• 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!

Jobless rate rises to 8.3 percent, hiring picks up but still falling short

No. Every state out there has to balance its books, primarily because it can't print money to then loan to itself. Liberal bastions such as Illinois raised taxes out the whazoo, while NY and CA have made huge cuts, with more to come. That current liberal cesspool known as the Obama Administration knows only how to create more debt than anyone .......... ever.

You can always tell a moron, but you sure can't tell 'em much. ;-)
 
The loss of public sector jobs has nothing to do with Obama and shows fiscal responsibility at the state level. What Obama has done is destroy incentive in the private sector thus not enough economic growth to create a reduction in the unemployment numbers.
How is Obama responsible for lowered demand?


To blame the increase on public employees
What "increase"?


ignores the 1.5% economic growth which is down vs. 2011 and 2011 was down vs. 2010. We have a declining economy and you want to give Obama a pass. The electorate will not give him another pass in November
False. A rate of increase not as high is not a declining economy, it is an economy not increasing as fast.
 
Not very likely, as Boo is, after all, Boo. If there is ANYTHING that Obama did not do/change, then that is the fault of Bush (forever) in the land of Boo. Never mind that Obama KEPT 99% of Bush policy, thus making it Obama policy; in the land of Boo that is STILL Bush policy - it just happened during Obama's term. In the land of Boo if Obama did not PERSONALLY do it, it is excusable as not REALLY on his watch. Thus we have the situation where the SAME tax rates used in EVERY YEAR under Obama are still the "Bush" tax rates; see how neat that is? You can blame Bush for doing EXACTLY what Obama did - not changing the tax rates that CONGRESS passed.

YOu miss the point. It is you guys who go Bush good, Obama bad. I say the president doesn't control it. But I've asked a simple question none of you seem to want to answer, isn't this result what you wanted?
 
How bad to the economic numbers have to get before you hold Obama acccountable for his failures?
How long will you keep avoiding the question, I answered you, now play fair or leave.

Now it is your turn to explain why you want increased levels of unemployed fed/state/local workers while you complain about the current unemployment numbers.
 
Last edited:
How bad to the economic numbers have to get before you hold Obama acccountable for his failures?

Here is a very simple comparison. Forget the Bush recession for a moment. Even before that, Bush's record was terrible compared to President Obama's. In years 2-4 of the Bush administration, only 1.6 million jobs were added. In years 2-4 of the Obama administration, it's 3.9 million.
 
Bush is responsible for the results that occurred during his term just like Obama is responsible for the results he has right now.
So you agree that Bush's policies are responsible for the 2008 crash.
 
How is Obama responsible for lowered demand?
.

By implementing failed economic stimulus which sharply increased the deficit, and imposing new business costs via PPACA.
 
How long will you keep avoiding the question, I answered you, now play fair or leave.

Now it is your turn to explain why you want increased levels of unemployed fed/state/local workers while you complain about the current unemployment numbers.

Because the money that goes to employ Federal Employees can be used to lower the deficit and force these people back into the private sector. How in the world can we survive with fewer federal employees?
 
Last edited:
So you agree that Bush's policies are responsible for the 2008 crash.

Bush is responsible for the results just like Obama is responsible for the results today. Leaders cannot delegate responsibility. Bush policies had nothing to do with the results but they are what they are
 
By implementing failed economic stimulus which sharply increased the deficit, and imposing new business costs via PPACA.

That might be telling .... if it were true. The stimulus created jobs (as evidenced by all the Repub governors and senators bragging about the stimulus-related jobs in their states). And the deficit for Obama's first fiscal year was LOWER than Bush's last FY.
 
Bush is responsible for the results just like Obama is responsible for the results today. Leaders cannot delegate responsibility. Bush policies had nothing to do with the results but they are what they are

Do you believe on the day Bush left office everything he had done for 8 years simply ceased to have any effect? Do you think it works that way for all presidents?
 
That might be telling .... if it were true. The stimulus created jobs (as evidenced by all the Repub governors and senators bragging about the stimulus-related jobs in their states). And the deficit for Obama's first fiscal year was LOWER than Bush's last FY.

Really? Another Obama supporter that doesn't understand basic civics as well as economics. The fiscal year of the U.S. runs from October to September so how did Bush spend all that money from October 1, 2008 to January 21, 2009?
 
Do you believe on the day Bush left office everything he had done for 8 years simply ceased to have any effect? Do you think it works that way for all presidents?

Almost four years later, you bet it is Obama's record and results
 
Almost four years later, you bet it is Obama's record and results

Not what I asked. Four years later, public sector is shrinking and private sector is growing. Thsi was something you said you wanted, but are scared to answer today. Try answering what I asked.
 
Really? Another Obama supporter that doesn't understand basic civics as well as economics. The fiscal year of the U.S. runs from October to September so how did Bush spend all that money from October 1, 2008 to January 21, 2009?

I understand it perfectly. Bush's final budget year, which included the first 7 months of the Obama administration, had a higher deficit than Obama's first budget year 10-09 to 10-10. Is there something about this concept that you're not getting?
 
Not what I asked. Four years later, public sector is shrinking and private sector is growing. Thsi was something you said you wanted, but are scared to answer today. Try answering what I asked.

GDP growth is a disaster and not enough to keep up with population growth and thus lower the unemployment rate.
 
I understand it perfectly. Bush's final budget year, which included the first 7 months of the Obama administration, had a higher deficit than Obama's first budget year 10-09 to 10-10. Is there something about this concept that you're not getting?

Wrong, the budget that Bush submitted didn't have the deficit we had in 2009 and Bush didn't bailout GM/Chrysler, create a800 billion stimulus and provide supplementals in Afghanistan. Just goes to show how brainwashed you are
 
Not what I asked. Four years later, public sector is shrinking and private sector is growing. Thsi was something you said you wanted, but are scared to answer today. Try answering what I asked.

Spoken like a big central govt. liberal who expects the Federal govt. to save you from yourself because you cannot get your own policies through your state or local community.
 
That might be telling .... if it were true. The stimulus created jobs (as evidenced by all the Repub governors and senators bragging about the stimulus-related jobs in their states). And the deficit for Obama's first fiscal year was LOWER than Bush's last FY.

I've already been through this argument with Gimmesometruth who couldn't handle the truth earlier. The government's own numbers, from the hallucinated Keynesian economic matrix called a "multiplier effect" created jobs @ 1x. In other words, 1 times the amount of money spent (or about $200K per job). Their own numbers produced by Christina Romer showed if the equivalent amount of money were released into the economy in the form of tax cuts, that number would have increased to 3x.

When she released the proof, Obama fired her.
 
By implementing failed economic stimulus which sharply increased the deficit, and imposing new business costs via PPACA.
More kookiness, neither has effected CONSUMER demand negatively in any significant amount. In fact the ARRA boosted demand and lowered unemployment.

I just can't get over your batting average.

FFS.
 
Spoken like a big central govt. liberal who expects the Federal govt. to save you from yourself because you cannot get your own policies through your state or local community.

You're still dodging. I can only conclude you once again have nothing.
 
I understand it perfectly. Bush's final budget year, which included the first 7 months of the Obama administration, had a higher deficit than Obama's first budget year 10-09 to 10-10. Is there something about this concept that you're not getting?

He doesn't want to know it.
 
He doesn't want to know it.

Please explain to me where the GM/Chrysler bailout, the Stimulus Plan, the Afghanistan supplementals were in that Bush budget deficit? You liberals are so predictable and wrong
 
Because the money that goes to employ Federal Employees can be used to lower the deficit and force these people back into the private sector. How in the world can we survive with fewer federal employees?
Uh...yeah, you force them into a job market that by your own admission can't keep up now....and you want to lower the GDP to boot.

Like I said, you are calling for MORE unemployment AND LOWER GDP numbers.
 
I've already been through this argument with Gimmesometruth who couldn't handle the truth earlier. The government's own numbers, from the hallucinated Keynesian economic matrix called a "multiplier effect" created jobs @ 1x. In other words, 1 times the amount of money spent (or about $200K per job). Their own numbers produced by Christina Romer showed if the equivalent amount of money were released into the economy in the form of tax cuts, that number would have increased to 3x.



When she released the proof, Obama fired her.

Yes because "releasing" the money worked so spectacularly well under Bush didn't it?
 
Back
Top Bottom