Republicans block Obama jobs bill

whysoserious · Oct 28, 2011

Conservative said:
Do you know what GDP is? What is really important about GDP and when you figure that out wonder if you can also then figure out why GDP adjusted for inflation is really irrelevant except to make one side or the other feel good. Get back to me with the answer. Unemployment percentages? What does that serve? Think a 9.1% unemployment on a labor force of 154 million is better than a 10% unemployment rate on a labor force of 100 million? You really need to think before buying the rhetoric you are being told.

I asked you to explain the context to me for the Obama results as well as the numbers you have posted? What relevance are they for today?

Yes, Gross Domestic Product is a very easy number to understand. You're really going to argue with every economist that ever existed about the concept of adjusting for inflation? Really? Why? It doesn't even make your numbers any better anyway, so why continue this torturous task of explaining every little math detail to you.

The Importance Of Inflation And GDP
Real gross domestic product
U.S. Real GDP vs. Nominal GDP (1929-2003)

Read up, or do something, because this is getting ridiculous. This is like 20 pages of me explaining economic 101 theory to you. That's not book smarts, that's just having-a-brain-and-reading-a-book smarts.

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

9% unemployment on 200,000 and 2,000,000 is the same. Do no you not get that concept? It's called a "ratio". I believe we learned those first in like 6th or 7th grade - I can't recall. Ratios are used when comparing numbers that fluctuate over time. As I showed, Obama has not had as much time to turn the economy around as Reagan - unemployment wise.

Are you willing to show when Reagan's policies came into effect, how long it took them to work, and what that number was when you were satisfied? Then, are you willing to show when Obama's policies went into effect and what you think is an acceptable amount of time to wait and what level is acceptable as well?

Thanks.

Conservative · Oct 28, 2011

winston53660 said:
Reagan's unemployment rate

1981-01-01 7.5 1981-02-01 7.4 1981-03-01 7.4 1981-04-01 7.2 1981-05-01 7.5 1981-06-01 7.5 1981-07-01 7.2 1981-08-01 7.4 1981-09-01 7.6 1981-10-01 7.9 1981-11-01 8.3 1981-12-01 8.5 1982-01-01 8.6 1982-02-01 8.9 1982-03-01 9.0 1982-04-01 9.3 1982-05-01 9.4 1982-06-01 9.6 1982-07-01 9.8 1982-08-01 9.8 1982-09-01 10.1 1982-10-01 10.4 1982-11-01 10.8 1982-12-01 10.8 1983-01-01 10.4 1983-02-01 10.4 1983-03-01 10.3 1983-04-01 10.2 1983-05-01 10.1 1983-06-01 10.1 1983-07-01 9.4 1983-08-01 9.5 1983-09-01 9.2 1983-10-01 8.8

http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/data/UNRATE.txt

17 million jobs created most after the recession ended in November 1982. Do you have a point? When was the Reagan economic policy passed? When was Obama's?

Conservative · Oct 28, 2011

winston53660 said:
Then WTF were you?

A District Manager with total responsibility for the operations including budget, hiring and firing, sales and marketing, everything that you apparently don't understand

Jryan · Oct 28, 2011

So in summary, Bush ruined the economy with his tax cuts and the invasion of a foreign country. He also stole his presidency and deserves indictment. Two can play at this game...

whysoserious · Oct 28, 2011

Conservative said:
A District Manager with total responsibility for the operations including budget, hiring and firing, sales and marketing, everything that you apparently don't understand

And I don't think anyone is arguing with you about the best way to run a district in whatever business it happened to be in. The day that happens, you can pull seniority. Ok, bud? Cool.

Conservative · Oct 28, 2011

whysoserious said:
Yes, Gross Domestic Product is a very easy number to understand. You're really going to argue with every economist that ever existed about the concept of adjusting for inflation? Really? Why? It doesn't even make your numbers any better anyway, so why continue this torturous task of explaining every little math detail to you.

The Importance Of Inflation And GDP
Real gross domestic product
U.S. Real GDP vs. Nominal GDP (1929-2003)

Read up, or do something, because this is getting ridiculous. This is like 20 pages of me explaining economic 101 theory to you. That's not book smarts, that's just having-a-brain-and-reading-a-book smarts.

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

9% unemployment on 200,000 and 2,000,000 is the same. Do no you not get that concept? It's called a "ratio". I believe we learned those first in like 6th or 7th grade - I can't recall. Ratios are used when comparing numbers that fluctuate over time. As I showed, Obama has not had as much time to turn the economy around as Reagan - unemployment wise.

Are you willing to show when Reagan's policies came into effect, how long it took them to work, and what that number was when you were satisfied? Then, are you willing to show when Obama's policies went into effect and what you think is an acceptable amount of time to wait and what level is acceptable as well?

Thanks.

The 25 million unemployed and under employed Americans will be happy to hear that they are just a ratio and that things are so much better 2 3/4 years after Obama took office. You going to tell me when the Reagan, Bush, and Obama economic policies were passed?

Guess it is easier for people like you to talk about numbers, ratios, etc because there are no faces to those numbers, the real faces are the ones being hurt by liberalism and the failure of Obama

9% of 200,000=18,000 People
9% of 2 million=180,000 People

This is why you have no credibility, ratio doesn't matter to real people and thus why liberals have no credibility. They have fake compassion.

poweRob · Oct 28, 2011

Dickieboy said:
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.

It didn't refute me at all. It definitely said 'To be sure, S&P didn’t specifically single out Republicans' which you misinterpret as them saying it wasn't the republican's fault. The 'To be sure, S&P didn’t specifically single out Republicans' was just to say "we at the S&P didn't actually say their name but here is the partisan stuff that happened that made our decision for us" and it just so happens it was Republican partisan stuff. You are reaching so far to make something that isn't that your arm is going to fall off.

Instead of being lazy and sitting back and throwing stones how about fronting your perspective of what the S&P downgrade was about. What was the main reason?

Here is what was in the article you are now saying refutes me:

S&P was remarkably blunt that its downgrade was mostly about heightened political risks: “The political brinksmanship of recent months highlights what we see as America’s governance and policymaking becoming less stable, less effective, and less predictable than what we previously believed,” it said.

but but but... we didn't SAY the name Republican... lol

Conservative · Oct 28, 2011

whysoserious said:
And I don't think anyone is arguing with you about the best way to run a district in whatever business it happened to be in. The day that happens, you can pull seniority. Ok, bud? Cool.

that District was made up of people and my decisions affected each and every one of them. No difference with Obama, Reagan, and Bush as their policies affect actual people, not numbers and that is what matters. Reagan and Bush had positive results two years after the end of each recession that they had meaning they had better numbers than when they took office vs Obama who has worse numbers two years after the end of the recession than the day they took office. That is reality and that reality is more people are being hurt today than were hurt over 2 year after the end of the recession during Reagan and Bush terms

Conservative · Oct 28, 2011

Jryan said:
So in summary, Bush ruined the economy with his tax cuts and the invasion of a foreign country. He also stole his presidency and deserves indictment. Two can play at this game...

How did the Bush tax cuts hurt your parents who are probably paying your college expenses? What an idiotic statement but one based upon your own personal opinion not fact

Jryan · Oct 28, 2011

Conservative said:
How did the Bush tax cuts hurt your parents who are probably paying your college expenses? What an idiotic statement but one based upon your own personal opinion not fact

Do you not see a problem with starting a war and lowering taxes?

winston53660 · Oct 28, 2011

Conservative said:
A District Manager with total responsibility for the operations including budget, hiring and firing, sales and marketing, everything that you apparently don't understand

Hmmm I've run and owned a profitable photostudio. And I would say it was fairly successful considering I was getting published by national magazines like SPIN all before I was 30.

whysoserious · Oct 28, 2011

Conservative said:
The 25 million unemployed and under employed Americans will be happy to hear that they are just a ratio and that things are so much better 2 3/4 years after Obama took office. You going to tell me when the Reagan, Bush, and Obama economic policies were passed?

Guess it is easier for people like you to talk about numbers, ratios, etc because there are no faces to those numbers, the real faces are the ones being hurt by liberalism and the failure of Obama

9% of 200,000=18,000 People
9% of 2 million=180,000 People

This is why you have no credibility, ratio doesn't matter to real people and thus why liberals have no credibility. They have fake compassion.

bls.gov
Jesus dude. You want to talk credibility? First of all, bls.gov has the number of unemployed at 14 million. That's 11 million off. Secondly at peak unemployment during Reagan, there were nearly 11 million unemployed. Are you upset by that? Did you think, "God damn this Reagan is a ****ty president!"

No, you didn't because you continually prove yourself to be a hack every time you post.

Conservative · Oct 28, 2011

Jryan said:
Do you not see a problem with starting a war and lowering taxes?

Do you know when the war started and when the tax cuts were passed? Your timeline is screwed up as usual just like your lack of understanding of what those tax cuts did to FIT revenue? You do appear to be very confused, the wars cost 140 billion a year of the past 10 years and helped millions and millions of taxpayers and continue to do that today. the debt wasn't created by tax cuts

whysoserious · Oct 28, 2011

Conservative said:
that District was made up of people and my decisions affected each and every one of them. No difference with Obama, Reagan, and Bush as their policies affect actual people, not numbers and that is what matters. Reagan and Bush had positive results two years after the end of each recession that they had meaning they had better numbers than when they took office vs Obama who has worse numbers two years after the end of the recession than the day they took office. That is reality and that reality is more people are being hurt today than were hurt over 2 year after the end of the recession during Reagan and Bush terms

Are you kidding? The GDP was in the hole when he took office and has been growing ever since. How many times do I have to show you that? Also, unemployment capped 7 months after he took office and has slowly trickled down ever since as well. Quit making **** up. It's ridiculous. This is getting sad.

Jryan · Oct 28, 2011

Conservative said:
Do you know when the war started and when the tax cuts were passed? Your timeline is screwed up as usual just like your lack of understanding of what those tax cuts did to FIT revenue? You do appear to be very confused, the wars cost 140 billion a year of the past 10 years and helped millions and millions of taxpayers and continue to do that today. the debt wasn't created by tax cuts

Between 2001 and 2003, the Bush administration instituted a federal tax cut for all taxpayers. Among other changes, the lowest income tax rate was lowered from 15% to 10%, the 27% rate went to 25%, the 30% rate went to 28%, the 35% rate went to 33%, and the top marginal tax rate went from 39.6% to 35%.[3] In addition, the child tax credit went from $500 to $1000, and the "marriage penalty" was reduced. Since the cuts were implemented as part of the annual congressional budget resolution, which protected the bill from filibusters, numerous amendments, and more than 20 hours of debate, it had to include a sunset clause. Unless congress passed legislation making the tax cuts permanent, they were to expire in 2011.

Conservative · Oct 28, 2011

whysoserious said:
bls.gov
Jesus dude. You want to talk credibility? First of all, bls.gov has the number of unemployed at 14 million. That's 11 million off. Secondly at peak unemployment during Reagan, there were nearly 11 million unemployed. Are you upset by that? Did you think, "God damn this Reagan is a ****ty president!"

No, you didn't because you continually prove yourself to be a hack every time you post.

Stop being a tool, U-6 is 16.5% of the 154 million labor force. I have posted that information many times but you are so busy with your own opinions that facts get in the way of your personal opinions. Further U-3 is 15 million or 9.8% unemployment, Suggest you get a broader education and stop letting liberalism make a fool out of you.

I am going to ask you again because obviously you cannot seem to grasp reality. When did Ronald Reagan's economic plan get passed and when did Obama's?

Conservative · Oct 28, 2011

Jryan said:
Between 2001 and 2003, the Bush administration instituted a federal tax cut for all taxpayers. Among other changes, the lowest income tax rate was lowered from 15% to 10%, the 27% rate went to 25%, the 30% rate went to 28%, the 35% rate went to 33%, and the top marginal tax rate went from 39.6% to 35%.[3] In addition, the child tax credit went from $500 to $1000, and the "marriage penalty" was reduced. Since the cuts were implemented as part of the annual congressional budget resolution, which protected the bill from filibusters, numerous amendments, and more than 20 hours of debate, it had to include a sunset clause. Unless congress passed legislation making the tax cuts permanent, they were to expire in 2011.

Then the first tax cut was passed in June 2001 and was distributed by Sept 2001 the end of fiscal year 2001. it was a tax rebate check . The war in Iraq started in March 2003

Conservative · Oct 28, 2011

whysoserious said:
Are you kidding? The GDP was in the hole when he took office and has been growing ever since. How many times do I have to show you that? Also, unemployment capped 7 months after he took office and has slowly trickled down ever since as well. Quit making **** up. It's ridiculous. This is getting sad.

GDP has done what for employment and the debt during the Obama years?

winston53660 · Oct 28, 2011

Conservative said:
Then the first tax cut was passed in June 2001 and was distributed by Sept 2001 the end of fiscal year 2001. it was a tax rebate check . The war in Iraq started in March 2003

[h=1]Jobs and Growth Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2003[/h]

Jobs and Growth Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2003 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

BTW this jobs plan cost 678 billion.

Jryan · Oct 28, 2011

Conservative said:
Then the first tax cut was passed in June 2001 and was distributed by Sept 2001 the end of fiscal year 2001. it was a tax rebate check . The war in Iraq started in March 2003

So you don't see a problem with lowering taxes THEN invading the middle east?

Conservative · Oct 28, 2011

winston53660 said:
Hmmm I've run and owned a profitable photostudio. And I would say it was fairly successful considering I was getting published by national magazines like SPIN all before I was 30.

Great, why do you support the liberal policies of this President? You should know better then.

Conservative · Oct 28, 2011

Jryan said:
So you don't see a problem with lowering taxes THEN invading the middle east?

Why do you care about what someone else pays in taxes since tax revenue went up AFTER the Bush tax cuts were fully implemented, July 2003? The tax cuts didn't cause the debt during the Bush years, spending did. Over 5 trillion of the current debt was generated by the Democrat control of Congress from 2007 on

winston53660 · Oct 28, 2011

Conservative said:
Great, why do you support the liberal policies of this President? You should know better then.

Because I prefer demand over supply side.

Conservative · Oct 28, 2011

winston53660 said:
[h=1]Jobs and Growth Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2003[/h]

Jobs and Growth Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2003 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

BTW this jobs plan cost 678 billion.

Tax cuts cost nothing unless you can explain how you keeping more of your money is an expense to the govt?

Conservative · Oct 28, 2011

winston53660 said:
Because I prefer demand over supply side.

You seem to have no problem with a 3.7 trillion dollar govt either. Demand is increased when people have more spendable income. Higher taxes mean lower spendable income so how does that create demand?

Republicans block Obama jobs bill

USMC 1988-1996