• 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!

U.S. Jobless Rate Unexpectedly Declines to 8.6%

Thunder said:
what actions did Obama take, what votes did he make, that helped contribute to this crisis?

Conservative said:
That has been beaten to death on this thread but that doesn't stop you from continuing to ignore the causes of the collapse but more importantly the millions and millions of Americans that are unemployed/under employed today that don't have a chance ot even buy a home. The thread topic is the unemployment rate dropping but the reality is it is higher today than when he took office, 315,000 dropped out of the labor force last month making the rate look lower than it really is, he has over 1 million discouraged workers each month since he has been in office. It will be that record on the ballot in 2012 not the housing crisis which has been over now for years.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Translation: Obama had nothing at all to do with creating the mortgage crisis.

Thanks for confirming what everyone already knows.

:coffeepap
 
OpportunityCost said:
I guess no one has pointed out to you ...
Click to expand...
Hey, how come you didn't respond to my challenge ... ?

Here it is again, in case you missed it ...

OpportunityCost said:
In 2005– Senator John McCain partnered with three other Senate Republicans to reform the government’s involvement in lending.
Democrats blocked this reform, too.

Sheik Yerbuti said:
I challenge you to prove that Democrats blocked that reform.

Here, I'll even get you started by spotting you a link to the reform in question in which you erroneously stated Democrats blocked ...

S.190: Federal Housing Enterprise Regulatory Reform Act of 2005

... go for it ...
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
EarlzP said:
If you only take a snap shot of health care costs to the economy your projections appear to make sense, when you take a good in depth look at the health care act you can see that it will save money one good example would be the cost difference between emergency room care and care being provided in a doctors office that prevents the need for emergency room care. Employers lose money every time an employeee loses work due to preventable illnesses, sick employees add to costs not only through call offs but due to reduced working performance while sick. Employers pass those costs off to the employee and to the people who consume the goods and or services they provide



This is nothing more then rhetoric unless you have a source supporting your opinion

If you think those things are not contributing to the unemployment, you are delusional.
Click to expand...

Having worked in the chemical industry I can assure you that without the EPA we would be no different then China or other third world countries are about protecting our environment for future generations[/QUOTE]

The health care projections are impacting throughout. Companies large and small.
Here is your JD and Cat story : Shut up, he argues - NYPOST.com

I dont argue that EPA is neccessary, I argue that regulations dont need to tighten in a 2 to 4 year cycle when amortization and costs to pay for upgrades havent even gone thorugh yet...particularly multimillion dollar outlays in the case of the coal industry.
 
Sheik Yerbuti said:
Hey, how come you didn't respond to my challenge ... ?

Here it is again, in case you missed it ...
Click to expand...

Thats from a quoted article, derp. How about you do some legwork for a change and prove they DIDNT.
 
OpportunityCost said:
Thats from a quoted article, derp. How about you do some legwork for a change and prove they DIDNT.
Click to expand...
I already did ... didn't you see the link I gave you? It shows exactly what happened to that bill and it wasn't blocked by Democrats. Which is why IO challenged you to prove what you posted.

I knew you couldn't ...

... now everyone reading this, including you, knows you couldn't.

What you posted was a lie.
 
Conservative said:
The economy always adds jobs even during the recession it added jobs, just not enough to keep up with population growth and retirements. Only a true liberal can call what has happened the past three years as positive because you are getting exactly what you want, bigger govt. and thus more opportunities for the nanny state supporters.

You and all other liberals will continue to talk about inherited problems while ignoring that we are three years into Obama's Administration and the results are worse than when he took office. That seems ok to you, a union employee, that has a paycheck and job security because of unions but very little if any upward mobility.

As I have stated many times here, I will be willing to bet that I have voted for more Democrats than you have voted for Republicans. You get your marching orders from the union, I get mine from actual results generated and how those results were generated.
Click to expand...
1) my union membership has nothing to do at all with my opinions, but i do find it amusing that you can't seem to respond to me without bringing up my union membership, as if it somehow proves your points or assertions...2)who you have voted for, or for that matter, who i have voted for has nothing to do with the discussion at hand, and just serves as a diversion for you, to steer away from the facts at hand, that the economy is improving, and we are adding jobs, have been for awhile. 3) if you are going to accuse me of getting my 'marching orders' from the UAW, implying that i can't think for myself, well, lets put the shoe on the other foot, and i will start every future post involving you with saying that you take your 'marching orders' from the RNC...fair is fair after all. 4) as has been shown by posters better than i, you have no idea about how the numbers you post were generated, what they actually mean, or what context that they occured...please, please , please, don't speak of things you have no concept or clue about. it makes you look foolish.
 
Sheik Yerbuti said:
I already did ... didn't you see the link I gave you? It shows exactly what happened to that bill and it wasn't blocked by Democrats. Which is why IO challenged you to prove what you posted.

I knew you couldn't ...

... now everyone reading this, including you, knows you couldn't.

What you posted was a lie.
Click to expand...

What you showed was a bill, sponsored by a Republican, supported by Republicans, that never left committee.

More to the point, show me a democrat that supported the bill or any bill for mortgage and banking reform BEFORE the crash. They defended the status quo with everything they had including the race card.

I am trying to understand how you can say a bill that a majority of Republicans in committee were for and all the dems were against means that republicans were against it.

You go digging and find me some dems supporting reforms before 2007-8 when everything was crashing.
 
randel said:
1) my union membership has nothing to do at all with my opinions, but i do find it amusing that you can't seem to respond to me without bringing up my union membership, as if it somehow proves your points or assertions...2)who you have voted for, or for that matter, who i have voted for has nothing to do with the discussion at hand, and just serves as a diversion for you, to steer away from the facts at hand, that the economy is improving, and we are adding jobs, have been for awhile. 3) if you are going to accuse me of getting my 'marching orders' from the UAW, implying that i can't think for myself, well, lets put the shoe on the other foot, and i will start every future post involving you with saying that you take your 'marching orders' from the RNC...fair is fair after all. 4) as has been shown by posters better than i, you have no idea about how the numbers you post were generated, what they actually mean, or what context that they occured...please, please , please, don't speak of things you have no concept or clue about. it makes you look foolish.
Click to expand...

What I find hypocritical is that you and others ignore the cost of what you call an improving economy so apparently 24 plus million unemployed and under employed Americans at a cost of 4.5 trillion dollars is the sign that things are improving. The American people are going to ask themselves are they better off in 2012 than they are today and if the results are as they are today the answer will be no and your community organizer President will be a one termer.
 
Conservative said:
...The American people are going to ask themselves are they better off in 2012 than they are today and if the results are as they are today the answer will be no and your community organizer President will be a one termer.
Click to expand...

that makes no sense. the election is in 2012.
 
OpportunityCost said:
What you showed was a bill, sponsored by a Republican, supported by Republicans, that never left committee.

More to the point, show me a democrat that supported the bill or any bill for mortgage and banking reform BEFORE the crash. They defended the status quo with everything they had including the race card.

I am trying to understand how you can say a bill that a majority of Republicans in committee were for and all the dems were against means that republicans were against it.

You go digging and find me some dems supporting reforms before 2007-8 when everything was crashing.
Click to expand...
Umm, the bill was voted on and passed in committee... I didn't say Republicans were against it, nice strawman ... I said Democrats didn't block it; and they didn't. As the minority party, they were outnumbered 11 to 9. Senate leadership never brought the bill to the floor for a full vote in the Senate.

Do you understand now?
 
Last edited:
Thunder said:
that makes no sense. the election is in 2012.
Click to expand...

And the American electorate will ask themselves if they are better today(election day 2012) than they were 4 years ago(election day 2008) and the answer is no, Obama will be a one term President as he should be. He is in over his head and totally incompetent.
 
Conservative said:
And the American electorate will ask themselves if they are better today(election day 2012) than they were 4 years ago(election day 2008) and the answer is no, Obama will be a one term President as he should be. He is in over his head and totally incompetent.
Click to expand...

Really? Four ago there werer massive job losses, a negative GDP and a financial system in the verge of collapse.
 
winston53660 said:
Really? Four ago there werer massive job losses, a negative GDP and a financial system in the verge of collapse.
Click to expand...

Four years ago there weren't 24 plus million unemployed/under employed nor was there a 15.1 trillion dollar debt. The financial collapse was averted with TARP according to economists
 
Conservative said:
What I find hypocritical is that you and others ignore the cost of what you call an improving economy so apparently 24 plus million unemployed and under employed Americans at a cost of 4.5 trillion dollars is the sign that things are improving. The American people are going to ask themselves are they better off in 2012 than they are today and if the results are as they are today the answer will be no and your community organizer President will be a one termer.
Click to expand...
After Bush's Great Recession wreaked havoc on our economy, there were 26 million underemployed. Now there's 24 million. Sounds like improvement to me.
 
Conservative said:
And the American electorate will ask themselves if they are better today(election day 2012) than they were 4 years ago(election day 2008) and the answer is no, Obama will be a one term President as he should be. He is in over his head and totally incompetent.
Click to expand...

in 2008, I was very fearful for the stock market, my city, and my country. it looked like we were going straight to hell...and fast.

now? things have stabilized. we have a long way to go, but the stock market has regained ALL of its losses, companies are hiring again, companies are matching 401k contributions again, and we are on our way.

so yes, this country is better off today than it was when Obama took over.
 
Conservative said:
And the American electorate will ask themselves if they are better today(election day 2012) than they were 4 years ago(election day 2008) and the answer is no, Obama will be a one term President as he should be. He is in over his head and totally incompetent.
Click to expand...
Well people are already being polled and they still prefer Obama to anybody the GOP is putting up against him.
 
Conservative said:
And the American electorate will ask themselves if they are better today(election day 2012) than they were 4 years ago(election day 2008) and the answer is no, Obama will be a one term President as he should be. He is in over his head and totally incompetent.
Click to expand...

Yes, and they might just hold their collective noses and vote for the likes of Gingrich or Perry, and then, what will change?

Do you seriously believe that changing the president is going to result in an economic turn around? How much power do you ascribe to the office of president, anyway?
 
Thunder said:
in 2008, I was very fearful for the stock market, my city, and my country. it looked like we were going straight to hell...and fast.

now? things have stabilized. we have a long way to go, but the stock market has regained ALL of its losses, companies are hiring again, companies are matching 401k contributions again, and we are on our way.

so yes, this country is better off today than it was when Obama took over.
Click to expand...

The misery index, the unemployment numbers, the debt say you are wrong as do the polls

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_...ic-outlook-weighs-down-obama-approval-rating/
 
Last edited:
Thunder said:
GDP says I'm right. and the unemployment numbers are going down.
Click to expand...

You think that the 24 million unemployed care about the GDP? They care about jobs and the ability to keep their homes by having a job.
 
Conservative said:
Four years ago there weren't 24 plus million unemployed/under employed nor was there a 15.1 trillion dollar debt. The financial collapse was averted with TARP according to economists
Click to expand...

Yep, and FDR was reelected three times despite the fact that the economy was in the toilet. Why? Because then, as now, people realize that performance has to be evaluated in the context of the massive headwinds blowing against progress.
 
Conservative said:
You think that the 24 million unemployed care about the GDP? They care about jobs and the ability to keep their homes by having a job.
Click to expand...

GDP is back in the positive. the stock market has regained ALL of its losses. companies are hiring and matching 401k contributions again.

clearly, we are on our way.
 
AdamT said:
Yep, and FDR was reelected three times despite the fact that the economy was in the toilet. Why? Because then, as now, people realize that performance has to be evaluated in the context of the massive headwinds blowing against progress.
Click to expand...

Obama is no FDR. The American people vote their wallets and with Obama they have less in that wallet
 
Conservative said:
You think that the 24 million unemployed care about the GDP? They care about jobs and the ability to keep their homes by having a job.
Click to expand...

Naturally. That's why they will choose the guy who is making the situation better, rather than a guy who will resurrect the failed polcies that created this cluster****.
 
Conservative said:
Obama is no FDR. The American people vote their wallets and with Obama they have less in that wallet
Click to expand...

In this analogy Obama IS FDR and Newt Romney is Herbert Hoover.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom