• 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!

Republicans block Obama jobs bill

Status
Not open for further replies.
I find it interesting that you are worried about how GDP is compared between Administrations. I am not worried about GDP numbers but rather than how many jobs are created and how much tax revenue comes into the govt. You are getting down into weeds with this argument so tell me do you really believe that the voters in this country care about how much GDP comes in or how it is calculated? I can answer that, NO, they don't care, they care whether or not they have or can get a job and a growing GDP generates greater demand for jobs. A growing GDP also grows govt. revenue and both matter when you cut spending and increase govt revenue.

What I pointed out in the Obama numbers is that the GDP for 2011 was very low and I should have put in 2010 numbers showing the decline. That is what matters not the actual numbers adjusted for inflation as there was very little inflation.

You don't? Let's see. Are you a Conservative who thinks Obama is terrible, while Bush and Reagan were great presidents (or at least good presidents)? I am guessing you are. So, when you post a giant list of random numbers about Obama as "proof" that he is not a good leader, and I can match those numbers with equally bad or worse numbers from administrations that you support, then I have successfully shown you to be a political hack (which then discredits everything you say).

Get it?
 
You don't? Let's see. Are you a Conservative who thinks Obama is terrible, while Bush and Reagan were great presidents (or at least good presidents)? I am guessing you are. So, when you post a giant list of random numbers about Obama as "proof" that he is not a good leader, and I can match those numbers with equally bad or worse numbers from administrations that you support, then I have successfully shown you to be a political hack (which then discredits everything you say).

Get it?

This thread is about Obama, the numbers I posted aren't random at all, they are what they are and what are important to the American people, jobs and the economy. You know that the numbers posted are accurate and calling me a political hack is a personal attack. I don't report people, never have but apparently a Mod is watching this thread these days and you run the risk of a thread ban. If you are banned then you cannot open the thread and thus your education will stop as you will learn nothing
 
This thread is about Obama, the numbers I posted aren't random at all, they are what they are and what are important to the American people, jobs and the economy. You know that the numbers posted are accurate and calling me a political hack is a personal attack. I don't report people, never have but apparently a Mod is watching this thread these days and you run the risk of a thread ban. If you are banned then you cannot open the thread and thus your education will stop as you will learn nothing

You are some one who once listed discouraged workers as cumulative instead of total amount each month. Your numbers are not exactly too likely to be accurate. Spamming the same propaganda over and over again after it has been shown that it has been debunked is amusing. Claiming things about prior administrations, and then when those numbers get shot down claiming you don't want to talk about anything other than Obama is hilarious.
 
This thread is about Obama, the numbers I posted aren't random at all, they are what they are and what are important to the American people, jobs and the economy. You know that the numbers posted are accurate and calling me a political hack is a personal attack. I don't report people, never have but apparently a Mod is watching this thread these days and you run the risk of a thread ban. If you are banned then you cannot open the thread and thus your education will stop as you will learn nothing

I am not running the risk of a thread ban. This is a debate, and someone who would say that they dislike a president because of "this" but supports previous presidents of his own party when they had the same "this", is a political hack by definition:

Definition of Political Hack
A political hack is a negative term ascribed to a person who is part of the political party apparatus, but whose intentions are more aligned with victory than personal conviction. The term "hired gun" is often used in tandem to further describe the moral bankruptcy of the "hack".
Political hack may also be used by a political opponent in order to erode confidence or credentials of an opponent or his hired campaign help. Often used to demean well credentialed individuals for political purposes.

I've shown that GDP grew more under Obama than Bush. I've shown that GDP has grown more in the first 3 years than it did under Reagan. I've shown that both Bush and Reagan posted positive GDP growth one year, and then had it fall the next year. I've shown poor employment numbers for Bush and Reagan. I've shown similar level of misery index (higher for Reagan and just lower for Bush) to Obama. I've shown extremely poor approval ratings for Bush and around 40% for Reagan (which just about matches Obama).

Every time I do this, you say, "well this isn't about them", but you have made it about them by supporting them by not supporting Obama while you support them for the same reasons. I have asked you multiple times to provide one reason why Obama has done a worse job than Reagan, and all you can say is "taxes and leadership", which literally makes no sense. You have spewed enough rhetoric on this thread to last this board for a decade, but I will remain here debunking every out-of-context statistic you post until you are done misrepresenting Obama and yourself.

*Edit:

Though I do appreciate that you didn't rat people out - I don't report people either. I'm not in third grade and I can handle myself. I do respect for that.

--------------------

**Edit again: And I want to be clear, I am not saying that Obama was better or worse than Bush or Reagan. As you said, they are not up for reelection, so I really don't care. My only point here is that he is clearly not as bad as your are making him out to be considering the conditions he inherited when he became president. Let's be honest, he's had a rough go at things when it comes to the economy, and though I know you probably don't agree with his health care bill, besides that he has accomplished much - especially in the world of counterterrorism. Obviously you want your guy to win next November, but I would like to see you advocate for the republican party in a more honest fashion.
 
Last edited:
I am not running the risk of a thread ban. This is a debate, and someone who would say that they dislike a president because of "this" but supports previous presidents of his own party when they had the same "this", is a political hack by definition:

Definition of Political Hack


I've shown that GDP grew more under Obama than Bush. I've shown that GDP has grown more in the first 3 years than it did under Reagan. I've shown that both Bush and Reagan posted positive GDP growth one year, and then had it fall the next year. I've shown poor employment numbers for Bush and Reagan. I've shown similar level of misery index (higher for Reagan and just lower for Bush) to Obama. I've shown extremely poor approval ratings for Bush and around 40% for Reagan (which just about matches Obama).

Every time I do this, you say, "well this isn't about them", but you have made it about them by supporting them but not supporting Obama for the same reasons. I have asked you multiple times to provide one reason why Obama has done a worse job than Reagan, and all you can say is "taxes and leadership", which literally makes no sense. You have spewed enough rhetoric on this thread to last this board for a decade, but I will remain here debunking every out-of-context statistic you post until you are done misrepresenting Obama and yourself.

*Edit:

Though I do appreciate that you didn't rat people out - I don't report people either. I'm not in third grade and I can handle myself. I do respect for that.

Weren't you the one talking about context? I gave you the Obama numbers and those numbers are exactly, 100% accurate and I believe you know that. When I posted the GDP numbers for Obama they were for 2011 and then compared to 2010, is that a sign that things are better? When I posted the employment and unemployment numbers which are worse than when he took office is that relevant especially based upon the commitment made?

I assume you voted for Obama and if so are these the results you expected? When you posted the Bush numbers and Reagan numbers you ignored when their economic policies went into effect yet blame them for the numbers you claim they generated. That is more of a political hack than anything I have ever done
 
Just because your ideology is failing you is no need to be bitter to others about it. :lamo

My ideology concerning your inability to get a web link to work is failing???? I'm not bitter but rather you link would work.

ps. about how far back was that post???
 
Weren't you the one talking about context? I gave you the Obama numbers and those numbers are exactly, 100% accurate and I believe you know that. When I posted the GDP numbers for Obama they were for 2011 and then compared to 2010, is that a sign that things are better? When I posted the employment and unemployment numbers which are worse than when he took office is that relevant especially based upon the commitment made?

I assume you voted for Obama and if so are these the results you expected? When you posted the Bush numbers and Reagan numbers you ignored when their economic policies went into effect yet blame them for the numbers you claim they generated. That is more of a political hack than anything I have ever done

No I did not. Every negative GDP stat I posted was after their policies had taken place. I'll do it again:

Reagan
1982q2 2.2 (Jan 1982 - one quarter after Reagan's budgets and policies should have been in place)
1982q3 -1.5
1982q4 0.3

Bush
2002q2 2.1 (Jan 2002 - Also one quarter after Bush's budget and policies should have been in place)
2002q3 2.0
2002q4 0.1
2003q1 1.7

--------------------

Those are both after each president had a chance to implement his new policies and budgets. Now, as I said, it is misleading because it is only a small portion of the picture, but is no different than what you've done. I am not saying Reagan and Bush were bad because of those numbers, but by your understanding of the situation, they should be.
 
Last edited:
No I did not. Every negative GDP stat I posted was after their policies had taken place. I'll do it again:

Reagan
1982q2 2.2 (Jan 1982 - one quarter after Reagan's budgets and policies should have been in place)
1982q3 -1.5
1982q4 0.3

Bush
2002q2 2.1 (Jan 2002 - Also one quarter after Bush's budget and policies should have been in place)
2002q3 2.0
2002q4 0.1
2003q1 1.7

--------------------

Those are both after each president had a chance to implement his new policies and budgets. Now, as I said, it is misleading because it is only a small portion of the picture, but is no different than what you've done. I am not saying Reagan and Bush were bad because of those numbers, but by your understanding of the situation, they should be.

And the recession began in July 1981 and it was a severe one. Reagan's first tax cut went into effect the first qtr of fiscal year 1981 and continued the next two years. A true test of any President is how their economic policies are two years after the end of a recession, not during the recession.

I lived and worked during those times, did you? what you want to ignore is that with all the negative numbers in 1981 and 1982 Reagan still had incredible economic growth and added 17 million jobs to the economy. Bush took over a 9.9 trillion dollar economy that was going into recession and then 9/11 which was quite a shock and led to job losses. From January 2002 to January 2008 the Bush economy created 11 million jobs. Since Obama took office we have lost more jobs than what he inherited.

Now I will ask you my previous question a different way, if you knew in November 2008 that we would have the numbers we have today would you have voted for Obama and if so why?
 
Now I will ask you my previous question a different way, if you knew in November 2008 that we would have the numbers we have today would you have voted for Obama and if so why?

What does your crystal ball say McCain Palin 's numbers would have been ?
 
Because this was posted SEVERAL pages ago I thought I would try to finish the point. The Senate in '09 went through various 'phases' of 'filibuster-proof' stages. Note in the table below when the 'Democrat' column has 58 and is added to the '2' in the independent column the result is a 60 vote majority. This constitues the aforementioned 'filibuster-proof' stage. One could argue that the 2 independents are not faithful to the Democrats...but really, do you think that Bernie Sanders or Joe Lieberman would vote with the Republicans?

111 Senate.jpg

So, regardless of whether you want to accept it Harry Reid had opportunities to overcome filibusters of cloture. You also seem to think this filibuster activity is specific to Republicans. To be sure they BOTH have done this since the beginning of the US.
 
And the recession began in July 1981 and it was a severe one. Reagan's first tax cut went into effect the first qtr of fiscal year 1981 and continued the next two years. A true test of any President is how their economic policies are two years after the end of a recession, not during the recession.

I lived and worked during those times, did you? what you want to ignore is that with all the negative numbers in 1981 and 1982 Reagan still had incredible economic growth and added 17 million jobs to the economy. Bush took over a 9.9 trillion dollar economy that was going into recession and then 9/11 which was quite a shock and led to job losses. From January 2002 to January 2008 the Bush economy created 11 million jobs. Since Obama took office we have lost more jobs than what he inherited.

Now I will ask you my previous question a different way, if you knew in November 2008 that we would have the numbers we have today would you have voted for Obama and if so why?

I listened to a lot of conservative talk radio in 2008, so my picture of the country was that we were going to be lucky to even have an economy by 2011. The way the picture was painted in 2008, as I recall it, was that this was an Armageddon of economic downturn headed our way. I remember discussion of whether or not people's money would still be in the banks and how long it takes for FDIC insurance to pay out. I remember almost everyone saying, "If we don't get this bailout our entire country may go bankrupt". How about you?

As much as you'd like to pretend it isn't, this recession is one of the worst we've had. Another difference between Obama's recession and Reagan's is that Obama inherited the recession just as things were getting bad, and Reagan came in only for the second dip of a double dip recession.

Politifact:
Dating the Reagan recession is somewhat tricky. The National Bureau of Economic Research -- the official arbiter of recession-dating -- classifies one recession as lasting from January 1980 to July 1980 and a second as running from July 1981 to November 1982. The first occurred wholly on President Jimmy Carter's watch, while the second was entirely under Reagan. However, some economists contend that the two recessions actually amount to one "double-dip" recession.

It is hard to compare Obama to Reagan, because the second dip in Reagan's recession was worse than the first dip and if our recession dips again, the second dip will most likely not be as bad as the first dip. Another issue is that this recession has not officially hit a second dip (perhaps the stimulus staved it off?). Also, even with both Reagan and Obama inheriting recessions, I have shown you that Obama grew GDP more than Reagan anyway through the same term. Did you care? No. You said, "well this is not about Reagan".Here are some more Reagan declines in GDP growth later in his term:

bea.gov GDP Rate of Change Excel File
1986q1 3.9
1986q2 1.6
1986q3 3.9
1986q4 1.9
1987q1 2.2

GDP fluctuates all the time.

----------------------------

And to answer your question, yes, I would have voted for Obama. McCain had shown himself to be a hack, as he was a big fan of Jon Stewart and the Daily Show, and actually had some liberal policies. But as soon as he ran for president the second time and realized he had a chance, he went all "rogue" on us and decided he was actually a neoconservative - which is just a flat out lie and he knows it (I was a huge McCain fan until the second time he ran).

Anyway, I am slightly disappointed with how Obama handled the health care bill, more disappointed that he didn't end extraordinary rendition and close G-Bay, and even more disappointed that he has negotiated with with republicans to the point that he has compromised our agenda a bit. However, I think any reasonable individual knew the economy was going to be ****ty for at least a few years after he got elected, and I see a lot of positive changes happening. I have no reason to believe McCain would have done anything differently or better than Obama did.
 
Last edited:
What does your crystal ball say McCain Palin 's numbers would have been ?

Hijacked...they wouldn't have been much better. Some higher some lower...UE maybe 1-1.5points higher...Debt 2-3t lower...GDP 1.5-2.5 higher. Austerity measures would have slowed the debt increase some. The housing market debt would have cleared better...more would have been foreclosed on...the recovery would have come quicker but not just yet...rising MEDICAL care costs would have not changed (as it hasn't now) AND healthcare insurance would have followed (as it has now)...financial reform would not have happened (which hasn't happened now) and Wall Street would still be running wild.

You got any predictions?
 
I listened to a lot of conservative talk radio in 2008, so my picture of the country was that we were going to be lucky to even have an economy by 2011. The way the picture was painted in 2008, as I recall it, was that this was an Armageddon of economic downturn headed our way. I remember discussion of whether or not people's money would still be in the banks and how long it takes for FDIC insurance to pay out. I remember almost everyone saying, "If we don't get this bailout our entire country may go bankrupt". How about you?

As much as you'd like to pretend it isn't, this recession is one of the worst we've had. Another difference between Obama's recession and Reagan's is that Obama inherited the recession just as things were getting bad, and Reagan came in only for the second dip of a double dip recession.

Politifact:


It is hard to compare Obama to Reagan, because the second dip in Reagan's recession was worse than the first dip and if our recession dips again, the second dip will most likely not be as bad as the first dip. Another issue is that this recession has not officially hit a second dip (perhaps the stimulus staved it off?). Also, even with both Reagan and Obama inheriting recessions, I have shown you that Obama grew GDP more than Reagan anyway through the same term. Did you care? No. You said, "well this is not about Reagan".Here are some more Reagan declines in GDP growth later in his term:

bea.gov GDP Rate of Change Excel File
1986q1 3.9
1986q2 1.6
1986q3 3.9
1986q4 1.9
1987q1 2.2

GDP fluctuates all the time.

What do you call it when you are paying over 17.5% for a mortgage, double digit inflation for everything else, have rising unemployment, and record foreclosures? The recession in 1981-1982 was worse than the one today because of the impact on the average working American who was getting buried under extremely high cost of living. there are some good studies on both recessions but to ignore what Reagan inherited is foolish.

As for the Reagan economy I gave you the numbers which almost doubled GDP and created 17 million jobs. Think Obama is going to create 17 million jobs if he is re-elected? If so how is he going to do it demonizing the private sector and hurting small businesses with Obamacare?

Do you really think that the American people care about how much the GDP is during a President's term? They care about the jobs and are now learning to care about the debt. Reagan created 17 million jobs, Bush gained 11 million jobs January 2002 to January 2008 and in three years Obama has lost 2.6 million jobs. Regardless of the numbers it really is about leadership and experience. Obama lacks both and shows it.

Why are you ignoring my question, if you knew in November 2008 what the numbers would be today would you still have voted for Obama and if so why?
 
Hijacked...they wouldn't have been much better. Some higher some lower...UE maybe 1-1.5points higher...Debt 2-3t lower...GDP 1.5-2.5 higher. Austerity measures would have slowed the debt increase some. The housing market debt would have cleared better...more would have been foreclosed on...the recovery would have come quicker but not just yet...rising MEDICAL care costs would have not changed (as it hasn't now) AND healthcare insurance would have followed (as it has now)...financial reform would not have happened (which hasn't happened now) and Wall Street would still be running wild.

You got any predictions?

No predictions but I would have bought citigroup at 3 + change and sold at 5+ change.
 
I listened to a lot of conservative talk radio in 2008, so my picture of the country was that we were going to be lucky to even have an economy by 2011. The way the picture was painted in 2008, as I recall it, was that this was an Armageddon of economic downturn headed our way. I remember discussion of whether or not people's money would still be in the banks and how long it takes for FDIC insurance to pay out. I remember almost everyone saying, "If we don't get this bailout our entire country may go bankrupt". How about you?

As much as you'd like to pretend it isn't, this recession is one of the worst we've had. Another difference between Obama's recession and Reagan's is that Obama inherited the recession just as things were getting bad, and Reagan came in only for the second dip of a double dip recession.

Politifact:


It is hard to compare Obama to Reagan, because the second dip in Reagan's recession was worse than the first dip and if our recession dips again, the second dip will most likely not be as bad as the first dip. Another issue is that this recession has not officially hit a second dip (perhaps the stimulus staved it off?). Also, even with both Reagan and Obama inheriting recessions, I have shown you that Obama grew GDP more than Reagan anyway through the same term. Did you care? No. You said, "well this is not about Reagan".Here are some more Reagan declines in GDP growth later in his term:

bea.gov GDP Rate of Change Excel File
1986q1 3.9
1986q2 1.6
1986q3 3.9
1986q4 1.9
1987q1 2.2

GDP fluctuates all the time.

----------------------------

And to answer your question, yes, I would have voted for Obama. McCain had shown himself to be a hack, as he was a big fan of Jon Stewart and the Daily Show, and actually had some liberal policies. But as soon as he ran for president the second time and realized he had a chance, he went all "rogue" on us and decided he was actually a neoconservative - which is just a flat out lie and he knows it (I was a huge McCain fan until the second time he ran).

Anyway, I am slightly disappointed with how Obama handled the health care bill, more disappointed that he didn't end extraordinary rendition and close G-Bay, and even more disappointed that he has negotiated with with republicans to the point that he has compromised our agenda a bit. However, I think any reasonable individual knew the economy was going to be ****ty for at least a few years after he got elected, and I see a lot of positive changes happening. I have no reason to believe McCain would have done anything differently or better than Obama did.

going to call it a night but before I go here is why Reagan won a landslide victory in 1984 losing only the state of Minnesota

GDP Percentage Change by Qtr
1983 1984
I II III IV I II III IV
5.1 9.3 8.1 8.5 8 7.1 3.9 3.3

On top of that was the jobs created by those economic numbers which led to a net job gain.
 
What do you call it when you are paying over 17.5% for a mortgage, double digit inflation for everything else, have rising unemployment, and record foreclosures? The recession in 1981-1982 was worse than the one today because of the impact on the average working American who was getting buried under extremely high cost of living. there are some good studies on both recessions but to ignore what Reagan inherited is foolish.

As for the Reagan economy I gave you the numbers which almost doubled GDP and created 17 million jobs. Think Obama is going to create 17 million jobs if he is re-elected? If so how is he going to do it demonizing the private sector and hurting small businesses with Obamacare?

Do you really think that the American people care about how much the GDP is during a President's term? They care about the jobs and are now learning to care about the debt. Reagan created 17 million jobs, Bush gained 11 million jobs January 2002 to January 2008 and in three years Obama has lost 2.6 million jobs. Regardless of the numbers it really is about leadership and experience. Obama lacks both and shows it.

Why are you ignoring my question, if you knew in November 2008 what the numbers would be today would you still have voted for Obama and if so why?

According to Gallup, job creation is on the rise and firings are dropping as well:
ng86twrea0cxkvi1ieydna.jpg
qwjbyrkxve-mjc-qguj3mw.jpg

The Job Creation Index has increased steadily if marginally in 2011. This continues a pattern that began after the Index matched its low point of -5 in April 2009, and is consistent with the improvement in the overall U.S. job situation over the past couple of years.

Also, bls.gov shows that between September 2010 and September 2011, 1,739,000. That's almost 2 million in one year. And, per the previous report I posted, those numbers increasing more each month, yeah, I'd say it is very possible he can not only match Reagan's numbers but beat them.

-------------------

As for comparing recessions, I agree that the inflation probably made it difficult for every American, but this recession is not the same type of recession, so while some would have faired better in the 80's under Reagan, others are doing much worse. I already posted an entire article comparing the two recessions, if you recall. You're comparing the second half to a double dip recession to a recession that may double dip or may not - no one knows.
 
Last edited:
going to call it a night but before I go here is why Reagan won a landslide victory in 1984 losing only the state of Minnesota

GDP Percentage Change by Qtr
1983 1984
I II III IV I II III IV
5.1 9.3 8.1 8.5 8 7.1 3.9 3.3

On top of that was the jobs created by those economic numbers which led to a net job gain.

Again, he was fortunate to be in the second-half of a double dip recession, whereas Obama appears to have begun his presidency at the onset of a long-drawn out recession. They are not similar. However, Obama has not finished his term, so it isn't fair to criticize him just yet. At least give him a couple more quarters before you stand in judgment.

May I assume if GDP starts growing by 4% and more after this quarter you will support Obama?

*Edit to add:

Good night, I assume we will continue this discussion manana.
 
Last edited:
What do you call it when you are paying over 17.5% for a mortgage, double digit inflation for everything else, have rising unemployment, and record foreclosures? The recession in 1981-1982 was worse than the one today because of the impact on the average working American who was getting buried under extremely high cost of living. there are some good studies on both recessions but to ignore what Reagan inherited is foolish.

As for the Reagan economy I gave you the numbers which almost doubled GDP and created 17 million jobs. Think Obama is going to create 17 million jobs if he is re-elected? If so how is he going to do it demonizing the private sector and hurting small businesses with Obamacare?

Do you really think that the American people care about how much the GDP is during a President's term? They care about the jobs and are now learning to care about the debt. Reagan created 17 million jobs, Bush gained 11 million jobs January 2002 to January 2008 and in three years Obama has lost 2.6 million jobs. Regardless of the numbers it really is about leadership and experience. Obama lacks both and shows it.

Why are you ignoring my question, if you knew in November 2008 what the numbers would be today would you still have voted for Obama and if so why?

Wait a minute, you don't want to talk about previous administrations! Why did that suddenly change?
 
This is a great meme if a liberal is speaking to the failures of the Obama administration, however, I find it amusing when in the same breath, many of the same libs that spout this when speaking of Obama, also blame Bush for the downfall of the economy that poor Obama took over.

j-mac

When did I blame Bush primarily for the problem?

Oh wait. I didn't. You are wrong as usual. If you bothered to put any effort into your worthless posts, you'd noticed I actually blame Clinton and Gringrich as the primary source, Greenspan for his loose fiscal policy and the early 2000 GOP for their ownership society along with massive greed and stupidity in the private sector. Bush largely didn't play a big role in the mess we have. Sure he presided over the collapse, but that's not really entirely his fault per se.

How about you start putting effort into your posts rather than assuming whatever the hell you want?

It's really sad when someone else pointed out how I didn't make such a case...but you fools just run with it any ways because you have absolutely no skill in debate.
 
Last edited:
Normally I don't respond to you but every once in a while I get bored and decide to do so. When did I say the U.S. Population doubles monthly? My is that ever a liberal projection. Maybe if you get someone to comprehend what is posted you wouldn't be looking so foolish.

When you argued that discouraged workers was doubling every month. Several of us tried to point out that the BLS data you were citing was cumulative. You refused to accept that at all. The problem is that by arguing that discouraged workers was doubling that the US population was doubling as well. You totally failed to read that chart properly and you got beaten rightfully into pulp for it.

Translation Democrat Presidents have relatively little power over the economy but Republican Presidents have total control thus destroyed it. Isn't that what you are trying to say?

Hardly; See my previous post you liar.

Project much? I don't have that power

Actually if we all just treated you like the clown you are, you wouldn't be a problem.

BLS data ISN'T cumulative it is monthly and discouraged workers aren't counted as employed or unemployed but are counted monthly. From BLS

Wow. YOU STILL DON'T GET IT. Every month is the net total. Meaning that every month shows the net cumulative change. Seriously. You STILL DON'T understand the data you cite. That is embarrassing. I doubt you even know what cumulative means at this point.

Nothing cumulative there but it does distort the unemployment rate which has occurred since 1994. This is the Obama unemployment rate without discouraged workers and with discouraged workers.

Really? Nothing Cumulative In your chart?
So every month shows an additional amount of discouraged workers? Not the TOTAL discouraged workers?

You are literally beyond hope here.

Since I seldom read fully what you post I don't know if you have or haven't however I do notice a lot of liberals here ignoring the lack of leadership of this President thus the very poor performance since the end of the recession.

So basically you just made up in your head what you think I argued putting absolutely no work into finding out what I actually said.

Basically you admit you are a liar. You don't know what I said, you just made it up and hoped it was what I said. The fact you keep doing this is an admission you are a compulsive liar.

Obviously you have never run anything in your life for if you spent as much as Obama and generated the kind of results he has gotten, you would be fired and that is the point. Instead of blaming Bush for what is going on today you need to ask yourself why hasn't the "smartest person" ever to hold the office done a better job especially with total overwhelming control of the Congress his first two years?

See my post above this one. Liar.

Aw, gee, took you a little longer than usual, but you are right, I am out of my league for you see I am in the big leagues and you still are in the minors. You and your ilk have no idea what leadership is or personal responsibility so keep playing your silly partisan game while ignoring the actual results.

You know, we point out your actual failures and that is your response.

You don't understand what cumulative is. You cannot read BLS data properly as evident in your own post where you claimed that the BLS data isn't cumulative yet you posted cumulative data. You don't know why chain, real and nominal are different. You haven't the faintest idea why deleveraging seriously changes a recession. And you expect us to take you seriously.

You basically make up things to attack us on when we cite very specific screw ups you have. WOW.
 
You stated yesterday,”The government can produce jobs and stimulate the economy by doing so until there is enough consumer demand needed for private sector to increase production.”
To which I inquired ‘how are we going to pay for it’. No one ever discussed ‘retiring the debt’ in fact the debt was never brought up. My point was that given the deficit spending and the annual income of the 1% how much MORE can we spend on government? There is only so much water in the bucket.


The unmanageable debt came from 30 years of deficit spending. They are related you know. The jobs plan pays for itself by eliminating some of the tax breaks for the wealthiest. All reports show they have the most water in their bucket due to 30 years of tax breaks that benefited them most. It will take an improved economy to reduce our deficit, jobs improve the economy.



Please review previous posts. This discussion began on the point ‘great strain on the economy’. There was no reference to recession. But since you brought it up it is undeniable that it did have an effect on the ‘dot-com bubble’ recession. Also consider ‘In New York City, there were approximately 430,000 lost job months and $2.8 billion in lost wages, which occurred in the three months following the 9/11 attacks’(Monthly Labor Review). Does this not qualify as ‘great strain’, albeit local NYC?

Lets see a link to your source that you claim links a great strain on the economy based on the physical damage on 9/11?



The following from ‘US Bureau of Public Debt’ reveals that the line representing ‘lower income’ folks is relatively flat. However looking closer the latest 'small uptick' appears to have occured during the Clinton administration. What is the evidence of your position?



Your graph compares the lowest income earners to the highest income earners. My claim was the middle class tax rates have gone up over the last 30 years, while the tax rates for the most wealthy have gone down, as seen below:

EffectiveTaxRate_1995_2007.jpg

The Liberal Curmudgeon: Report Details Shift Of Tax Burden From The Wealthiest To The Middle Class


Please provide specific evidence that supports ‘trickle down didn’t work’. Just because ‘I think so’ doesn’t make it so. Again, my evidence is ME.

Why trickle down economics has been incredibly unsuccessful:

increases-in-national-debt.jpg

The Lie and Failure of Trickle-Down Economics


HUH? Wealthy are taxed at a lower rate than the middle class? Please provide evidence of such that is an ‘apples to apples’ comparison. The comparison of income tax to capital gains tax is not such.

For those who primarily get their income from inheritance and capital gains, they pay a lower effective tax rate on their total income than do the middle class.

Warren Buffet - "The "mega-rich" pay about 15 percent in taxes, while the middle class "fall into the 15 percent and 25 percent income tax brackets, and then are hit with heavy payroll taxes to boot."

Politifact - "Overall, we rate Buffett's statement True."
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2011/aug/18/warren-buffett/warren-buffett-says-super-rich-pay-lower-taxes-oth/
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom