• 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.
whysoserious said:
I don't see how that is possible. Interest rates and inflation are at historical lows - so you aren't getting waxed when you take out a loan and housing prices couldn't get any better if they tried.. Food and gas prices have gone up, but I don't see how you could possibly be blaming Obama for that.

Where do you get your information?
Click to expand...

The constant reduction in interest rates has not made any significant improvement to our economy, and whereas house prices may be low, that does not benefit the people that are trying to sell them that are stuck with loans they already have that still have balances higher than their houses are worth. It counter-balances and has no positive effect.
 
Smokified said:
The constant reduction in interest rates has not made any significant improvement to our economy, and whereas house prices may be low, that does not benefit the people that are trying to sell them that are stuck with loans they already have that still have balances higher than their houses are worth. It counter-balances and has no positive effect.
Click to expand...

Weird, I thought we were arguing about the power of the dollar, not whether some people are stuck in upside-down loans. Oh wait, that's called a straw man. It's always the same argument with you people: "Obama screwed this up, Obama screwed that up", meanwhile, no actual data is used to back up the claim, and if it is, the data is completely out of context. Meanwhile, no better alternative solution is ever proposed.

I guess what I am saying is, you were wrong about Obama growing the economy and you were wrong about the strength of the US dollar, so what is your point?
 
Smokified said:
The constant reduction in interest rates has not made any significant improvement to our economy, and whereas house prices may be low, that does not benefit the people that are trying to sell them that are stuck with loans they already have that still have balances higher than their houses are worth. It counter-balances and has no positive effect.
Click to expand...

Exactly why I think the bank bailout funding should have gone to loan forgiveness at the amount the banks received from the government. That would have kept foreclosures low and property values stable and helped people to keep making new spending in the economy rather than having to use all their money to dig themselves out which doesn't help the economy like new spending would.
 
Misterveritis said:
Do you have any understanding of what happens when the US president (Carter, in this case) withdraw's support from an ally? We get an Iranian hostage crisis and Islamofascism. Who was the president?

Iran hostage crisis - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Click to expand...

Wow. Way to completely screw that up. You totally fail to recognize that the Shah's time was coming to a close. The only way we'd be able to keep the Shah in power would be to enact a secret police similar to the Gestapo. The rumblings of revolution were coming and coming hard. So unless you were for Carter making the Shah one of the worst dictators in world history, shut your trap.

It's amazing people like you think you can talk about very complex subjects on the grounds on a singular event that ignores decades of history prior to the event.
 
obvious Child said:
Wow. Way to completely screw that up. You totally fail to recognize that the Shah's time was coming to a close. The only way we'd be able to keep the Shah in power would be to enact a secret police similar to the Gestapo. The rumblings of revolution were coming and coming hard. So unless you were for Carter making the Shah one of the worst dictators in world history, shut your trap.

It's amazing people like you think you can talk about very complex subjects on the grounds on a singular event that ignores decades of history prior to the event.
Click to expand...

The Shah was a nightmare already. He was an iron fist for sure on his people which is why there was a revolution there. But you're right. Dude doesn't have any concept of the background of that crisis. Shah was dying of cancer and got run out while he was seeking cancer treatment in the US. The reason they held that against the US is because we refused to hand over the Shah to the Iranians for basically... execution.
 
poweRob said:
Link to it. Being that I'm bouncing around reading various threads I honestly don't know what post you made that you are referring to.

For Gods sake, pick something to discuss other than me and how you don't like me and/or librulz.
Click to expand...

:facepalm

Lord knows I tried.
 
poweRob said:
The Shah was a nightmare already.
Click to expand...

Oh indeed. The secret police and Iron Fist was pretty horrific. It wasn't any surprise that there were multiple uprisings. But as I understand it, the Shah's secret police never came close to the kind of sheer brutality practiced routinely by the Gestapo. The Shah could have held on longer if he had went full of "Kill them all." It's interesting watching people like Misterveritis criticize Carter when he doesn't even understand what would have been necessary to keep the Shah in power. Hell, why don't we just go all King Leopold on them (I doubt Misterveritis will get that)? It's amazing to watch some people inadvertently argue for extreme brutality upon people simply wishing for freedom.

I bet Misterveritis supports Assad's massacre of unarmed civilians in Syria right now.

He was an iron fist for sure on his people which is why there was a revolution there. But you're right. Dude doesn't have any concept of the background of that crisis. Shah was dying of cancer and got run out while he was seeking cancer treatment in the US. The reason they held that against the US is because we refused to hand over the Shah to the Iranians for basically... execution.
Click to expand...

Well, most of the partisan extremists really don't have a grasp on anything of substance anyways. Misterveritis blaming Carter while he ignores how the CIA overthrew a democratically elected leader and the lack of freedoms Iranians had under the Shah is a sign of why people should actually seek to understand topics before opening their mouths.
 
obvious Child said:
Well, most of the partisan extremists really don't have a grasp on anything of substance anyways. Misterveritis blaming Carter while he ignores how the CIA overthrew a democratically elected leader and the lack of freedoms Iranians had under the Shah is a sign of why people should actually seek to understand topics before opening their mouths.
Click to expand...

Mossadegh had assumed emergency powers, the same way Kadaffi and Mubarack had and was becoming very close friends with the Soviets. He was on his way to becoming a dictator and was just asking to be ousted by the Allies, when one consider's the atmosphere of the time period.
 
apdst said:
Mossadegh had assumed emergency powers, the same way Kadaffi and Mubarack had and was becoming very close friends with the Soviets.
Click to expand...

How exactly did he use them the same way as those two? You mean by systematically stripping the Monarchy of power and giving it to the Democratic institutions? Oh wait. That didn't happen in their cases.

Essentially the CIA overthrew him because Iran was leaving the West's sphere of influence. That was well before Carter.

He was on his way to becoming a dictator and was just asking to be ousted by the Allies, when one consider's the atmosphere of the time period.
Click to expand...

Because you say so? Actually he was removing the powers of the Monarchy to act as Dictator. You drink the kool-aid way too much.

He was removed simply because Iran was moving towards the Soviets. Not because he was a dictator or was becoming one. How does it look when your nation overthrows a popular democratic figure because you dislike his policies? What kind of dictator gives away land to the people in a way that doesn't increase his own wealth or power much less staying power?

It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out with that kind of intervention by the West and the subsequent crack downs by the Shah that the people would eventually go into open Rebellion. By the time Carter arrived on stage, the Shah was counting down his time.
 
obvious Child said:
How exactly did he use them the same way as those two? You mean by systematically stripping the Monarchy of power and giving it to the Democratic institutions? Oh wait. That didn't happen in their cases.

Essentially the CIA overthrew him because Iran was leaving the West's sphere of influence. That was well before Carter.



Because you say so? Actually he was removing the powers of the Monarchy to act as Dictator. You drink the kool-aid way too much.

He was removed simply because Iran was moving towards the Soviets. Not because he was a dictator or was becoming one. How does it look when your nation overthrows a popular democratic figure because you dislike his policies? What kind of dictator gives away land to the people in a way that doesn't increase his own wealth or power much less staying power?

It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out with that kind of intervention by the West and the subsequent crack downs by the Shah that the people would eventually go into open Rebellion. By the time Carter arrived on stage, the Shah was counting down his time.
Click to expand...

That was the primary reason, no doubt. But, Mossadegh was definitely installing himself as dictator. He had dissolved parliament and assume emergency power to pass laws as he saw fit. He was taking power away from the monarchy, to give it to himself.
 
whysoserious said:
Weird, I thought we were arguing about the power of the dollar, not whether some people are stuck in upside-down loans. Oh wait, that's called a straw man. It's always the same argument with you people: "Obama screwed this up, Obama screwed that up", meanwhile, no actual data is used to back up the claim, and if it is, the data is completely out of context. Meanwhile, no better alternative solution is ever proposed.

I guess what I am saying is, you were wrong about Obama growing the economy and you were wrong about the strength of the US dollar, so what is your point?
Click to expand...

The dollar has lost value under Obama. Its gap against such as teh yen is at an all time high tight now. Gold has also demonstrated the weak dollar, ans has many other commodities and FOOD.

QE2 was nothing but dollar pumping and devaluing of the dollar. Do you not understand such ? Who do you think is buying most of our debt ? We are !!
 
Eighty Deuce said:
The dollar has lost value under Obama. Its gap against such as teh yen is at an all time high tight now. Gold has also demonstrated the weak dollar, ans has many other commodities and FOOD.

QE2 was nothing but dollar pumping and devaluing of the dollar. Do you not understand such ? Who do you think is buying most of our debt ? We are !!
Click to expand...

We could follow the road map of what the Fed is doing by knowing What has happened with Hyperinflation throughout the centuries. It is well documented. Weimar is a well known example, and I think close to what the Fed is doing now. Buying our own debt is not going to end well.

Oh well, Obama should be out by then so what does he care?

j-mac
 
poweRob said:
Cherry-picking ftl... Right there near the top of the article:

MOSTLY about. Mostly. Kind of corners the reason and where it came from don't you think?
Click to expand...

Maybe cherry-picking but again you were the one that posted 'Yes, it was the Republican's fault'. But the article SPECIFICALLY stated 'To be sure, S&P didn’t specifically single out Republicans'.

This discussion began by trying to refute information posted by Conservative. I asked for your sources which you provided. I read the one from NR after the site came back online. Once read it APPEARS to conflict with YOUR STATEMENT SPECIFICALLY. It DOES NOT STATE WHAT YOU CLAIM BUT RATHER REFUTES IT. Of course I can be wrong. Please post the portion of this article that clearly states, as you claim, 'it is the Republican's fault'.

Thanks.
 
whysoserious said:
I think you are confused. You think you are arguing with me, but what you are arguing with is the general consensus of economic theory. I am not sure where you are getting mixed up, but under the theory, Obama has not handled this recession wrong, but rather, Congress and Bush did by spending too much and lowering taxes too far during good economic times.

Can you at least go read about Keynesian economic theory and try to understand it before you argue against it? So, just to recap, I am using economic theory to back my argument up, and you are using... well, nothing.
Click to expand...

Don't you just love advice being given by people who have never made a payroll, never had to hire an employee, never had to compete in the private sector? General consensus said that stimulus one would cap unemployment at 8%, general consensus said that we would have 4% economic growth, general consensus said that Obama would unite and not divide the country.

Wow, go to bed last night and get up to another 10 pages showing that many on this thread appear to be from the West Coast. No wonder the screwed up logic by those leftists here who believe bigger govt. is the answer. Congratulations on the 2.5% GDP growth over 2 1/4 years after the end of the recession and the 9.8% unemployment rate with 25 million unemployed/under employed Americans that only cost 4.2 trillion to create.

You see, Why,, since you don't have any "skin in the game" it doesn't bother you that we have a 14.9 trillion dollar debt up 4.2 trillion dollars since Obama took office. You see, since apparently you don't have a job you don't understand that when you get a job you would be fired for those results.

Come on people from the West Coast, haven't you learned anything from your own state's economic woes? why is it that debt doesn't matter to you?
 
Catawba said:
If the FICA taxes had not funded our unfunded wars and other general fund spending, you might have a point. Why do you think they say that SS is short by trillions? Up until just recently, SS has taken in more money than it paid out in benefits, where do you think those trillions went to?
Click to expand...

I agree concerning the 'robbing of the fictional lock box' but Clinton, Bush and Obama are equally guilty of this. Further they all claim there are Treasury IOUs that support using these funds. You can believe that or not but remember the Democrats are just as guilty of this as the Republicans...Remember Gore's 2000 'lock box' platform. We'll see.


Social Security is short due to the longer lifespans and lack of modification to address the changes in society. When initiated SS was designed so that MANY workers support a single retiree. Now there is a mere 2-3 supporting that single retiree who is living longer. This is just unsustainable in the LONG term (40-60years). I know where the trillions went to...deficit spending for the last 11 years, BOTH ADMINISTRATIONS!

This still doesn't escape the ORIGINAL intent that the underlying resources received via FICA taxes are meant to be returned to the tax payer later in years.
 
Eighty Deuce said:
The dollar has lost value under Obama. Its gap against such as teh yen is at an all time high tight now. Gold has also demonstrated the weak dollar, ans has many other commodities and FOOD.

QE2 was nothing but dollar pumping and devaluing of the dolla
r. Do you not understand such ? Who do you think is buying most of our debt ? We are !!
Click to expand...

I actually look at data so I am not sure why you would look down your nose at me. Strength of the dollar:

Vs. the Euro
2008 - The dollar strengthened 22% as businesses hoarded dollars during the credit crisis. By year end, the euro was worth $1.39.
Click to expand...
2011 - The dollar's value against the euro fell 10%, then regained ground. As of October 7, 2011, the euro was worth $1.35.
Click to expand...

Notice that the dollar is stronger compared to the Euro today, even after a the phony bump it received in 2008 from dollar hoarding.

By Treasury Notes
2008 - The yield dropped from 3.57% to 2.93% (April 2008-March 2009), as the dollar rose.
Click to expand...
2011 - Here again, as the dollar weakened in April but rebounded by October. The 10-year Treasury note yield was 3.36% in January, rose to 3.75% in February, then fell to 2.24% in October. (Remember, high yields compensate for low dollar value.)
Click to expand...

"Strength" of the dollar can be somewhat subjective, as it there is no direct way to measure it. One aspect that has hurt the dollar is in foreign country reserves, but much of that is directly attributable to the 2008 crash itself and the low interest rates that followed it. That's another area where the US is in a bit of a Quagmire (giggity) since low interest rates are not attractive for investors, but high interest rates are not attractive for home buyers.

If you look at the dollar index, then I think you'll find that blaming Obama is somewhat laughable:
USM.jpg

So you tell me, friend, what would you like to see Obama do to "fix" the dollar and how is its long decline his fault?
 
Last edited:
whysoserious said:
I actually look at data so I am not sure why you would look down your nose at me. Strength of the dollar:

Vs. the Euro



By Treasury Notes



"Strength" of the dollar can be somewhat subjective, as it there is no direct way to measure it. One aspect that has hurt the dollar is in foreign country reserves, but much of that is directly attributable to the 2008 crash itself and the low interest rates that followed it. That's another area where the US is in a bit of a Quagmire since low interest rates are not attractive for investors, but high interest rates are not attractive for home buyers.


So you tell me, friend, what would you like to see Obama do to "fix" the dollar and how is its long decline his fault?
Click to expand...

Well, he probably solely blames Obama for the downgrade of the U.S. Credit Rating by S&P.
 
Conservative said:
Don't you just love advice being given by people who have never made a payroll, never had to hire an employee, never had to compete in the private sector? General consensus said that stimulus one would cap unemployment at 8%, general consensus said that we would have 4% economic growth, general consensus said that Obama would unite and not divide the country.

Wow, go to bed last night and get up to another 10 pages showing that many on this thread appear to be from the West Coast. No wonder the screwed up logic by those leftists here who believe bigger govt. is the answer. Congratulations on the 2.5% GDP growth over 2 1/4 years after the end of the recession and the 9.8% unemployment rate with 25 million unemployed/under employed Americans that only cost 4.2 trillion to create.

You see, Why,, since you don't have any "skin in the game" it doesn't bother you that we have a 14.9 trillion dollar debt up 4.2 trillion dollars since Obama took office. You see, since apparently you don't have a job you don't understand that when you get a job you would be fired for those results.

Come on people from the West Coast, haven't you learned anything from your own state's economic woes? why is it that debt doesn't matter to you?
Click to expand...

I don't even think this entire post has one useful piece of information in it. Other DP posters on this thread: is there anything in this post I need to refute, or is it as obvious as I think it is that there is no substance to anything said in it?
 
whysoserious said:
I don't even think this entire post has one useful piece of information in it. Other DP posters on this thread: is there anything in this post I need to refute, or is it as obvious as I think it is that there is no substance to anything said in it?
Click to expand...

What you think doesn't matter, the results matter and regardless of what you THINK the Obama results are a disaster

Obama economic results in 2011,
25+ million unemployed or under employed Americans in 2011(bls.gov)
2.6 million fewer jobs(bls.gov)
4.2 trillion added to the debt in less than 3 years(U.S. Treasury Site)
Downgrade of the U.S. credit rating(S&P)
Rising Misery index 7.83 to 12.97 (The United States Misery Index By Year)
38-41% JAR and well over 50-55% disapproval ratings(Gallup)
 
Conservative said:
What you think doesn't matter, the results matter and regardless of what you THINK the Obama results are a disaster

Obama economic results in 2011,
25+ million unemployed or under employed Americans in 2011(bls.gov)
2.6 million fewer jobs(bls.gov)
4.2 trillion added to the debt in less than 3 years(U.S. Treasury Site)
Downgrade of the U.S. credit rating(S&P)
Rising Misery index 7.83 to 12.97 (The United States Misery Index By Year)
38-41% JAR and well over 50-55% disapproval ratings(Gallup)
Click to expand...

Hmm your not using the GDP growth rate anumore.
 
winston53660 said:
Hmm your not using the GDP growth rate anumore.
Click to expand...

Why would I use GDP numbers when all you would do is tout them as a major success which they aren't.

By the way, you do realize those GDP rates are during a quarter when the following results were generated?

Obama economic results in 2011,
25+ million unemployed or under employed Americans in 2011(bls.gov)
2.6 million fewer jobs(bls.gov)
4.2 trillion added to the debt in less than 3 years(U.S. Treasury Site)
Downgrade of the U.S. credit rating(S&P)
Rising Misery index 7.83 to 12.97 (http://www.miseryindex.us/customindexbymonth.asp)
38-41% JAR and well over 50-55% disapproval ratings(Gallup)
 
Last edited:
Conservative said:
What you think doesn't matter, the results matter and regardless of what you THINK the Obama results are a disaster

Obama economic results in 2011,
25+ million unemployed or under employed Americans in 2011(bls.gov)
2.6 million fewer jobs(bls.gov)
4.2 trillion added to the debt in less than 3 years(U.S. Treasury Site)
Downgrade of the U.S. credit rating(S&P)
Rising Misery index 7.83 to 12.97 (The United States Misery Index By Year)
38-41% JAR and well over 50-55% disapproval ratings(Gallup)
Click to expand...

Not bad compared to this:


Bush and Reagan were terrible presidents by the numbers
Reagan GDP Changes of -3.2%, -4.9%, and -6.4%.
Bush GDP Changes of 1.8%, 1.3%, -3.7% and -8.9%
Misery Index Under Reagan in 1981: 19.33
Misery Index Under Bush in August 2008: 11.47
Unemployment under Reagan 1982: 9.7%
Unemployment under Bush (beginning 2009): 9.3%
Number of unemployed under Bush rose 22,000,000 from 2000-2008
From 1981-1982, 1,126,000 jobs were lost by Reagan.
In 1983, after losing over 1 million jobs, having over 9% unemployment, and posting losses in GDP, Reagan's approval rating was 40%.
In 2008, after starting multiple wars, driving up the deficit, and seeing the recession begin to start, president George W. Bush's approval rating was under 30%.
President Bush racked up 2.779 trillion in debt in 2 years as president.
 
whysoserious said:
Not bad compared to this:


Bush and Reagan were terrible presidents by the numbers
Reagan GDP Changes of -3.2%, -4.9%, and -6.4%.
Bush GDP Changes of 1.8%, 1.3%, -3.7% and -8.9%
Misery Index Under Reagan in 1981: 19.33
Misery Index Under Bush in August 2008: 11.47
Unemployment under Reagan 1982: 9.7%
Unemployment under Bush (beginning 2009): 9.3%
Number of unemployed under Bush rose 22,000,000 from 2000-2008
From 1981-1982, 1,126,000 jobs were lost by Reagan.
In 1983, after losing over 1 million jobs, having over 9% unemployment, and posting losses in GDP, Reagan's approval rating was 40%.
In 2008, after starting multiple wars, driving up the deficit, and seeing the recession begin to start, president George W. Bush's approval rating was under 30%.
President Bush racked up 2.779 trillion in debt in 2 years as president.
Click to expand...

As you continue to ignore when did the Reagan, Bush, and Obama economic plans go into effect? Those aren't the GDP changes those are the changes adjusted for inflation. Here is what the GDP numbers are

1980 2,788.10
1981 3,126.80
1982 3253.20
1983 3534.60
1984 3930.90
1985 4217.50
1986 4460.10
1987 4736.40
1988 5100.40
1989 5482.10
1990 5800.50
1991 5992.10
1992 6342.30
1993 6667.40
1994 7085.20
1995 7414.70
1996 7838.50
1997 8332.40
1998 8793.50
1999 9353.50
2000 9951.50
2001 10286.20
2002 10642.30
2003 11142.10
2004 11867.80
2005 12638.40
2006 13398.90
2007 14077.60
2008 14441.40
 
whysoserious said:
Not bad compared to this:


Bush and Reagan were terrible presidents by the numbers
Reagan GDP Changes of -3.2%, -4.9%, and -6.4%.
Bush GDP Changes of 1.8%, 1.3%, -3.7% and -8.9%
Misery Index Under Reagan in 1981: 19.33
Misery Index Under Bush in August 2008: 11.47
Unemployment under Reagan 1982: 9.7%
Unemployment under Bush (beginning 2009): 9.3%
Number of unemployed under Bush rose 22,000,000 from 2000-2008
From 1981-1982, 1,126,000 jobs were lost by Reagan.
In 1983, after losing over 1 million jobs, having over 9% unemployment, and posting losses in GDP, Reagan's approval rating was 40%.
In 2008, after starting multiple wars, driving up the deficit, and seeing the recession begin to start, president George W. Bush's approval rating was under 30%.
President Bush racked up 2.779 trillion in debt in 2 years as president.
Click to expand...

Zing! Winning!!! LOL
 
Conservative said:
Why would I use GDP numbers when all you would do is tout them as a major success which they aren't.

By the way, you do realize those GDP rates are during a quarter when the following results were generated?

Obama economic results in 2011,
25+ million unemployed or under employed Americans in 2011(bls.gov)
2.6 million fewer jobs(bls.gov)
4.2 trillion added to the debt in less than 3 years(U.S. Treasury Site)
Downgrade of the U.S. credit rating(S&P)
Rising Misery index 7.83 to 12.97 (The United States Misery Index By Year)
38-41% JAR and well over 50-55% disapproval ratings(Gallup)
Click to expand...

You use to post the quarterly in your little spam here.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom