change the past but you can change the future. Obama has put Bush spending on steroids as evidenced by his budgets.
 
Conservative said:
Then tell it to the Treasury Dept which shows debt rising every year of the Clinton years?
Click to expand...

Because that debt was owed to the Social Security Fund! Do you understand basic accounting?
 
Conservative said:
Like all liberals it is about spending more money and never addressing where the money was spent. Again the stimulus IMO was big enough but was spent wrong so now we are going to hear about more spending requests?
Click to expand...

Your opinion is insufficient because it does not take into account impact that job losses had on GDP. Secondly, it would be impossible to raise nearly $800 billion in the span of 10 months with a debt to gdp ratio in the 90's. Doing so would cause interest rates to spike instantaneously, thereby damaging the monetary policy objectives by the Fed.
 
Last edited:
The Barbarian said:
Why booooo it's the very same reasoning you are using to excuse the debt Obama is occurring by pointing fingers back at Bush .. . So I guess it's that personal responsibility thing yet again huh ?
Click to expand...

Again, not what I'm doing. I have said the debt is the responsibility of many, both democrat and republican, and that includes both Bush and Obama. This is an honest statement.
 
Conservative said:
Denouncing the spending in the past does what to address the spending today?
Click to expand...

Knowing histroy is the best way to prevent it from happening again. if you think just having a republican in office ignores histroy, and assures we will continue to repeat history.
 
Goldenboy219 said:
Because that debt was owed to the Social Security Fund! Do you understand basic accounting?
Click to expand...

Absolutely, do you know that debt service is paid on public debt PLUS Intergovt. holding debt? With SS fund having a debt because money for future obligations was spent that was more than the public debt surplus how was there a total surplus?
 
The Barbarian said:
About as useless as asking you to think, you complain about one side .. then run around making excuses for the spending from your side .. . so you are any different how ? Bush added near 6t to our debt in 8 years .. . or about 750B a year .. . that's a bad enough record, Obama in his first three years is going to add 3.6T to our debt, or 1.2T per year .. .if he is to last 8 years .. .that means he is going to add 9.6t making our national debt over 20T dollars

Now I'm sorry, but I thought Obama was elected to fix our problems, not make them worse. While you prefer to talk about what Bush did, I prefer to talk about what is going on now, but maybe you weak minded liberals feel that living in the past .. . you will be able to change it .
Click to expand...

Actually Obama made things much better, here is a list of private sector gains and losses.

YearJanFebMarAprMayJunJulAugSepOctNovDec
2008 Gains/Loss4-128-87-186-240-217-265-317-434-491-787-636
2009 Gains/Loss-841-721-787-773-326-438-287-215-213-250-34-102
2010 Gains/Loss-42-21144229486593110109143128167
2011 Gains/Loss94261219241997515617
 
Goldenboy219 said:
Your opinion is insufficient because it does not take into account impact that job losses had on GDP. Secondly, it would be impossible to raise nearly $800 billion in the span of 10 months with a debt to gdp ratio in the 90's. Doing so would cause interest rates to spike instantaneously, thereby damaging the monetary policy objectives by the Fed.
Click to expand...

Obama stimulus did nothing to create jobs but instead bailed out states which needed to solve their own problems and financial obligations. bailing out union pension funds may be stimulating for the unions but did nothing for the economy.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom