• 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 195,000 Jobs; Unemployment Remains 7.6%

Conservative said:
What exactly has Obama done that generates this kind of loyalty and support? How much did your personal take home pay go up because of the Obama tax cuts? How many new employees have you hired during the Obama term?
Click to expand...
None, since demand has not increased enough to do so.


You claimed that almost 100% of the job losses under Obama came during the Bush fiscal year but never provided the numbers to show that
Click to expand...
That is a total lie, TWICE I provided the non farm job loss numbers, you just can't remember what was posted today or yesterday.

That is SO FRIGGING SAD.

nor have you addressed whether a discouraged worker is an unemployed worker?
Click to expand...
Non-sequitur, I didn't say the sky was blue, either.


Let me know when Bush had a million discouraged workers in a month?
Click to expand...
He had lots of those months

There are 177,000 fewer unemployed people over four years after the end of the recession and still 2 million less working Americans than when the recession started yet those are good numbers to you.
Click to expand...
And you just keep repeating this BS argument of putting Bush job losses on Obama, Obama was not president when the recession started, BUSH WAS. FFS, get a calendar.

Obama and the liberal elite love having people like you so easily fooled. Keep buying the rhetoric.
Click to expand...
And the reich wing is made of old gits that don't know who was president when.
 
Gimmesometruth;1062023055]You are conflating "people" with "businesses". You just can't help yourself. Businesses are limited because of lowered demand.
Click to expand...

You ignore that businesses are run by people, people who earn income off their performance and anything that drives up business costs have to be offset with reductions in other expenses. You claim you ran a business? Sorry don't believe it.


A 3% increase on the top quintile is not effecting their spending, they do not even notice it.
Click to expand...

That is your opinion, but you have no idea what the top income earners are going to do with higher taxes. What benefit to the taxpayers is increasing the taxes on the top 3% going to generate? How will an increase in taxes on anyone increase the number of working Americans? So many questions that you never answer

It is one of the lowest long term employment projects....oh....but wait...it went through.....duh.
Click to expand...

And govt. spending is a long term employment program? What happens when the money stops flowing to those projects? The Keystone Pipeline doesn't cost the taxpayers anything and actually increases taxpayers. That is a net gain for the country
 
pbrauer said:
His answer is to do nothing,
Click to expand...

You want to continue to bait and troll? You cannot answer direct questions nor respond to the numbers I posted which are verifiable. I answered the question which of course you ignored.
 
rabbitcaebannog said:
Good question. I can't wait to hear his response.
Click to expand...
His answer is the laffer curve, don't increases taxes on the top quintile because magically, lower taxes create jobs....because we all know that as the rich get richer they hire more maids and footmen. Trickle trickle.
 
Gimmesometruth said:
His answer is the laffer curve, don't increases taxes on the top quintile because magically, lower taxes create jobs....because we all know that as the rich get richer they hire more maids and footmen. Trickle trickle.
Click to expand...

I figured it had to do with trickle down. Apparently, he didn't see that the gini index has increased because it's not trickling down but going to a very small minority at the very top. Facts are a pesky thing though.
 
Gimmesometruth;1062023075]None, since demand has not increased enough to do so.
Click to expand...

Great, then you experienced the same benefits to those incredible Obama tax cuts that you want to give him credit for. All Americans experienced the same benefit as you did.


That is a total lie, TWICE I provided the non farm job loss numbers, you just can't remember what was posted today or yesterday.
Click to expand...

Your opinion noted, since unemployment rate isn't solely on non farm payroll and since the only reduction in govt jobs is at the state level which Obama doesn't control, you are again building a typical liberal strawman. Obama is a disaster and you support him so wonder what that makes you?

Non-sequitur, I didn't say the sky was blue, either.
Click to expand...

Of course you didn't nor did you explain why there are still 2 million fewer people working today than when the recession started as well as your inability to explain why the labor force hasn't kept up with population growth. You really have no idea what BLS reports so I suggest you find out what jobs are actually being created and what age group

He had lots of those months
Click to expand...

That isn't what you stated, so rather than admit you are wrong you continue to make things worse. Bush wasn't in office in 2010-2011-2012 when job losses were actually worse but then again a discouraged worker really doesn't exist because they aren't counted.

And you just keep repeating this BS argument of putting Bush job losses on Obama, Obama was not president when the recession started, BUSH WAS. FFS, get a calendar.
Click to expand...

You really need to change your alias to gimmesomelies because that is what liberals do to you. Obama wasn't President when the recession started but claimed he had the answers. He lied and you still blame Bush.
 
rabbitcaebannog said:
I figured it had to do with trickle down. Apparently, he didn't see that the gini index has increased because it's not trickling down but going to a very small minority at the very top. Facts are a pesky thing though.
Click to expand...

How is trickle up working for you?
 
Conservative said:
You ignore that businesses are run by people, people who earn income off their performance and anything that drives up business costs have to be offset with reductions in other expenses. You claim you ran a business? Sorry don't believe it.
Click to expand...
This is the same argument already countered, business expenses are tax deductible, taxes on businesses are on PROFITS. Since you never ran a business, you are clueless.




That is your opinion, but you have no idea what the top income earners are going to do with higher taxes. What benefit to the taxpayers is increasing the taxes on the top 3% going to generate? How will an increase in taxes on anyone increase the number of working Americans? So many questions that you never answer
Click to expand...
I have answered countless times, yo just don't remember that we go over these same points every time we get together. The top don't notice that rate increase because it is on wages, but their income comes from investment, taxed at 15%. They have huge amounts of wealth, they don't look at their wage tax rates to decide what to invest in. You argument is so out of touch.



And govt. spending is a long term employment program? What happens when the money stops flowing to those projects?
Click to expand...
Like roads and dams? There is a constant need to build/rebuild these things.


The Keystone Pipeline doesn't cost the taxpayers anything and actually increases taxpayers. That is a net gain for the country
Click to expand...
BS, it is a gain for the Canadian interests who are dumping the most toxic petro product in the US. The costs in water and cleanup is enormous.
 
Conservative said:
Great, then you experienced the same benefits to those incredible Obama tax cuts that you want to give him credit for. All Americans experienced the same benefit as you did.
Click to expand...
This is not a complete thought, it is pure rambling. Everyone who paid income taxes got cuts/refunds for one year, it made a small difference in our pockets....but increased the debt.




Your opinion noted, since unemployment rate isn't solely on non farm payroll and since the only reduction in govt jobs is at the state level which Obama doesn't control, you are again building a typical liberal strawman. Obama is a disaster and you support him so wonder what that makes you?
Click to expand...
Again, more rambling, totally pointless.



Of course you didn't nor did you explain why there are still 2 million fewer people working today than when the recession started as well as your inability to explain why the labor force hasn't kept up with population growth. You really have no idea what BLS reports so I suggest you find out what jobs are actually being created and what age group
Click to expand...
I'll answer the only bit of coherence, we have kept up with population growth, we have not surpassed it because of depressed demand and the lack of investment.



That isn't what you stated,
Click to expand...
Yes, I just did since that was the first time in this discussion where you asked me. You are confused about who you were debating.


so rather than admit you are wrong you continue to make things worse. Bush wasn't in office in 2010-2011-2012 when job losses were actually worse but then again a discouraged worker really doesn't exist because they aren't counted.
Click to expand...
Um, payroll was INCREASING in that time period, there was a net GAIN in employment.



You really need to change your alias to gimmesomelies because that is what liberals do to you. Obama wasn't President when the recession started but claimed he had the answers. He lied and you still blame Bush.
Click to expand...
I am blaming the lack of effective job programs on the GOP and the reich wing within it.
 
"Bush wasn't in office in 2010-2011-2012 when job losses were actually worse "'

saupload_non-farm-payrolls-jan-2000-january-2012.jpg
 
Gimmesometruth;1062023164]This is not a complete thought, it is pure rambling. Everyone who paid income taxes got cuts/refunds for one year, it made a small difference in our pockets....but increased the debt
Click to expand...
.

Yay, the got a rebate check that once it was spent it was gone. My Bush and Reagan Tax cuts continued with every paycheck. Apparently you don't understand the difference here either. Wonder which one benefited the consumer more?



Again, more rambling, totally pointless.
Click to expand...

Numbers that only matter to people who actually care about the unemployed. you apparently don't

I'll answer the only bit of coherence, we have kept up with population growth, we have not surpassed it because of depressed demand and the lack of investment.
Click to expand...

Maybe one of these days you will learn where investment income comes from just like spending income



Yes, I just did since that was the first time in this discussion where you asked me. You are confused about who you were debating.
Click to expand...

No, you stated that most of the 100% of job losses occurred during the Bush fiscal year but the Bush term ended in January 2009. How many months of 2010-2011-2012 did Obama have a million people discouraged and not counted as unemployed?


Um, payroll was INCREASING in that time period, there was a net GAIN in employment.
Click to expand...

Net increase in employment with over a million no longer counted. That is like putting your finger to plug a pint sized leak



I am blaming the lack of effective job programs on the GOP and the reich wing within it.
Click to expand...

Of course you do which is why you lack any credibility.
 
Gimmesometruth said:
"Bush wasn't in office in 2010-2011-2012 when job losses were actually worse "'

saupload_non-farm-payrolls-jan-2000-january-2012.jpg
Click to expand...

Doesn't support your claim that almost 100% of job losses occurred during the Bush term nor does it explain why we still have 2 million fewer employed today than when the recession began, you know, the recession Obama was hired to fix. You think it is fixing the job market with that many unemployed?

I feel bad for someone like you who has so much invested in the failures of Obama that you have no fear of destroying your credibility and looking foolish. The only ones that support you are the Obama supporters in this thread that apparently have no pride either.
 
Conservative said:
.

Yay, the got a rebate check that once it was spent it was gone. My Bush and Reagan Tax cuts continued with every paycheck..
Click to expand...

Ahhh hmm Reagan raised payroll taxes.
 
Conservative said:
You talk a lot never post the numbers. I posted the numbers but you just ignore them. You see rhetoric trumps reality in your world. What is it about liberalism that creates this kind of loyalty?
Click to expand...
the number is 195,000 jobs created....we have been creating jobs for a good while now....the numbers agree with me.....again, for the rest, meant to throw conversation off track.
 
Gimmesometruth;1062023126]This is the same argument already countered, business expenses are tax deductible, taxes on businesses are on PROFITS. Since you never ran a business, you are clueless.
Click to expand...

Business expenses affect corporate profits not personal income taxes on personal income. Just another thing you don't understand like budgets and actual spending bills.

I have answered countless times, yo just don't remember that we go over these same points every time we get together. The top don't notice that rate increase because it is on wages, but their income comes from investment, taxed at 15%. They have huge amounts of wealth, they don't look at their wage tax rates to decide what to invest in. You argument is so out of touch.
Click to expand...

So what benefit is there to increasing taxes on anyone? Sounds to me like you are jealous of what someone else makes. That explains a lot about supporters of Obamanomics



Like roads and dams? There is a constant need to build/rebuild these things.
Click to expand...

Do you have any idea what funds roads? Hint, not personal income taxes.


BS, it is a gain for the Canadian interests who are dumping the most toxic petro product in the US. The costs in water and cleanup is enormous.
Click to expand...

Wow, you really have bought the Obama line hook, line, and sinker. Apparently that hasn't resonated with the American people who support the pipeline.

Americans back Keystone pipeline in new poll
 
Conservative said:
Doesn't support your claim that almost 100% of job losses occurred during the Bush term nor does it explain why we still have 2 million fewer employed today than when the recession began, you know, the recession Obama was hired to fix. You think it is fixing the job market with that many unemployed?

I feel bad for someone like you who has so much invested in the failures of Obama that you have no fear of destroying your credibility and looking foolish. The only ones that support you are the Obama supporters in this thread that apparently have no pride either.
Click to expand...
You are not talking about non-farm wage earners are you?
 
pbrauer said:
You are not talking about non-farm wage earners are you?
Click to expand...

I am talking about working Americans and there are two million less of them today than in December 2007 and it only cost trillions to generate those numbers
 
randel said:
the number is 195,000 jobs created....we have been creating jobs for a good while now....the numbers agree with me.....again, for the rest, meant to throw conversation off track.
Click to expand...

Let me know when we get back to the pre recession month of November 2007. Think that a million people dropping out of looking for jobs is going to help? You really don't understand that a discouraged worker really does exist even though they aren't being counted.
 
Conservative said:
I am talking about working Americans and there are two million less of them today than in December 2007 and it only cost trillions to generate those numbers
Click to expand...
So I was correct you are not talking about wage earners?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom