• 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.
How much of the declining labor market do you suppose is attributable to baby boomers hitting the age of retirement?

Why don't you find out instead of making foolish claims of Obama creating job growth. Is that what you want to blame for the increase in the number of unemployed? You really believe that people dropping out of the labor force are counted as unemployed?
 
10.6 trillion debt inherited and it is now 14.6? We cannot afford another 4 years of this
You're only fooling yourself if you think it would be any different with anybody else.
 
I don't mind lower taxes. In fact, I think lower taxes are generally a great thing for an economy.

However, when a Gov't needs short term cash (as in time of war) I don't think it ever makes sense to lower the taxes. I agree and would call this sort of fiscal policy very idealistic as opposed to realistic and responsible.

Where is the proof that politicians will ever use higher tax revenue to lower the deficit and pay down the debt?
 
Too quickly to austerity? 10.6 trillion debt inherited and it is now 14.6? We cannot afford another 4 years of this

Hopefully it won't take another four years. If we are smart about it we should be able to begin addressing the debt in two or three years. If we are stupid about it we will be in a similar position 10 years hence.

As usual you think with your heart and feelings other than concrete facts and data. You continue to ignore actual data which shows that the tax burden hasn't been shifted to the middle class as 47% mostly middle class aren't paying any FIT

As usual you are immune to the facts. The fact is that rich are getting richer, the poor are getting poorer, the middle class is getting smaller, and the wealthy are paying a lower percentage of taxes relative to the whole year after year.

chart1.png


You buy what liberal scientists claim but don't want any debate on the topic.

Scientists aren't liberal, they are just scientists. And I'm more than happy to debate the science.

That social safety net has trillions in IOU's and trillions more being created. You simply don't have a clue what you are talking about

That's true. The system needs to be reformed and taxes have to go up to pay for it.

Show me in the Constitution Separate of Church and State, too many liberals called the Constitution statement about establishing a religion as separation of church and state but that isn't separation of church and state. Again you have been brainwashed.

Seriously? :lol:

Right, intollerance on the part of the left is ok but challenging liberal's with logic and facts is? Got it.

What is that intolerance on the left. Do you have any examples?
 
Where is the proof that politicians will ever use higher tax revenue to lower the deficit and pay down the debt?

So you're saying the Federal Gov't never uses tax money collected to pay down obligations it may owe?

What the heck do they do with the money then?
 
He did, March 2001 according to NBER so unless you can tell me what Bush implemented on January 21, 2001 with a Democrat Controlled Senate that created a recession that started in March it was an inherited recession?
Well didn't Obama inherit a recession that was much worse, one that cost 7.674 private sector jobs? And WTF does who controlled Congress have to do with anything? WTF did they do?
 
Where is the proof that politicians will ever use higher tax revenue to lower the deficit and pay down the debt?

How about the entire period from WWII until the Vietnam War? How about Bill Clinton's second term. :roll:
 
He did, March 2001 according to NBER so unless you can tell me what Bush implemented on January 21, 2001 with a Democrat Controlled Senate that created a recession that started in March it was an inherited recession?
WTF?? Are you saying the 2001 recession began while Democrats controlled the Senate?

:cuckoo:

Face reality, Con .... the 2001 recession began while Republicans controlled the Senate, the House, and the executive branch.
 
Hope you are sending yours back. How do you explain the revenue from those tax cuts going up from 2003-2007?

As you have been told before, there are other reasons for revenue going up and down. You make the causal relationship error everytime you bring this up and ignore the rebuttals. You have a couple above. I await you addressing them. :coffeepap
 
Why don't you find out instead of making foolish claims of Obama creating job growth.
Why don't you stop lying?

Is that what you want to blame for the increase in the number of unemployed? You really believe that people dropping out of the labor force are counted as unemployed?
There is no question retiring baby boomers affect the labor force, which in turn, affects the unemployment rate.

By the way, I never said retiring baby boomers are counted as unemployed, I said they're no longer counted in the labor force.

... stop lying, Con.
 
AdamT;1059791897]Hopefully it won't take another four years. If we are smart about it we should be able to begin addressing the debt in two or three years. If we are stupid about it we will be in a similar position 10 years hence.

What economic program has Obama implemented or hinted at that would address the debt? You actually still believe liberal rhetoric? Why?

As usual you are immune to the facts. The fact is that rich are getting richer, the poor are getting poorer, the middle class is getting smaller, and the wealthy are paying a lower percentage of taxes relative to the whole year after year.

chart1.png

The question remains, how has someone getting richer hurt you or your family? Why aren't you among those evil rich people then you can do what you want with that excess money?

Scientists aren't liberal, they are just scientists. And I'm more than happy to debate the science.

Not all scientists believe that this is man made global warming and there are many in that group. Debating it is fine but shutting off debate is what liberals want to do

That's true. The system needs to be reformed and taxes have to go up to pay for it.

Where is your evidence that the politicians in D.C. have ever taken higher tax revenue and used it to pay down the debt? Why are you so adamant that higher taxes benefit the economy and lowers deficits?

Seriously? :lol:

Seriously, show me that separate of church and state rhetoric in the Constitution?


What is that intolerance on the left. Do you have any examples?

You're kidding aren't you? Are you blind? Been watching your union thugs lately?
 
Why don't you stop lying?


There is no question retiring baby boomers affect the labor force, which in turn, affects the unemployment rate.

By the way, I never said retiring baby boomers are counted as unemployed, I said they're no longer counted in the labor force.

... stop lying, Con.

How do retiring baby boomers affect the unemployment rate? If they aren't counted by dropping out thus reducing the labor force there is no impact on the unemployment rate. You just have no clue as to how the unemplyment rate is calculated so let me help you, total number of unemployed divided by the civilian labor force. People dropping out of the labor force aren' counted thus labor force reduced and number of unemployed decreased. So stop showing ignorance.
 
WTF?? Are you saying the 2001 recession began while Democrats controlled the Senate?

:cuckoo:

Face reality, Con .... the 2001 recession began while Republicans controlled the Senate, the House, and the executive branch.

Really? So Daschle stole the title of Senate Majority Leader in 2001? Wow, your ignorance has no bounds.
 
Jesus Con, what about the Clinton budget surpluses???

Oh, Good Lord, here we go again, debt went up every year thus if there was a surplus why would the debt go up? Stop being foolish, a surplus in public debt was offset by a deficit in intergovt holdings(SS and Medicare) thus causing a net debt increase and higher debt service. Making your same claims over and over again doesn't make it true
 
How about the entire period from WWII until the Vietnam War? How about Bill Clinton's second term. :roll:

How about it, Clinton took office with a 4.4 trillion dollar debt that went to 5.7 trillion debt, where was the surplus?
 
Oh, Good Lord, here we go again, debt went up every year thus if there was a surplus why would the debt go up? Stop being foolish, a surplus in public debt was offset by a deficit in intergovt holdings(SS and Medicare) thus causing a net debt increase and higher debt service. Making your same claims over and over again doesn't make it true

Yes, here we go again with Con using two sets of books. In any case, there is no question that deficit spending plummeted under Clinton -- even you can't deny that. If his successor had been responsible he would have started paying down debt instead of handing out tax cuts like party favors.
 
How do retiring baby boomers affect the unemployment rate? If they aren't counted by dropping out thus reducing the labor force there is no impact on the unemployment rate. You just have no clue as to how the unemplyment rate is calculated so let me help you, total number of unemployed divided by the civilian labor force. People dropping out of the labor force aren' counted thus labor force reduced and number of unemployed decreased. So stop showing ignorance.
WTF?? You think the unemployment number drops when people retire?? What does people retiring have to do with the unemployment numbers? When people retire, the only number that drops is the labor force.

But then, I don't really expect someone who believes Democrats conrtrolled the Senate when the 2001 recession began to understand that. :roll:
 
How about it, Clinton took office with a 4.4 trillion dollar debt that went to 5.7 trillion debt, where was the surplus?

Right, Clinton couldn't stop the Reagan deficit train on a dime, unfortunately. It took him until his second term to start lowering the debt -- which in fact he did if you correct for inflation. Oh, I forgot -- you're not supposed to use constant dollars if it doesn't support wingnut talking points!! :shock:
 
Yes, here we go again with Con using two sets of books. In any case, there is no question that deficit spending plummeted under Clinton -- even you can't deny that. If his successor had been responsible he would have started paying down debt instead of handing out tax cuts like party favors.

Yes, and there is no question as to where it came from. Who appropriates the money? But to claim there was a total surplus is a lie.
 
Right, Clinton couldn't stop the Reagan deficit train on a dime, unfortunately. It took him until his second term to start lowering the debt -- which in fact he did if you correct for inflation. Oh, I forgot -- you're not supposed to use constant dollars if it doesn't support wingnut talking points!! :shock:

Clinton's second term was with total GOP Control of Congress, how did you miss that fact? Take a civics class
 
Really? So Daschle stole the title of Senate Majority Leader in 2001? Wow, your ignorance has no bounds.
Before you call me ignorant, it might behoove you to do some homework and learn two dates:

1) When did the 2001 recession begin?

2) When did Democrats take over the Senate?

After you smack yourself on the forehead :dohI hope to get an apology from you for calling me ignorant when you're the one parading it like you just scored a touchdown with it.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom