• 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.
There is a reason that 70% of the public have no confidence in Obama's handling of the economy but apparently those reasons escape brilliant people like you.
Romney and Perry offer only tax cuts and we know tax cuts don't create jobs, never have and never will.
 
I support fiscal stimulus when interest rates are near the zero bound and unemployment is persistently high. I know you cannot understand why, so let's just agree to disagree.

But more deficit spending is going to require printing more money or borrowing more which affects interest rates and thus debt service.
 
Romney and Perry offer only tax cuts and we know tax cuts don't create jobs, never have and never will.

Allowing people to keep more of what they earns reward taxpayers not the bureaucrats directly
 
As I corrected but you and Sheik seem to be sitting there waiting for my posts, we have record debt today which is almost equal to GDP but with low interest rates manageable debt service. Deficit spend today driving up debt, increasing inflation will create high interest rates and that will be devastating.

There is no question that we're in a bind. We need significant stimulus to jump start consumer demand but we have very high debt. If we don't stimulate, the economy will be stagnant, at best, for a very long time, which can only increase the debt as a result of lower tax revenue and a continuing need for heigtened safety net assistance. If we do stimulate it will bring down unemployment and increase renvenues relative to the no stimulus plan, but it will drive up the debt faster. The solution, IMO, is to do significant short-term stimulus coupled with significant long-term debt reduction.
 
Those things really worked well wouldn't you say ? just 9 months after leaving office .. we were attacked ... One can only wonder with all that Clinton did to curb terrorism, that could happen. But I'm glad to see that you see failure .. . as a reason to brag ..

Yea, not to mention how many terrorist attacks did we, and our allies, suffer during the Clinton 8 years vs the Bush 8? That'll be a list you won't see a liberal post, but I'll be happy to post it. Let's compare:

Clinton:
1993
Feb. 26, New York City: bomb exploded in basement garage of World Trade Center, killing 6 and injuring at least 1,040 others. In 1995, militant Islamist Sheik Omar Abdel Rahman and 9 others were convicted of conspiracy charges, and in 1998, Ramzi Yousef, believed to have been the mastermind, was convicted of the bombing. Al-Qaeda involvement is suspected.
1995
April 19, Oklahoma City: car bomb exploded outside federal office building, collapsing wall and floors. 168 people were killed, including 19 children and 1 person who died in rescue effort. Over 220 buildings sustained damage. Timothy McVeigh and Terry Nichols later convicted in the antigovernment plot to avenge the Branch Davidian standoff in Waco, Tex., exactly 2 years earlier. (See Miscellaneous Disasters.)
Nov. 13, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia: car bomb exploded at U.S. military headquarters, killing 5 U.S. military servicemen.
1996
June 25, Dhahran, Saudi Arabia: truck bomb exploded outside Khobar Towers military complex, killing 19 American servicemen and injuring hundreds of others. 13 Saudis and a Lebanese, all alleged members of Islamic militant group Hezbollah, were indicted on charges relating to the attack in June 2001.
1998
Aug. 7, Nairobi, Kenya, and Dar es Salaam, Tanzania: truck bombs exploded almost simultaneously near 2 U.S. embassies, killing 224 (213 in Kenya and 11 in Tanzania) and injuring about 4,500. 4 men connected with al-Qaeda 2 of whom had received training at al-Qaeda camps inside Afghanistan, were convicted of the killings in May 2001 and later sentenced to life in prison. A federal grand jury had indicted 22 men in connection with the attacks, including Saudi dissident Osama bin Laden, who remained at large.
2000
Oct. 12, Aden, Yemen: U.S. Navy destroyer USS Cole heavily damaged when a small boat loaded with explosives blew up alongside it. 17 sailors killed. Linked to Osama bin Laden, or members of al-Qaeda terrorist network.

Bush
Sept 11

Yep, considering that attack was 8 months into Bush's term and there was zero evidence pointing to a specific attack (meaning Bush couldn't do anything about it) I'd say we fared better under Bush.
 
Last edited:
Yea, not to mention how many terrorist attacks did we, and our allies, suffer during the Clinton 8 years vs the Bush 8? That'll be a list you won't see a liberal post.

They had terrorist attacks under Bush as well. frankly, the overall death total is much higher under Bush. :coffeepap
 
There is no question that we're in a bind. We need significant stimulus to jump start consumer demand but we have very high debt. If we don't stimulate, the economy will be stagnant, at best, for a very long time, which can only increase the debt as a result of lower tax revenue and a continuing need for heigtened safety net assistance. If we do stimulate it will bring down unemployment and increase renvenues relative to the no stimulus plan, but it will drive up the debt faster. The solution, IMO, is to do significant short-term stimulus coupled with significant long-term debt reduction.

Been there done that with the 800 billion dollar stimulus program of 2009 and all that did was drive up debt. It is too late to do another as the debt is too high. Let the markets work and let the taxpayers including companies keep more of what they earn. Reward taxpayers not politicians.
 
That is foolish, we need taxes to fund necessary functions of the govt. You and I differ on what is necessary
I can disagree with that, but you do realize we fought in Iraq and Afghanistan without raising taxes, in fact we lowered them?
 
You missed the part about not doing deficit spending when unemployment is low. This is how it works: you run a surplus or very low deficits when times are good; that allows you to run deficits when times are bad without overly stressing the economy. It ain't rocket science.
/partisanship off
Now you're talking about Bush obviously (i.e., low unemloyment and deficits). But guess what (and not to beat up on Clinton specifically), Clinton should have continued a sound investment in military research during his peacetime presidency. But he didn't, and then when the war came.....Bush had to do both (invest in research and fight a war). Now I'm not trying to start a debate about the merits of the war, but merely to show that Clinton could have bought the research at a cheaper price than Bush, not to mention it costs a lot more when you need it NOW. So these spending deficits get so huge when you don't maintain some consistency all the time. The same happened with Carter, he let the military rot and Reagan spent more to bring it back. So just remove the presidents' names, and look at the spending line being consistent. It's easier to prepare for war during peace time, when defense contractors have nothing else to do. Once war starts, everything goes fast track. Well the problem is that during peace time defense contractors are laying off people cause they have no work, and when the war comes they have to rebuild their workforce like RIGHT NOW. You can apply this to most things I believe. Clinton did it because the Cold War was "over", but it wasn't that over. They over-reduced like a pendulum, and then Bush had to swing it the other way. So bottomline, maintain your army and transform it gradually. If we did this I think we could eliminate most deficits.
 
Last edited:
Factually you may be somewhat right, but it's also a fact to say that is the reason that he is having trouble with his job reports now .. The money given to those states, to bail them out of their problems a year ago ... is now coming back to haunt this country. Now without the government "stimulus" those very same saved jobs, are now being lost.

I don't know how that can haunt us, but we can clearly say we would have lost those jobs then. The people who stayed employed were able to pay bills and buy things and were not on unemployment.

But that is what I mean by limits. The stimulus at best was a short term answer. Long term efforts have to come largely from the private sector when it comes to jobs. All the governemnt can do without hiring people is give stimulus dollars for the short erm.
 
They had terrorist attacks under Bush as well. frankly, the overall death total is much higher under Bush. :coffeepap

If you want to continue to look back do so in a non partisan way, WTC 1 happened under Clinton, Clinton was handed Bin Laden but didn't take him, Clinton signed the Iraq Liberation Act, Clinton had a PDB in December 1998, Clinton shot a multi million dollar missile into a $10 tent and killed a camel.

PDB 12/4/1998, Subject: Bin Ladin Preparing to Hijack US Aircraft and Other Attacks The 9/11 Commission Report | 7/22/04 | CIA

The following is the text of an item from the Presidential Daily Brief received by President William J. Clinton on December 4, 1998. Redacted material is indicated in brackets.
SUBJECT: Bin Ladin Preparing to Hijack US Aircraft and Other Attacks
1. Reporting suggests Bin Ladin and his allies are preparing for attacks in the US, including an aircraft hijacking to obtain the release of Shaykh ‘Umar ‘Abd al-Rahman, Ramzi Yousef, and Muhammad Sadiq ‘Awda. One source quoted a senior member of the Gama’at al-Islamiyya (IG) saying that, as of late October, the IG had completed planning for an operation in the US on behalf of Bin Ladin, but that the operation was on hold. A senior Bin Ladin operative from Saudi Arabia was to visit IG counterparts in the US soon thereafter to discuss options—perhaps including an aircraft hijacking. • IG leader Islambuli in late September was planning to hijack a US airliner during the “next couple of weeks” to free ‘Abd al- Rahman and the other prisoners, according to what may be a different source.
 
If you want to continue to look back do so in a non partisan way, WTC 1 happened under Clinton, Clinton was handed Bin Laden but didn't take him, Clinton signed the Iraq Liberation Act, Clinton had a PDB in December 1998, Clinton shot a multi million dollar missile into a $10 tent and killed a camel.

yes, Clinton did not take OBL. He likely shoudl have. However, during the 9/11 commission hearings, both parties agreed that taking him would not have stopped 9/11. Nor would invading any country have stopped it. The only ting required was to all the FBI and the CIA to talk to each other. That would have had a chance.
 
I can disagree with that, but you do realize we fought in Iraq and Afghanistan without raising taxes, in fact we lowered them?

So what? What does that have to do now and why do you continue to ignore revenue growth from 2003-2008? Doubt seriously that you even care about the deficits just what Bush spent money on. If you truly cared about the deficit you would hold Obama to the same standards and I have seen no evidence of that
 
Or the govt. can do nothing and let the market correct itself

How long would this take? When asset deflation begins to take foot, it can create enormous inertia that wipes out a great deal of wealth for a generation. For example. Lets say the U.S. economy was to contract by 20% in one year. How many years would it take for the U.S. to reach its previous output number at an average growth rate of 5% per year (which is more than generous)? Better yet, how much would the US economy have to grow to reach its previous level of output?

instead of driving up debt, driving up inflation, and thus driving up interest rates which will hurt us all. Debt service is a result of record low interest rates which inflation will certainly change.

ROFL, an overwhelming majority of debt is fixed! Higher interest rates in the future would mean that future costs of borrowing would be more expensive, but higher interest rates would also equate to more growth.
 
yes, Clinton did not take OBL. He likely shoudl have. However, during the 9/11 commission hearings, both parties agreed that taking him would not have stopped 9/11. Nor would invading any country have stopped it. The only ting required was to all the FBI and the CIA to talk to each other. That would have had a chance.

We will never know, will we so what good does it do to relive Bush policies today?
 
Sheik and Adam aren't going to like your post since everything today is Bush's fault

MAybe you read them wrong. But, I speak for me. Nothing is any one person's fault. Be it 9/11 or the the debt, there is a enough blame for both parties to bear. No oe gets to say it was all the other guy's fault.
 
We will never know, will we so what good does it do to relive Bush policies today?

Thinking and analysis doesn't stop just because time has passed. Sorry. :coffeepap
 
But more deficit spending is going to require printing more money or borrowing more which affects interest rates and thus debt service.

What is the yield on the 10 year note? When was it last at such a level? We have increased our rate of borrowing (to which you would agree), but for some reason interest rates are at or near all time lows. And when i say all time, i mean the lowest levels in the history of the country.
 
How long would this take? When asset deflation begins to take foot, it can create enormous inertia that wipes out a great deal of wealth for a generation. For example. Lets say the U.S. economy was to contract by 20% in one year. How many years would it take for the U.S. to reach its previous output number at an average growth rate of 5% per year (which is more than generous)? Better yet, how much would the US economy have to grow to reach its previous level of output?



ROFL, an overwhelming majority of debt is fixed! Higher interest rates in the future would mean that future costs of borrowing would be more expensive, but higher interest rates would also equate to more growth.

New debt is never fixed and refinancing old debt happens all the time. Higher interest rates equally higher growth is bs unless you have full employment and we don't. Higher interest rates in the 80's led to 10.8% unemployment so your argument is bogus. Right now there are over 25 million unemployed and under employed Americans, rising interest rates and taxes does nothing to put those people back to work
 
What is the yield on the 10 year note? When was it last at such a level? We have increased our rate of borrowing (to which you would agree), but for some reason interest rates are at or near all time lows. And when i say all time, i mean the lowest levels in the history of the country.

Terrible because the Fed keeps pouring money into the economy. They can do that because of 25 million unemployed and under employed Americans and stagnant economic growth. Adding more debt right now is suicidal.
 
Largely speaking. Together, congress and the president have limited power to hurt or help, but it is limited. Other factors play a much larger role, which is why politicians have been unable to stop an economy from going bad. If they had that kind of power, it would never be bad so incumbants could stay in power for ever.

Sorry Boo, but I think they have more control then you think, we they set policy concerning business it reflects in our economy.

I'm going to try and be serious with you (I'm sure it's a waste of time) But lets take the Bush tax cuts, at the time they were implemented I agreed with them, we had just gone through the dot com bubble bursting, 9/11 effected our economy as well as other things, we needed something to jump start the economy again. I believe it did that. The only problem I have with it . .was the length of time they were allowed to continue. 3 years would have been more then enough time.

Where (imo) Bush failed was taking into consideration the cost of the war. We have never in our history fought a war, that didn't increase our deficit, and while tax cuts have never had much more then a year of decreasing revenues (same applied to Bush's cuts) I feel that Americans then would have been more receptive to allowing those tax cuts to expire to help pay for the war, they they are now. Now because of Bush spending, and the continued Obama spending, many Americans (like myself) want to see a real spending cut before handing an out of control government, even more money to spend.

Much like the housing bubble that is causing so much havoc now, it was our government lowering the standards of loans, then pushing banks to make them . Had those standards not been lowered would we be where we are now? Hard for anyone to say with any certainty, but chances are that it wouldn't be near as severe as it is now.

What about NAFA? Would we have lost the jobs we have lost if it hadn't been passed ? Again it “was” passed so we have no real comparison, but I think most agree .. that our job loss wouldn't have been as great as it has been.

I think our government can have more to say about our economy than what you are thinking or care to admit.
 
Sorry Boo, but I think they have more control then you think, we they set policy concerning business it reflects in our economy.

I'm going to try and be serious with you (I'm sure it's a waste of time) But lets take the Bush tax cuts, at the time they were implemented I agreed with them, we had just gone through the dot com bubble bursting, 9/11 effected our economy as well as other things, we needed something to jump start the economy again. I believe it did that. The only problem I have with it . .was the length of time they were allowed to continue. 3 years would have been more then enough time.

Where (imo) Bush failed was taking into consideration the cost of the war. We have never in our history fought a war, that didn't increase our deficit, and while tax cuts have never had much more then a year of decreasing revenues (same applied to Bush's cuts) I feel that Americans then would have been more receptive to allowing those tax cuts to expire to help pay for the war, they they are now. Now because of Bush spending, and the continued Obama spending, many Americans (like myself) want to see a real spending cut before handing an out of control government, even more money to spend.

Much like the housing bubble that is causing so much havoc now, it was our government lowering the standards of loans, then pushing banks to make them . Had those standards not been lowered would we be where we are now? Hard for anyone to say with any certainty, but chances are that it wouldn't be near as severe as it is now.

What about NAFA? Would we have lost the jobs we have lost if it hadn't been passed ? Again it “was” passed so we have no real comparison, but I think most agree .. that our job loss wouldn't have been as great as it has been.

I think our government can have more to say about our economy than what you are thinking or care to admit.

Good post but what really bothers me is how so many people want to reward politicians that ran up the current debt and penalizing the taxpayers for what those politicians did. Not once has anyone addressed spending only revenue and that is a travisty.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom