• 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

Then that means the Bush economic policy is responsible for the 2008 crash.

Glad we have that sorted out.

What exactly does the crash of 2008 have to do with the very poor Obama economic results in 2012?
 
Yes, I know. read on. read on. And look at that date, and the more recent chart. Try to make meaning. Synthethsize.

What? Supply the link that you "allude to". I TRIED to use your latest post, yet it seems that you don't like it any more. You TRY to equate state and local gov'ts to the federal gov't, that is INSANE as they rely on entirely different tax pools for their support. Focus on Obama and his job of running the FEDERAL gov't. Compared to Bush, his predecessor, Obama has DOUBLED the federal deficit, increased federl spending by 20% and OBAMA has left federal taxation basically unchanged, thus the Obama plan is simply endless borrowing and FEDERAL gov't expansion. That is why Obamanomics does not work, plain and simple - this is NOT a sustainable thing.
 
Yes, federal employment is up.....a whooping 2%...since 2009.

And so many are whining about "keeping up with population"....except now.

So there are more Federal Employees today than when Obama took office, thank you for confirming the actual facts. Maybe Boo will get the message
 
And that growth was why? Hint: read my link. ;)

Do you have a point, did the unemployment number rise last month? Are there more or less unemployed today than when Obama took office? What is it you cannot admit what the facts show?
 
What? Supply the link that you "allude to". I TRIED to use your latest post, yet it seems that you don't like it any more. You TRY to equate state and local gov'ts to the federal gov't, that is INSANE as they rely on entirely different tax pools for their support. Focus on Obama and his job of running the FEDERAL gov't. Compared to Bush, his predecessor, Obama has DOUBLED the federal deficit, increased federl spending by 20% and OBAMA has left federal taxation basically unchanged, thus the Obama plan is simply endless borrowing and FEDERAL gov't expansion. That is why Obamanomics does not work, plain and simple - this is NOT a sustainable thing.

I like it fine. It just has more than the first sentence in it. I'm asking you to read all of it, to make meaning, to understand what the article is saying. because what you just wrote is contrary to the that article and the other one. Synthesis!!!!
 
Do you have a point, did the unemployment number rise last month? Are there more or less unemployed today than when Obama took office? What is it you cannot admit what the facts show?

You still haven't answered my question. I keep answering yours and will again. Do me the same curtousy.

Yes, from loss of public sector jobs. This is what you want, right?
 
Explain. ........

The FEDERAL gov't is not ALL gov't. State and local gov't employees ARE NOT federal employees even though they are GOV'T employees. What is so hard to understand about that?
 
What exactly does the crash of 2008 have to do with the very poor Obama economic results in 2012?
Uh...let me help you with your logic, you said our current POTUS's econ policy is responsible for the GDP results, so all things being equal, all POTUS's econ policies are responsible for their respective GDP results....ie, Bush's econ policy is responsible for the GDP drops during his terms.
 
How much of a failure does a Democrat President have to be before the liberals finally acknowledge such ?

Beyond massive, apparently. Beyond 5 spirals.
 
The FEDERAL gov't is not ALL gov't. State and local gov't employees ARE NOT federal employees even though they are GOV'T employees. What is so hard to understand about that?

They are intertwined today. Money form one employs the other. But, governemnt is government. Be it local or federal. A big state government is only marginally better than a big federal goverment. Beleive me state legislators amke the same arguments for reducing governments are federal cadidates do.
 
Uh...let me help you with your logic, you said our current POTUS's econ policy is responsible for the GDP results, so all things being equal, all POTUS's econ policies are responsible for their respective GDP results....ie, Bush's econ policy is responsible for the GDP drops during his terms.

Bush owns his results.
 
How much of a failure does a Democrat President have to be before the liberals finally acknowledge such ?

Beyond massive, apparently. Beyond 5 spirals.

He failed by doing what conservatives want: losing public sectors jobs and gaining private sector jobs. Right?
 
You still haven't answered my question. I keep answering yours and will again. Do me the same curtousy.

Yes, from loss of public sector jobs. This is what you want, right?

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. To blame the increase on public employees 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
 
So there are more Federal Employees today than when Obama took office, thank you for confirming the actual facts. Maybe Boo will get the message
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.
 
Uh...let me help you with your logic, you said our current POTUS's econ policy is responsible for the GDP results, so all things being equal, all POTUS's econ policies are responsible for their respective GDP results....ie, Bush's econ policy is responsible for the GDP drops during his terms.

Bush is responsible for the results that occurred during his term just like Obama is responsible for the results he has right now.
 
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.

How bad to the economic numbers have to get before you hold Obama acccountable for his failures?
 
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. To blame the increase on public employees 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

Doesn't it? If he to blame for the negative doesn't he get credit for the positive? You can't have it both ways. The increase in governemnt was largely due to an aging population, more people needing services, and the military, none of which Obama did. Now, we see what you have touted for a long time, less public sector jobs, shrinking government, and more private sector jobs. This can only result in higher unemployment. Agian, you seem to not understand your own ideology.
 
They are intertwined today. Money form one employs the other. But, governemnt is government. Be it local or federal. A big state government is only marginally better than a big federal goverment. Beleive me state legislators amke the same arguments for reducing governments are federal cadidates do.

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.
 
They are intertwined today. Money form one employs the other. But, governemnt is government. Be it local or federal. A big state government is only marginally better than a big federal goverment. Beleive me state legislators amke the same arguments for reducing governments are federal cadidates do.

Shows how little you really know, states cannot print money and keep employees on the payroll that they cannot fund. Obama can do that
 
Economy Creates 163,000 New Jobs but Rate Rises to 8.3%

Despite the seemingly good news, the report's household survey showed that the actual amount of Americans working dropped by 195,000, with the net job gain resulting primarily from seasonal adjustments in the establishment survey. The birth-death model, which approximates net job growth from newly added or closed businesses, added 52,000 to the total.

The household survey also showed 150,000 fewer Americans in the workforce.

Hmmmm...
 
So there are more Federal Employees today than when Obama took office, thank you for confirming the actual facts. Maybe Boo will get the message

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.


In the land of Boo "public sector" means all gov't, he makes no distinctions between federal, state and local. He thinks public is public and private is private. A worker for IBM is the same as a worker for McDonalds, they are both private. A worker for the U.S. Armay is just like a Texas teacher they are both pubilc. In the land of Boo things are ONLY what he "feels" that they are. It is mind over matter, in the land of Boo, if Boo does not mind then it does not matter.
 
Last edited:
Shows how little you really know, states cannot print money and keep employees on the payroll that they cannot fund. Obama can do that

Some of them are even bound by their constitution to balance their budgets.
 
Back
Top Bottom