• 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!

U.S. Adds Only 88,000 Jobs; Jobless Rate Falls to 7.6%[W: 831]

Re: U.S. Adds Only 88,000 Jobs; Jobless Rate Falls to 7.6%

CaptinSarcastic said:
Wow, you are just making stuff up. Show me evidence that 50% of economist that thought the stimulus was a bad idea. (You can't)

If anything, the biggest disagreement was that that the stimulus was not big enough, and that was the consensus if Obama's economic team that the $800b was at the very low end of an effective stimulus plan, but that was felt to be the best we could get through Congress.

Accepting the conclusions of 92% of economists is not the point of view of a narrow minded partisan, ignoring the economists because they don't support the opinion you wish to be true is the position of a narrow minded ideologue, ie; a minion.

Our economy crashed, the stimulus was the airbag, the GOP and Blue Dogs prevented us from getting a better airbag, so we were injured in the crash, but without the stimulus and TARP the crash would have been much worse. You can deny this until you are blue in the face, but you can't support your argument with anything but a fringe of economists.
Click to expand...

No you cannot show that 50% of the economists said it was a success. I Posted the Wall Street article and the actual data from non partisan sites like bea.gov, bls.gov, and the Treasury. Where does your data come from? Only a true ideologue could look at the economic results today and say the stimulus was a success but the results make you look foolish

The Stimulus is what Obama wanted and proposed, but then nothing is ever big enough for someone who wants a massive central govt and dependenct. I suggest you start thinking with your brain instead of only with your heart.

Our economy was coming out of recession and if it cashed at all it was before Obama took office or had any impact on changing things. What he did was change things for the worse as the results today show.

Your opinion noted, you have no idea what would have happened had there been no stimulus but keep spouting the talking points.
 
Last edited:
Re: U.S. Adds Only 88,000 Jobs; Jobless Rate Falls to 7.6%

So Gimmie, if we cant cut expenditures after a war is over and we dont need to spend that money, when in the world are we supposed to cut spending?

You cant just keep increasing spending over and over when there is debt involved...or are you saying you can?

More exacting question, when can government spending be reduced? Why label it as austerity? Why not call it unsustainable spending? Because we cannot sustain it, you know.

These are tough questions but you seem to want to frame this debate as austerity bad dehhhhrrr. Ever increasing spending after hitting 23% or greater of GDP is just a fools errand of putting the debt on the backs of the next generation. So when do you slow it down, when do you decrease it? When you do even try to reach a budget that doesnt keep going into the red?
 
Re: U.S. Adds Only 88,000 Jobs; Jobless Rate Falls to 7.6%

CaptinSarcastic said:
There is more than one kind of welfare, and "your voting bloc" seems to avidly support the worst kind of wealthy, giving free money to those that don't need it but have the political clout to get it anyway. We spend 50% more on corporate welfare than we do on programs fro the needy.
I support sensible welfare support systems, and contrary to what most conservatives believe, almost all welfare is administered by the states and almost all welfare is temporary. The main variations being Veterans benefits (which are included in welfare numbers, but I would hardly consider them handouts, and permanent disability claims).
Click to expand...

Especially if they supported Democratic campaigns, a la Obama. He's been handing out goodies to all his corporate buddies since he took office.
 
Re: U.S. Adds Only 88,000 Jobs; Jobless Rate Falls to 7.6%

Erod said:
Especially if they supported Democratic campaigns, a la Obama. He's been handing out goodies to all his corporate buddies since he took office.
Click to expand...

Obama is tranforming America into something most Americans never understood but are seeing now, a European socialist economy with cradle to grave coverage funded by printing, borrowing, and taxing producers generating high unemployment, high taxpayer assistance, high debt, and low economic growth. Wonder what it is about liberalism that creates this kind of loyalty that allows this kind of economic performance?
 
Re: U.S. Adds Only 88,000 Jobs; Jobless Rate Falls to 7.6%

Conservative said:
Obama is tranforming America into something most Americans never understood but are seeing now, a European socialist economy with cradle to grave coverage funded by printing, borrowing, and taxing producers generating high unemployment, high taxpayer assistance, high debt, and low economic growth. Wonder what it is about liberalism that creates this kind of loyalty that allows this kind of economic performance?
Click to expand...

Free stuff without work is kewl to the lowest common denominator, and we numerators are become rarer by the minute.
 
Re: U.S. Adds Only 88,000 Jobs; Jobless Rate Falls to 7.6%

CaptinSarcastic said:
Wow, you are just making stuff up.
Show me evidence that 50% of economist that thought the stimulus was a bad idea. (You can't)

If anything, the biggest disagreement was that that the stimulus was not big enough, and that was the consensus if Obama's economic team that the $800b was at the very low end of an effective stimulus plan, but that was felt to be the best we could get through Congress.

Accepting the conclusions of 92% of economists is not the point of view of a narrow minded partisan, ignoring the economists because they don't support the opinion you wish to be true is the position of a narrow minded ideologue, ie; a minion.

Our economy crashed, the stimulus was the airbag, the GOP and Blue Dogs prevented us from getting a better airbag, so we were injured in the crash, but without the stimulus and TARP the crash would have been much worse. You can deny this until you are blue in the face, but you can't support your argument with anything but a fringe of economists.
Click to expand...

There is no substantial data to back that up. Even the CBO stated that unemploymeng would top out at 8.9%. minus the stimulus and show me ONE economist who was prediciting an economic crash if we hadn't enacted the stimulus.

Monthly GDP prior stimulus had actually leveled off and so had job losses.

But your claiming that money spent on welfare, unemployment, Public Sector Unions and Green Energy had any measurable difference in turning a economy around AFTER it had already bottomed out ?
 
Re: U.S. Adds Only 88,000 Jobs; Jobless Rate Falls to 7.6%

That's because the so called stimulus was really nothing more than a trillion dollar kick back to political supporters, and unions....

When President Obama signed his economic stimulus plan into law on February 17, 2009, he promised it “includes help for those hardest hit by our economic crisis,” and “As a whole, this plan will help poor and working Americans.”
But the newest data on how the stimulus money was given out across the 50 states and the District of Columbia shows a perverse pattern: The states hardest hit by the recession received the least money. States with higher bankruptcy, foreclosure, and unemployment rates got less money. And lower-income states also received less.
Rather than helping out those in the toughest shape, it looks like Democrats ended up helping their supporters, including unions and many very wealthy supporters.


Read more: Where did stimulus money really go? | Fox News
Click to expand...
 
Re: U.S. Adds Only 88,000 Jobs; Jobless Rate Falls to 7.6%

Wouldn't it be nice if opinion and fact were the same thing? :coffeepap
 
Re: U.S. Adds Only 88,000 Jobs; Jobless Rate Falls to 7.6%

Boo Radley said:
Wouldn't it be nice if opinion and fact were the same thing? :coffeepap
Click to expand...

Seems to be in your world....:coffeepap:
 
Re: U.S. Adds Only 88,000 Jobs; Jobless Rate Falls to 7.6%

Boo Radley said:
Wouldn't it be nice if opinion and fact were the same thing? :coffeepap
Click to expand...

Lets see

The first part of stimulus was tax cuts and massive amounts of cash for unemployment benefits and food stamps. A wash.

The second part was massive amounts of money to hold up State Governments or as J-Mac accurately alluded to, a kick back to the public sector unions as public sector jobs pay public sector union dues and public sector union dues wind up in Democrat re-election general funds.

The third part was a massive investment into a manufacturing base when there was NO demand. How very liberal of the who ever came up with wasting billions on inefficient solar panels and batteries that catch Finnish Cars on fire.
 
Re: U.S. Adds Only 88,000 Jobs; Jobless Rate Falls to 7.6%

j-mac said:
Seems to be in your world....:coffeepap:
Click to expand...

I'm not, he one linking opinion hit pieces.
 
Re: U.S. Adds Only 88,000 Jobs; Jobless Rate Falls to 7.6%

Fenton said:
Lets see

The first part of stimulus was tax cuts and massive amounts of cash for unemployment benefits and food stamps. A wash.

The second part was massive amounts of money to hold up State Governments or as J-Mac accurately alluded to, a kick back to the public sector unions as public sector jobs pay public sector union dues and public sector union dues wind up in Democrat re-election general funds.

The third part was a massive investment into a manufacturing base when there was NO demand. How very liberal of the who ever came up with wasting billions on inefficient solar panels and batteries that catch Finnish Cars on fire.
Click to expand...

Didn't say it was completely effective. However, while I suspect you'd have an issue if he choose not to have a stimulus as well, you're making a huge unsupported leap as to his motives, and logic you use just doesn't hold up.
 
Re: U.S. Adds Only 88,000 Jobs; Jobless Rate Falls to 7.6%

Helix said:
not terribly surprising. didn't look to be a good month with the sequester, uncertainty, and all of the global BS. i was frankly stunned when they predicted 200,000. we need some new economists, because it's always "unexpected."
Click to expand...

Agreed. There is absolutely no way on God's green Earth that these numbers aren't a lie. I don't need to see the phony data, because they don't even pass the common sense test. 88,000 jobs....whoever pushes this as progress ought to be horse whipped.
 
Re: U.S. Adds Only 88,000 Jobs; Jobless Rate Falls to 7.6%

American said:
Agreed. There is absolutely no way on God's green Earth that these numbers aren't a lie. I don't need to see the phony data, because they don't even pass the common sense test. 88,000 jobs....whoever pushes this as progress ought to be horse whipped.
Click to expand...
I applaud your rigorous scientific methods.
 
Re: U.S. Adds Only 88,000 Jobs; Jobless Rate Falls to 7.6%

poweRob said:
Revenue increases were GREATER before Reagan. Sooooo... think about that and get back to me.
Click to expand...

Conservative said:
Prove it, that is a lie. BEA.gov will give you the answer as will the U.S. Treasury website
Click to expand...
Revenues grew from 619B to 958B under Reagan, a rate of increase that measures well below the previous 8 year period, which saw an increase from 220B to 532B.
 
Re: U.S. Adds Only 88,000 Jobs; Jobless Rate Falls to 7.6%

a351 said:
Revenues grew from 619B to 958B under Reagan, a rate of increase that measures well below the previous 8 year period, which saw an increase from 220B to 532B.
Click to expand...

Do you realize that percentage change means very little when you are talking about those kind of numbers. My preference and of course the government's preference would be to have the 958 billion dollars and 18 plus million new employees than having the 532 billion
 
Re: U.S. Adds Only 88,000 Jobs; Jobless Rate Falls to 7.6%

Conservative said:
Do you realize that percentage change means very little when you are talking about those kind of numbers.

My preference and of course the government's preference would be to have the 958 billion dollars and 18 plus million new employees than having the 532 billion
Click to expand...
Nonsense, it means everything when comparing identical time frames. Nominal values tell only part of the story. Also, revenues as related to total output were higher during the period preceding Reagan.

As we can see from the relevant data, there's positively nothing that would suggest the increase in nominal revenue would've fell short of the gains realized under Reagan. Also, the 8 year period preceding him saw job gains of roughly 18.5 million.
 
Re: U.S. Adds Only 88,000 Jobs; Jobless Rate Falls to 7.6%

j-mac said:
Hmmm, what about the article was untrue?
Click to expand...

You ever listen to Oberman? Do you think it would really be profitable to try and counter him? The entire article is supposition base on questionable evidence, stuff a rabid dog would bite not, but not a reasoned person.
 
Re: U.S. Adds Only 88,000 Jobs; Jobless Rate Falls to 7.6%

pinqy said:
I applaud your rigorous scientific methods.
Click to expand...

I use the same ones the people who put this out used. They are proven to work, cause you believe this stuff don't you?
 
Re: U.S. Adds Only 88,000 Jobs; Jobless Rate Falls to 7.6%

a351 said:
Nonsense, it means everything when comparing identical time frames. Nominal values tell only part of the story. Also, revenues as related to total output were higher during the period preceding Reagan.

As we can see from the relevant data, there's positively nothing that would suggest the increase in nominal revenue would've fell short of the gains realized under Reagan. Also, the 8 year period preceding him saw job gains of roughly 18.5 million.
Click to expand...

Sorry, but economic conditions affect job creation as well as tax revenue and the reality is the only way to compare is actual dollars during the times and not comparing 2013 to 1980 or any other period of time. Revenue and expenses were generated and paid in 1980 dollars just like revenue and expenses today are paid in 2013 dollars. This is a typical ploy on the part of liberals who want to try and justify the mess we are in today and to try and sell their failed ideology. Reagan cut taxes three years in a row and had a 60% increase in tax revenue created due to improving economic activity and job creation. Obama should take a lesson from that period of time
 
Re: U.S. Adds Only 88,000 Jobs; Jobless Rate Falls to 7.6%

88,000 is an anemic, feeble job performance and reflects everything about the Obama presidency IMO. It's pathetic.
 
Re: U.S. Adds Only 88,000 Jobs; Jobless Rate Falls to 7.6%

Conservative said:
Sorry, but economic conditions affect job creation as well as tax revenue and the reality is the only way to compare is actual dollars during the times and not comparing 2013 to 1980 or any other period of time.

Reagan cut taxes three years in a row and had a 60% increase in tax revenue created due to improving economic activity and job creation. Obama should take a lesson from that period of time
Click to expand...
Who said they didn't? When comparing job creation during the two time periods and revenue as a percentage of total output, once again, there's nothing that would suggest revenues would've measured in at a lower level under, say, a second Carter term.

The two time periods aren't analogous in the least. Also, effective tax rates under Obama haven't so much as approached those under Reagan.
 
Re: U.S. Adds Only 88,000 Jobs; Jobless Rate Falls to 7.6%

a351 said:
Who said they didn't? When comparing job creation during the two time periods and revenue as a percentage of total output, once again, there's nothing that would suggest revenues would've measured in at a lower level under, say, a second Carter term.

The two time periods aren't analogous in the least. Also, effective tax rates under Obama haven't so much as approached those under Reagan.
Click to expand...

Obama is the most incompetent person to ever hold the office, he lacked the experience and leadership skills for the job and his performance shows it. Far too many people lack an understanding of leadership skills and simply buy the rhetoric. There isn't a President in history that took office with the good will of Obama and he failed miserably. His "my way or the highway" approach because of his overwhelming numbers generated the results we have today where are a total disaster. We have a labor force of 155 million and 143 million employed vs. a labor force of 153 million and 146 million employed when the recession began. To get those numbers he has added over 6 trillion to the debt. There are record numbers on taxpayer assistance and his transformation of America into a European model is a disaster yet he continues to get people to buy his rhetoric.
 
Re: U.S. Adds Only 88,000 Jobs; Jobless Rate Falls to 7.6%

American said:
I use the same ones the people who put this out used. They are proven to work, cause you believe this stuff don't you?
Click to expand...

I've studied the methodology for many years and have met with the CES analyst many times to discuss the issues. So no, it's not the same.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom