• 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.
Boo Radley said:
It's good news, but really, no president controls the economy. They don't deserve the blame or the credit.

Just saying. :coffeepap
Click to expand...

Oh...so...it's not Bush's fault? :lamo
 
apdst said:
What's wrong with it?

Are you saying that the American people aren't resilient enough to prosper, even with a president who is trying to destroy the country?
Click to expand...

He just can't take in Obama's agenda because he listened to Obama, and believed "Him".
 
apdst said:
Maybe Obama shouldn't have spent $5 trillion in just three years. Whatcha think?
Click to expand...

Aside from the stimulus, Obamacare, and a few other things, the most significant part of the increase in the debt has been due to built-in baseline increases in entitlements and unemployment benefits due to the recession.
 
Boo Radley said:
It's good news, but really, no president controls the economy. They don't deserve the blame or the credit.

Just saying. :coffeepap
Click to expand...
That's true, but most of the public doesn't think this way which is why it matters politically.
 
apdst said:
I have way too much common sense to believe that a one percent increase is anywhere close to awesome.

I hope Obama runs on that this year.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure if i trust the "1 point of GDP" number to begin with because I'm wary of the effects of the payroll tax cut, but if you understand anything about economics, you'll realize even a 1 percent bump in GDP number is rather significant. To put things in perspective, it amounts to about 140 billion dollars over a year.
 
All growth is cumulative, 1% here and 2% there adds up in a hurry over 10 years. Thats why I think the regulatory burden increasing by as much as it has in the last 15 years is an extremely big issue.
 
OpportunityCost said:
All growth is cumulative, 1% here and 2% there adds up in a hurry over 10 years. Thats why I think the regulatory burden increasing by as much as it has in the last 15 years is an extremely big issue.
Click to expand...

The whole 8.3% thing is messed up, and a reason why it is going down is because the work force is shrinking. So the unemployment can't do anything but go down for now.
 
Amigo said:
The whole 8.3% thing is messed up, and a reason why it is going down is because the work force is shrinking. So the unemployment can't do anything but go down for now.
Click to expand...

You sound a bit bitter... The work force is shrinking for various reasons.. more retired persons, less immigration (legal) and less babies.
 
StillBallin75 said:
I'm not sure if i trust the "1 point of GDP" number to begin with because I'm wary of the effects of the payroll tax cut, but if you understand anything about economics, you'll realize even a 1 percent bump in GDP number is rather significant. To put things in perspective, it amounts to about 140 billion dollars over a year.
Click to expand...

140 billion in a multi-trillion dollar economy is chump change.
 
apdst said:
140 billion in a multi-trillion dollar economy is chump change.
Click to expand...

No, it isn't chump change. When GDP growth is expected to be in the 2-3% range, an extra 1% is quite significant.
 
PeteEU said:
You sound a bit bitter... The work force is shrinking for various reasons.. more retired persons, less immigration (legal) and less babies.
Click to expand...

Are they short or something?
 
Republic Now! said:
Except for Bush.
Click to expand...

Not even Bush. But for consistency of thought, if you're going to complain about Obama on this, you have to include Bush. But neither controled or controls the economy.
 
apdst said:
Oh...so...it's not Bush's fault? :lamo
Click to expand...

Never said it was. Even when Bush was president I said no president controls the economy. It's kind of silly the blame and credit we give these guys. Any help or hinderance they can give is largely minor and not deciding at all.
 
StillBallin75 said:
Not when average GDP growth year over year is around 3%.
Click to expand...

CBO projections for the next 3-5 years is annual growth of less than 2%, and thats with ~1 trillion/year for the next 4 years of deficit spending.

And remember, deficit spending "borrows" future GDP for the present. It will be an interesting ride.
 
Boo Radley said:
Not even Bush. But for consistency of thought, if you're going to complain about Obama on this, you have to include Bush. But neither controled or controls the economy.
Click to expand...

Oh, I blame Obama for the policies he pushes. If those policies have an impact on the economy, then yes, I do give him credit for the result. I also did with Bush. neither Bush nor Obama are conservatives. I'm not in bed with Bush. I just find the complete 180 by many people funny when it comes to the president. If it's not you, that's cool. Have a good laugh with me then.
 
Boo Radley said:
Not even Bush. But for consistency of thought, if you're going to complain about Obama on this, you have to include Bush. But neither controled or controls the economy.
Click to expand...

Since Obama's policies flopped, it's no longer the president's ability to effect the economy. :lamo

The good news for you, is that you're half right. The president can't create jobs, but he can damn sure kill jobs, as we've seen Obama do for three years.
 
Boo Radley said:
Not even Bush. But for consistency of thought, if you're going to complain about Obama on this, you have to include Bush. But neither controled or controls the economy.
Click to expand...

The problem lies with our government. Not a person or party. People need to stop blaming a party and start blaming them all.
 
Republic Now! said:
Oh, I blame Obama for the policies he pushes. If those policies have an impact on the economy, then yes, I do give him credit for the result. I also did with Bush. neither Bush nor Obama are conservatives. I'm not in bed with Bush. I just find the complete 180 by many people funny when it comes to the president. If it's not you, that's cool. Have a good laugh with me then.
Click to expand...

The biggest 180 being done is in the economy, which went from losing jobs (under bush*) to creating jobs (under Obama)
 
sangha said:
The biggest 180 being done is in the economy, which went from losing jobs (under bush*) to creating jobs (under Obama)
Click to expand...

How do you explain that there are 2 million fewer jobs now, than there were when Obama was inaugurated?
 
apdst said:
Maybe Obama shouldn't have spent $5 trillion in just three years. Whatcha think?
Click to expand...
I say you can't prove he spent $5 trillion because he didn't.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom