• 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.
That's very strange, the economy was losing private sector jobs at the ungodly rate of about 750K/month at the end of President Bush's term in office, but those results don't seem to bother you. Why is that, Con? It seems to me you are putting your politics before the truth.

BTW, when you were supposedly a Democrat, they were far more to the left than they are today. So I suspect, you were not into politics back them, you were a Democrat because of family. I was in the same situation only I was a Republican back then.

You keep saying that but the difference is instead of the 750K loss the people dropped out of the labor force and are no longer counted. The numbers are basically the same. Bush never had 1 trillion in discouraged workers at any time during his term. Those discouraged workers aren't counted as unemployed

Instead of blaming Bush suggest you focus on the Obama record. Do you believe it is the Federal Government's responsibility to mandate that individuals buy health insurance? Do you believe it appropriate for the Federal Govt. to demand the people paying FIT pay more while 47% of all income earning households aren't paying any FIT. Do you believe it is the Federal Government's role to mandate that religious organizations violate their teachings? Where does the role of the Federal Govt. stop in your world/
 
No, that is opinion. Yours, and those that pollsters collected with their weighted participation, and skewed push polls designed to run cover for Obama.
No, that is not my opinion. The economy really was in the toilet when Obama took over. If you think there was a president other than Hoover who handed his succerror a worse economy, name him.

That is possible, but then let me ask you, does spending originate in congress? Or the office of the Presidency?
Both are responsible for spending. Except for Congressional overrides of presidential vetoes, the president approves of the Congress' spending.

Wow! A whole 54%? Why that is an entire 4% over majority...And what of the 46% that disagree? They don't matter? All I can say is thank God we don't live in a pure democracy.
54% is a majority even beyond the margin of error to state otherwise; which enables me to confidently say "most people." Deal with it.

I don't believe polls have much weight other than making partisan political arguments. Other than that they are often wrong at truly gauging final outcomes in anything other than opinion driven drivel.
Well fortunately for me, my positions are not dependant upon your beliefs. Still, most people still blame Bush for the current state of our economy and by a factor of close to 2 to 1, they blame Bush more than Obama. If you have evidence to the contrary, feel free to post it.

You expect to win anything other than contempt when you use such tactics?
This is a political forum, and a highly charged partisan one at that. I don't expect to win anything.

I wasn't aware that you were the arbitor of who can participate and who can't? Nah, I think I will continue to post what ever I wish, thank you, as for your pronouncment, well, you know what weight that has....Nothing.
Perhaps English isn't your first language? I never said who can or cannot participate and I certainly never said you can't or even that you shouldn't.

You're the one calling this debate over polls, "mental masturbation," while inferring that debating it now is meaningless.

I didn't tell you not to post here -- I pointed out that if you find this debate so meaningless, you are under no obligation to participate in it.

I can't say I fully understand how I can say, "You're certainly welcome not to participate if you feel that strongly that none of this conversation matters," yet somehow, your brain translates that into you thinking I'm trying to arbitrate who can and cannot participate
 
I was just trying to understand why he thought Obama made a $5 trilllion "investment" simply because the debt has increased almost that much since Obama became president. In reality, Obama is far less responsible for that $5 trillion in debt than he deludes himself into believing...

w-Ezra01_Policies.jpg


Adding to the deficit: Bush vs. Obama - The Washington Post

Hard to take anyone serious who believes that a person keeping more of their own money is an expense to the Federal Govt
 
Your graphs have nothing to do with my post.
Those graphs explain the cause of the deficit, which is what caused the debt to grow.

I thought your post was about the debt? If it wasn't about the debt, what was it about?
 
The affects from his recession are still being felt. If not for that recession, employment would be higher than it is today as well as tax revenues would be higher; which translates into lower deficits. Also, had Bush and Republicans not wrecked our economy, there would have been no need for Obama to spend close to a trillion dollars on stimulus.

All this blame and never accepting responsibility. You believe it is the Federal Government's role to mandate that individuals buy healthcare or any other service? Do you believe it is the role of the Federal Govt. to force people into paying for other's individual social services? Do you believe it is the Federal Government's role to mandate that Churches violate their teachings? Do you believe it is the role of a bureaucrat to take from one group of people and give it to another? Where does the role of the govt. stop in your world/
 
Last edited:
Those graphs explain the cause of the deficit, which is what caused the debt to grow.

I thought your post was about the debt? If it wasn't about the debt, what was it about?

Remarkably, it leaves out the main cause of our debt.
 
learn to read? LOL, suggest you do a better job of explaining your position. Labor force for the past few years is below showing the labor force in December was 153.9 million and in January 2012 it is 154.4 million. Looks like 500,000 increase to me in a country with a growing population and yet a labor force that isn't keeping up. Dropping out of the labor force makes the Obama numbers look better than they are

2007 153133 152966 153054 152446 152666 153038 153035 152756 153422 153209 153845 153936
2008 154060 153624 153924 153779 154322 154315 154432 154656 154613 154953 154621 154669
2009 154185 154424 154100 154453 154805 154754 154457 154362 153940 154022 153795 153172
2010 153353 153558 153895 154520 154237 153684 153628 154117 154124 153960 153950 153690
2011 153186 153246 153406 153421 153693 153421 153228 153594 154017 154198 153883 153887
Jan-12 154395
Yes, learn to read. You are under the delusion that I believe a labor force gaining 560,000 jobs in 5 years is a "good thing."

I never said that so for you to frame a question based on that false premise certainly didn't extend from my post which you responded to.

Learn to read so you can hopefully avoid making that mistake again in the future. I'm trying to help you here, Con, but you've got to help yourself too.
 
Yes, learn to read. You are under the delusion that I believe a labor force gaining 560,000 jobs in 5 years is a "good thing."

I never said that so for you to frame a question based on that false premise certainly didn't extend from my post which you responded to.

Learn to read so you can hopefully avoid making that mistake again in the future. I'm trying to help you here, Con, but you've got to help yourself too.

I am trying, Sheik, to help you save yourself but apparently a lost cause. You apparently are in real need of the Federal Govt. taking over more personal responsibility and generating individual mandates. The point is Obama is insulated by people like you from his performance. Apparently the President isn't responsible for the economy when it is a Democrat but is responsible when it is a Republican.

Waiting for you to explain why you support a Federal Mandate for healthcare, massive expansion of the nanny state, promoting class warfare by claiming people who are paying most of the taxes now aren't paying their fair share, churches mandated to violate their own teachings?
 
All this blame and never accepting responsibility. You believe it is the Federal Government's role to mandate that individuals buy healthcare or any other service? Do you believe it is the role of the Federal Govt. to force people into paying for other's individual social services? Do you believe it is the Federal Government's role to mandate that Churches violate their teachings? Do you believe it is the role of a bureaucrat to take from one group of people and give it to another? Where does the role of the govt. stop in your world/

Here, Con, let me help you out again ... here's where that belongs ...


http://www.debatepolitics.com/healt...free-universal-health-care-all-americans.html
 
Yes Conservative, don't believe what I write, only believe what I tell you to believe....


j-mac
 
The Republicans had the majority in the House from Jan 1995 until Jan 2007.

I meant the debt in '06 not the majority. Less than $9 trillion by year end. Then, when Democrats served in majority to Congress in starting Jan. 20, 2007 it didn't take long to have the upward trend turn into a steep upward climb.
 
I am trying, Sheik, to help you save yourself but apparently a lost cause. You apparently are in real need of the Federal Govt. taking over more personal responsibility and generating individual mandates. The point is Obama is insulated by people like you from his performance. Apparently the President isn't responsible for the economy when it is a Democrat but is responsible when it is a Republican.

Waiting for you to explain why you support a Federal Mandate for healthcare, massive expansion of the nanny state, promoting class warfare by claiming people who are paying most of the taxes now aren't paying their fair share, churches mandated to violate their own teachings?

I love it; conservatives arguing against personal responsibility. :lol:
 
I love it; conservatives arguing against personal responsibility. :lol:


What the....? This is totally, and completely on its head, personal responsibility is exactly what Catholics are arguing....It is Obama saying that the Church has the responsibility to do this.


j-mac
 
What the....? This is totally, and completely on its head, personal responsibility is exactly what Catholics are arguing....It is Obama saying that the Church has the responsibility to do this.


j-mac

Wrong thread. :lol:
 
Hard to take anyone serious who believes that a person keeping more of their own money is an expense to the Federal Govt
By that [il]logic, we should do away with taxes alltogether and let people keep 100% of their money.
 
Who pays for FREE healthcare in this country? Show me any govt. social program that ever cost what it was supposed to cost, did what it was supposed to do, solved a problem and went away. Healthcare is a personal responsibility best handled at the state not the Federal level

If it's completely a personal responsibility issue, why should state government be involved in it? Why aren't you advocating that anyone who gets seriously ill, and who has no insurance, or insufficient insurance, should simply be left to die on the street?
 
If it's completely a personal responsibility issue, why should state government be involved in it? Why aren't you advocating that anyone who gets seriously ill, and who has no insurance, or insufficient insurance, should simply be left to die on the street?


Why bring your stereo types into it?


j-mac
 
By that [il]logic, we should do away with taxes alltogether and let people keep 100% of their money.

Talk about extreme? That makes no sense, no one is talking about doing away with the funding for the govt, just reducing the spending.
 
If it's completely a personal responsibility issue, why should state government be involved in it? Why aren't you advocating that anyone who gets seriously ill, and who has no insurance, or insufficient insurance, should simply be left to die on the street?

Most states aren't involved but the citizens of the state are the ones that pay for the ER services of the uninsured, not the people of your state
 
Most states aren't involved but the citizens of the state are the ones that pay for the ER services of the uninsured, not the people of your state

That wasn't my question. Why aren't you arguing for the repeal of the law that Reagan signed, mandating that emergency rooms must care for anyone who comes in the door regardless of their ability to pay?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom