• 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

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

They didn't add up to as much as Bush's budget did. And Bush did some bailing out you might recall.
 
You're still dodging. I can only conclude you once again have nothing.

I can only conclude that you support a massive central govt. duplicating your state services because you aren't able to get your state to do what you want to do. Liberals always want the Federal Bureaucrats to force states to do what they cannot get done on their own through their state or local governments. Yes, we should cut much of the Federal Labor force
 
I can only conclude that you support a massive central govt. duplicating your state services because you aren't able to get your state to do what you want to do. Liberals always want the Federal Bureaucrats to force states to do what they cannot get done on their own through their state or local governments. Yes, we should cut much of the Federal Labor force

Try answering me.
 
They didn't add up to as much as Bush's budget did. And Bush did some bailing out you might recall.

How much did it add to the deficit? How many Bush Administrative personnel remained in the Obama Administration to spend the money?
 
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
You just flip flopped, you said that the policies are responsible for the results, but now you say they are not.

You are contradicting yourself.
 
How much did it add to the deficit? How many Bush Administrative personnel remained in the Obama Administration to spend the money?

Doens't change the facts. Now try answering me.
 
Try answering me.

You don't like the answer, I have no problem getting rid of Federal employees as we did quite well without this number in the past. In a labor force of 142 million, this is a very small number and insignificant if we get rid of most of them starting with Obama
 
Yes because "releasing" the money worked so spectacularly well under Bush didn't it?

Don't ask me, I don't have that pretense of knowledge. If you ask Obama's Council of Economic Advisers...the answer is yes. It worked 3 times better than the stimulus.
 
You just flip flopped, you said that the policies are responsible for the results, but now you say they are not.

You are contradicting yourself.

No, I said he was responsible for the results because they happened during his term. It wasn't his policies that created the recession.
 
You don't like the answer, I have no problem getting rid of Federal employees as we did quite well without this number in the past. In a labor force of 142 million, this is a very small number and insignificant if we get rid of most of them starting with Obama

This is closer to an answer. But, the direction, the trend is one you support?
 
You don't like the answer, I have no problem getting rid of Federal employees as we did quite well without this number in the past. In a labor force of 142 million, this is a very small number and insignificant if we get rid of most of them starting with Obama

So I assume you consider the government bloating Reagan a failure and the govt-cutting Clinton a ringing success.
 
This is closer to an answer. But, the direction, the trend is one you support?

The Trend is certainly right but what is your point. Obama economic policies have generated results that are a disaster but results that you are willing to overlook.
 
Don't ask me, I don't have that pretense of knowledge. If you ask Obama's Council of Economic Advisers...the answer is yes. It worked 3 times better than the stimulus.

Pretense of knowledge? You can find that quote but you can't find the jobs numbers and GDP numbers for bush? Odd.
 
No, I said he was responsible for the results because they happened during his term. It wasn't his policies that created the recession.
No, you said Obama's policies are responsible for the GDP results, now you say Bush's policies are not responsible for his GDP results.

You are contradicting yourself, talking out of two sides of your mouth.
 
The Trend is certainly right but what is your point. Obama economic policies have generated results that are a disaster but results that you are willing to overlook.

If we follow your logic (not mine) the trend is due to Obama; thus Obama is moving the country in the direction you apporve of. Just not as fast as you'd like (which btw would mean a lot more unemployed).
 
So I assume you consider the government bloating Reagan a failure and the govt-cutting Clinton a ringing success.

What does that have to do with your lack of understanding of how much Obama added to the 2009 deficit? Reagan, Clinton, Bush aren't on the ballot in November, so all your diversion from the Obama record doesn't change that record
 
If we follow your logic (not mine) the trend is due to Obama; thus Obama is moving the country in the direction you apporve of. Just not as fast as you'd like (which btw would mean a lot more unemployed).

Obama lacks the leadership skills to do the job, he seems to believe you can delegate responsibility i.e the stimulus plan to someone else, ie Pelosi and Reid andthen when it fails blame someone else. Obama has demonized the private sector and individual wealth creation. His policies have hurt the small businesses which are the real hiring engine in this country by putting added expenses on their business. They cannot print money therefore aren't going to hire anyone. The 23 million unemployed/under employed Americans have very little if anything to do with public employees retiring or being downsized
 
No, you said Obama's policies are responsible for the GDP results, now you say Bush's policies are not responsible for his GDP results.

You are contradicting yourself, talking out of two sides of your mouth.

Since Obama and his party controlled the entire govt. for his first two years whose policies are responsible for the results?
 
Pretense of knowledge? You can find that quote but you can't find the jobs numbers and GDP numbers for bush? Odd.

What I mean is the "multiplier effect" is a failed economics/mathematical predictor of events, therefore I can't tell you if Bush tax cuts had a "multiplier effect" at all. However, dollar for dollar, according to the Obama administration, they had a 3 times greater effect than the stimulus.
 
Obama lacks the leadership skills to do the job, he seems to believe you can delegate responsibility i.e the stimulus plan to someone else, ie Pelosi and Reid andthen when it fails blame someone else. Obama has demonized the private sector and individual wealth creation. His policies have hurt the small businesses which are the real hiring engine in this country by putting added expenses on their business. They cannot print money therefore aren't going to hire anyone. The 23 million unemployed/under employed Americans have very little if anything to do with public employees retiring or being downsized

Yes, you have your hackery down, but I am asking somethign quite different. I want you to see how your logic, (not mine) makes Obama just what you want. He is going in the direction you want. Remove the "D" and put an "R" on him, and he would be a mircle worker for you.
 
What does that have to do with your lack of understanding of how much Obama added to the 2009 deficit? Reagan, Clinton, Bush aren't on the ballot in November, so all your diversion from the Obama record doesn't change that record

Actually that post wasn't about the other presidents as much as it was about your hypocrisy. You rage about the evils of bigger govt -- except when your guys do it. The deficits in 2009 were swollen mostly because it was the biggest recession since the depression -- tax revenues dropped and automatic payments because of the economy jumped. Pretty basic stuff. You also have the huge drag on the economy from the Iraq war and the Bush giveaway to drug companies, plus the Bush tax cuts. The cost of the stimulus was dwarfed by those.
 
Back
Top Bottom