• 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!

US economy creates 243,000 jobs in January

Status
Not open for further replies.
Karl said:
1. Based upon a reading and understanding of the entire paragraph, do you think that the "alternative minimum tax (AMT)" is significant?

2. Do you know what the "Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2001 (EGTRRA) and the Jobs and Growth Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2003 (JGTRRA)" are colloquially known as ?
Click to expand...

Yeah. You lecture me after I point out your deceit three times.

At least you're acknowledging that there was more to the paragraph than you wanted anyone to believe. That's a little progress anyway.

And it doesn't even matter, because I engaged you on your faulty terms.

You would be well-advised to do what you said you were going to do, and "drop it," because you're seriously grasping at dishonest straws.

If you were right, Karl, why all the dishonest editing? People who are correct don't generally have to lie.
 
Sheik Yerbuti said:
Perhaps what I posted is not relevant to the thread but at least it was relevant to the post I was responding to -- something you can't claim as your post had nothing to do with what I posted. It was just your typical robospam which you post every time you realize you can't refute what someone else says.
Click to expand...


Anyone want to guess who jumped in this morning... discussing this off topic subject?:roll:
 
This link is a pretty good read.And its also about the economy. :2wave:


<Did Obama make the economy worse? Not according to most statistics >

<Over the past two days, Mitt Romney has resurrected this claim hitting President Obama: He has made the economy worse. >


<"This has been a tough time. And I know the president didn't cause this downturn -- this recession. But he didn't make it better, either.>

<However, most of the economic numbers don't support Romney's claim.>

<For example, the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office found that the economic stimulus Obama signed into law added -- in the 4th quarter of 2009 -- between 1 million and 2 million employed workers and boosted the GDP between 1.5% to 3.5% higher than it would have been without the stimulus.>


First Read - Did Obama make the economy worse? Not according to most statistics
 
treedancer said:
This link is a pretty good read.And its also about the economy. :2wave:


<Did Obama make the economy worse? Not according to most statistics >

<Over the past two days, Mitt Romney has resurrected this claim hitting President Obama: He has made the economy worse. >


<"This has been a tough time. And I know the president didn't cause this downturn -- this recession. But he didn't make it better, either.>

<However, most of the economic numbers don't support Romney's claim.>

<For example, the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office found that the economic stimulus Obama signed into law added -- in the 4th quarter of 2009 -- between 1 million and 2 million employed workers and boosted the GDP between 1.5% to 3.5% higher than it would have been without the stimulus.>


First Read - Did Obama make the economy worse? Not according to most statistics
Click to expand...

The Obama results which obviously you have no interest in seeing show that indeed the economic numbers are mostly worse but let's face it Obama is a better singer and campaigner than anyone running against him. He sure has you fooled.
 
misterman said:
ON-budget ALSO runs a surplus though. Just FYI.
Click to expand...

In 1999-2000, yes.

misterman said:
Oh.

That's sounds like the convoluted way that Clinton surplus deniers do it.
Click to expand...

Read the thread, I never advocated that method for determining fiscal deficits. That was your buddy Karl.

Karl said:
So that the smart kids look at the annual increase in the total public debt as a true measure of what went on in Washington DC for any particular fiscal year?

While the short bus kids go 'well, golly gee, this here budget sure is better than that there budget, yuk yuk yuk'.
Click to expand...
 
Conservative said:
The Obama results which obviously you have no interest in seeing show that indeed the economic numbers are mostly worse but let's face it Obama is a better singer and campaigner than anyone running against him. He sure has you fooled.
Click to expand...

yet even Romney has this to say "And I know the president didn't cause this downturn ".Kinda hits you in the face, considering the drum you've been beatin since he was elected eh?:roll:
 
Conservative said:
The Obama results which obviously you have no interest in seeing show that indeed the economic numbers are mostly worse but let's face it Obama is a better singer and campaigner than anyone running against him. He sure has you fooled.
Click to expand...
If Obama's results on unemployment are as bad as you say, what does that say about every other Republican president going back to Hoover since they all performed worse than Obama up until this point, except for Reagan, who has performed the same as the unemployment rate increased by ½ a point during his first 36 months in office...

Here's a list of presidents, along with the percentage of increase, or decrease, of the U3 unemployment rate after 36 months in office...


Nixon +2.4 +71%
Ford* +2.0 +36%
GHW Bush +1.9 +35%
Bush +1.5 +36%
Eisenhower +1.1 +38%
Reagan +0.5 +7%
Obama +0.5 +6%
Kennedy** -1.2 -14%
Carter -1.2 -16%
Clinton -1.7 -23%
Johnson -2.1 -37%

* = Ford was in office 29 months

** = Kennedy was in office 34 months


Bureau of Labor Statistics Data​
 
Sheik Yerbuti said:
If Obama's results on unemployment are as bad as you say, what does that say about every other Republican president going back to Hoover since they all performed worse than Obama up until this point, except for Reagan, who has performed the same as the unemployment rate increased by ½ a point during his first 36 months in office...

Here's a list of presidents, along with the percentage of increase, or decrease, of the U3 unemployment rate after 36 months in office...


Nixon +2.4 +71%
Ford* +2.0 +36%
GHW Bush +1.9 +35%
Bush +1.5 +36%
Eisenhower +1.1 +38%
Reagan +0.5 +7%
Obama +0.5 +6%
Kennedy** -1.2 -14%
Carter -1.2 -16%
Clinton -1.7 -23%
Johnson -2.1 -37%

* = Ford was in office 29 months

** = Kennedy was in office 34 months


Bureau of Labor Statistics Data​
Click to expand...

Really…that’s your argument? Seems shallow. Any grade school student would argue, correctly, that if the UE rate is low then a nominal change would be a much greater percentage that when it is high…
 
treedancer said:
yet even Romney has this to say "And I know the president didn't cause this downturn ".Kinda hits you in the face, considering the drum you've been beatin since he was elected eh?:roll:
Click to expand...

Not at all, I know Obama didn't cause the downturn and isn't totally responsible for the recession but we do know that he is responsible for the dismal recovery and lack of leadership. Really is quite shocking how little liberals on this thread know about leadership and the responsibilities of a leader.
 
Dickieboy said:
Really…that’s your argument? Seems shallow. Any grade school student would argue, correctly, that if the UE rate is low then a nominal change would be a much greater percentage that when it is high…
Click to expand...
Ummm, even a grade school student could see I included the change in percentage points in that chart.

Reagan was the only Republican to not do worse than Obama, but after 36 months in office, even he did no better.
 
Dickieboy said:
Really…that’s your argument? Seems shallow. Any grade school student would argue, correctly, that if the UE rate is low then a nominal change would be a much greater percentage that when it is high…
Click to expand...

Now there you go confusing Sheik with actual facts. He obviously cannot comprehend that reality for to Sheik percentage change is the all important factor, having actual unemployed more than when he took office isn't a problem to Obama supporters since the percentage change is less. That is liberal logic. Actual numbers don't matter, higher unemployment, fewer employed, lower labor force, discouraged workers are irrelevant since the percentage change is all that matters except to those actual individuals affected.
 
Conservative said:
Now there you go confusing Sheik with actual facts. He obviously cannot comprehend that reality for to Sheik percentage change is the all important factor, having actual unemployed more than when he took office isn't a problem to Obama supporters since the percentage change is less. That is liberal logic. Actual numbers don't matter, higher unemployment, fewer employed, lower labor force, discouraged workers are irrelevant since the percentage change is all that matters except to those actual individuals affected.
Click to expand...
Wow, turns out there are two righties who couldn't see the increase/decrease of percentage points in that chart. :lamo
 
Sheik Yerbuti said:
Ummm, even a grade school student could see I included the change in percentage points in that chart.

Reagan was the only Republican to not do worse than Obama, but after 36 months in office, even he did no better.
Click to expand...

After 36 months in office Reagan had a net job gain, growing labor force, fewer people unemployed and strong economic growth. I recall you claiming that you voted for Reagan, interesting how someone who voted for Reagan can now be such a leftwing zealot.
 
Conservative said:
After 36 months in office Reagan had a net job gain, growing labor force, fewer people unemployed and strong economic growth. I recall you claiming that you voted for Reagan, interesting how someone who voted for Reagan can now be such a leftwing zealot.
Click to expand...
So what? Unemployment was still up ½ a percentage point after 33 months in office. Same as Obama. And better than every other Republican president on record.

And btw, you're off-topic! :lamo:lamo:lamo:lamo
 
Harshaw said:
[...] If you were right, Karl, why all the dishonest editing? People who are correct don't generally have to lie.
Click to expand...
You have repeatedly failed to explain what was dishonest about it. Or what was materially incorrect about it. People who aren't lying can generally explain their claims.

Karl said:
[...] Your source claims: "Revenues are projected to rise from 18.6 percent of GDP this year to almost 20 percent of GDP in 2012 and then remain near that historically high level through 2017. Much of that increase results from [the Bush tax cuts] which are scheduled to expire by December 31, 2010." (also PDF page 13). [...]
Click to expand...

Harshaw said:
[...] Funny, THIS is what that paragraph says:
Revenues are projected to rise from 18.6 percent of GDP this year to almost 20 percent of GDP in 2012 and then remain near that historically high level through 2017. Much of that increase results from two aspects of current law that have been subject to recent policy changes: the growing impact of the alternative minimum tax (AMT) and, even more significantly, various provisions originally enacted in the Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2001 (EGTRRA) and the Jobs and Growth Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2003 (JGTRRA) and modified by subsequent legislation, which are scheduled to expire by December 31, 2010.
Click to expand...
Which is a damn sight different than you present it. [...]
Click to expand...
 
Conservative said:
[...] interesting how someone who voted for Reagan can now be such a leftwing zealot.
Click to expand...
I thought that, according to Tea Party standards, Reagan was a leftwing zealot?
 
Rhapsody1447 said:
[...] Read the thread, I never advocated that method for determining fiscal deficits. That was your buddy Karl.
Click to expand...
:2wave: . . . . . . . . . . .
 
Karl said:
You have repeatedly failed to explain what was dishonest about it. Or what was materially incorrect about it. People who aren't lying can generally explain their claims.
Click to expand...

Dude.

Anyone can compare how you edited it to what the paragraph actually says and see what you tried to do.

Just like you did to the sentence about war funding.

Oh, and by the way -- you put emphasis in my post that I did not, so that should be made clear. Ironically, though, it only makes it easier to detect how badly you mangled the paragraph when you edited it for your own purposes.

So, really, until you get something new, I'm off the merry-go-round. Four spins is enough.
 
Sheik Yerbuti said:
Ummm, even a grade school student could see I included the change in percentage points in that chart.
Click to expand...

Yes, that was my point but obviously I wasn't clear. Let me try to explain more clearly. Since I don’t know what the specific rates were relevant to your table I can only presume, which should be sufficient to clarify the point. If the UE rate was 4.16% under GWB and had a 1.5% increase (to 5.6%) that would be a 35% increase in unemployment but both 4.16% and 5.6% would be outstanding. Conversely if under BHO the UE IS 7.5% a change of .5% up (to 8.0%) would be an increase of 6.6% but both 7.5 and 8.0 would be crappy.

See?
 
Harshaw said:
Dude. Anyone can compare how you edited it to what the paragraph actually says and see what you tried to do.
Click to expand...
Dude. That's like, admitting, that you can't, like, dude, explain what was wrong with it. Dude.

Harshaw said:
Oh, and by the way -- you put emphasis in my post that I did not, so that should be made clear.
Click to expand...
Hmmm... perhaps you can't read after all:

Karl said:
[...] I have highlighted the quote in your post to illustrate my paraphrasing as well as the reasoning thereof. [...]
Click to expand...

Harshaw said:
So, really, until you get something new, I'm off the merry-go-round. Four spins is enough.
Click to expand...
Since your claim of distortion on my part was false, therefore making it impossible for you to rationally explain it, I figured you'd give up sooner or later.
 
Sheik Yerbuti said:
So what? Unemployment was still up ½ a percentage point after 33 months in office. Same as Obama. And better than every other Republican president on record.

And btw, you're off-topic! :lamo:lamo:lamo:lamo
Click to expand...

Let's face reality, U3 stats don't apply to these times. Bush and the Republicans toasted this economy and left it in free fall, when Obama took over. We're lucky we didn't get Great Depression II. Our economy is limping back, because Republican obstructionism is stopping the opportunities to fix it quickly. The Republicans know they screwed the economy up and how they did it, but that doesn't stop them from trying to blame others and telling others to learn how to take responsiblity. When you're totally dedicated to hypocisy, what choice do you have?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom