• 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!

Obama to business owners: "You didn't build that." [W:417]

Re: Obama to business owners: "You didn't build that."

What is so hard to understand that government builds infrastructure, businesses use the infrastructure, and without the infrastructure business can not thrive. Not to mention that a stable and solvent government is also necessary for entrepreneurship to thrive. It's all true..

What you don't want to understand, you won't. Sadly. :shrug:
 
Re: Obama to business owners: "You didn't build that."

Seriously, do numbers confuse you?

I've already shown you the labor force numbers then and now and the labor for is higher now than it was then...


07/2009: 154,538,000
07/2012: 155,013,000

BLS: Labor Force

Do you see that? Do you understand it?? The labor force at 155,013,000 today is bigger than it was 3 years ago at 154,538,000.

You're confusing the labor force with the labor force participation rate. They're not the same thing.

Capiche?

No, you are trying to say that labor participation rates aren't important, and that the size of labor force is all that matters. Answer this smart guy, if the labor force is larger, but the participation rate is lower, what does that mean? It means there are fewer jobs available than there were 3 years ago. I thought that was understood, but apparantly you aren't smart enough to understand the point that was being made.

Let me be a little more clear for you, since you don't seem to be able to comprehend the implied points being made. There are FEWER people WORKING today than there were 3 years ago. Also, there are FEWER available jobs today than there were 3 years ago.

Capiche?

Under Obama, there has been NET LOSS of jobs in America. That's not an opinion, it's a fact. 7 million people have abandoned the labor market. Underemployment is above 13%. Real unemployment is about 11.5%. The government doesn't even factor in the people who have given up looking for work, or who have exceeded 99 weeks of unemployment. This man-child President is a disaster, and everyone knows it. Which is why he would rather talk about Ryan's budget plans, instead of his own failed record.

Capiche?
 
Re: Obama to business owners: "You didn't build that."

No, you are trying to say that labor participation rates aren't important, and that the size of labor force is all that matters. Answer this smart guy, if the labor force is larger, but the participation rate is lower, what does that mean? It means there are fewer jobs available than there were 3 years ago. I thought that was understood, but apparantly you aren't smart enough to understand the point that was being made.

Let me be a little more clear for you, since you don't seem to be able to comprehend the implied points being made. There are FEWER people WORKING today than there were 3 years ago. Also, there are FEWER available jobs today than there were 3 years ago.

Capiche?

Under Obama, there has been NET LOSS of jobs in America. That's not an opinion, it's a fact. 7 million people have abandoned the labor market. Underemployment is above 13%. Real unemployment is about 11.5%. The government doesn't even factor in the people who have given up looking for work, or who have exceeded 99 weeks of unemployment. This man-child President is a disaster, and everyone knows it. Which is why he would rather talk about Ryan's budget plans, instead of his own failed record.

Capiche?

Enough with the personal attacks - they really don't work when the attacker is wrong on the basic facts.

The low point for employment in the US was in late July, early August 2009 - 3 years ago - since that low point there has been a continual increase in the number of Americans working - despite the fact that during the same three years the number of people with government jobs has decreased, with the exception of the temporary increase for the period of the 2010 Census.

The FACT that you bring up must use the January 2009 numbers, a period during which American job numbers were plummeting and during which the newly elected President had zero effect on the economy.

Time and again the increase in employment graph has been posted, and yes it did look like a bikini for the period 2007 -2011.

A more correct statement would be "During the Obama Administration, there has been a net loss of jobs in America" What's the difference? The President and his staff and his Cabinet do not control the economy, they can for the most part only make suggestions and attempt to push thru legislation they favour but it is the Congress that must pass those bills.

When you have a Congress setting records in obstructionism, it is difficult to get anything done. Naturally, the instigators of the obstruction, the members of the Party of NO! place all of the blame upon the President. I can blame the President too but I blame him for not realising the depth of hatred and antipathy that is present in the modern Republican Party, I can blame him for using the "bully pulpit" to better inform the electorate of the deliberate actions of a party which are causing much of today's financial woes.

It is almost 170 years since the American government has witnessed such an obstinate refusal to compromise and for one of the major parties to refuse to work with the other for the benefit of the nation. The result was not pretty then and it may not be 'pretty' in our near future.
 
Re: Obama to business owners: "You didn't build that."

Enough with the personal attacks - they really don't work when the attacker is wrong on the basic facts.

The low point for employment in the US was in late July, early August 2009 - 3 years ago - since that low point there has been a continual increase in the number of Americans working - despite the fact that during the same three years the number of people with government jobs has decreased, with the exception of the temporary increase for the period of the 2010 Census.

The FACT that you bring up must use the January 2009 numbers, a period during which American job numbers were plummeting and during which the newly elected President had zero effect on the economy.

Time and again the increase in employment graph has been posted, and yes it did look like a bikini for the period 2007 -2011.

A more correct statement would be "During the Obama Administration, there has been a net loss of jobs in America" What's the difference? The President and his staff and his Cabinet do not control the economy, they can for the most part only make suggestions and attempt to push thru legislation they favour but it is the Congress that must pass those bills.

When you have a Congress setting records in obstructionism, it is difficult to get anything done. Naturally, the instigators of the obstruction, the members of the Party of NO! place all of the blame upon the President. I can blame the President too but I blame him for not realising the depth of hatred and antipathy that is present in the modern Republican Party, I can blame him for using the "bully pulpit" to better inform the electorate of the deliberate actions of a party which are causing much of today's financial woes.

It is almost 170 years since the American government has witnessed such an obstinate refusal to compromise and for one of the major parties to refuse to work with the other for the benefit of the nation. The result was not pretty then and it may not be 'pretty' in our near future.

If that's the case, then Obama needs to stop trying to take credit for creating 4.5 million new jobs. While 4.5 million new jobs have been created under his watch, more jobs have been lost over the same duration. Resulting in a NET LOSS of jobs in America. 7 million people have abandoned the labor market all together. They aren't even factored into the unemployment number. When you factor them back in, the unemployment rate is above 11%, WORSE than it was in January 2009 when it was 7.9%.

So, Obama has presided over an economy for almost 4 years. When he took office, unemployment was 7.9%, it capped out at 10% in October 2009, and now stands at 8.3%. We are still above the unemployment number he came into office with. And I'm not factoring "real" unemployment, just reported unemployment. When you add 7 million people back in, who have either given up looking for work, or have fulfilled 99 weeks of unemployment, the unemployment rate stands at 11.5%.

Now, if you wanna try to convince people that the labor market is better now than it was 3 years ago, you cant do it when you factor in the 7 million people who have abandoned the labor market all together. FEWER people are working today than they were 3 years ago. There has been a NET LOSS of jobs under Obama. You cannot dispute that. I can source the numbers straight from the Bureau of Labor Statistics.

Time for him to fulfill his own words....."If I don't get this thing turned around in 3 years, I'm looking at a one term presidency". See ya....
 
Re: Obama to business owners: "You didn't build that."

No, you are trying to say that labor participation rates aren't important, and that the size of labor force is all that matters.
Holy shiznit! I didn't say that at all. Seriously?? That's what your brain translated my words into??

:doh:doh:doh

I said you are wrong that the labor force dropped. It didn't and I posted the numbers to prove it. All I said about the labor force participation rate is that you don't know the difference between that and the labor force -- evidenced by your repeated [false] claim that the labor force has dropped over the last 3 years.

Capiche?


Answer this smart guy, if the labor force is larger, but the participation rate is lower, what does that mean? It means there are fewer jobs available than there were 3 years ago. I thought that was understood, but apparantly you aren't smart enough to understand the point that was being made.
You thought that is understood?? It's wrong, how can anyone besides you understand it? It doesn't mean there are fewer jobs available; in fact there are more people employed now than there were 3 years ago. What it means is that job growth, while positive, did not keep up with population growth. Since you can't comprehend that, I have no doubt you can't comprehend besides people giving up looking for a job, there are other reasons which contribute to the participation rate dropping (which, by the way, it's been dropping since 2001), which is accelerated these days due to being in the age of retiring baby boomers.

Let me be a little more clear for you, since you don't seem to be able to comprehend the implied points being made. There are FEWER people WORKING today than there were 3 years ago. Also, there are FEWER available jobs today than there were 3 years ago.
Dayam, you just don't git it, do ya???

Three years ago, there were 154.5 million people working. As of the end of July, there were 155 million people working.

How on Earth can you claim that 155 million is "fewer" than 154.5 million????
:confused:

Under Obama, there has been NET LOSS of jobs in America. That's not an opinion, it's a fact. 7 million people have abandoned the labor market.
I don't know how many times you need to be taught, but again, there are 155 million people working now compared to 154.5 million, 3 years ago. That's a net gain.

As far as your bogus talking point about 7 million people "abandoned the labor market," prove all 7 million did so because they wanted to work but couldn't find work; as opposed to retiring or going to school instead of working.


Underemployment is above 13%.
Umm, underemployment was over 14% when Bush left office.

Kewl, seems I struck a nerve. :cool:
 
It is too late for this discussion. I preferred different. It is what is is. Our only order of business at this point is to defeat the one term Marxist flexible president Barrack Hussein Obama. If we fail in this the US is over. It will be a different place from which there will be no return. We shall suffer the same fate as Europe.

Call Obama a Marxist just reveals ignorance.

Most of Europe is doing better than us.
 
Call Obama a Marxist just reveals ignorance.

Most of Europe is doing better than us.

Now that is real ignorance.

And yes, whether you recognize it or not the one term Marxist is, in fact, heavily influenced by the people who were special in his early life. They were Marxists, socialists, communists, terrorists and Muslims. The calls to redistribute wealth and to prayer are among the sweetest sounds to One, the Barrack, the Hussein, the Obama.

He only gets to be a thug president for a few more months. Then he must go. I don't even care where he goes but would like to know so I can send the Mayer a sympathy card.
 
Back
Top Bottom