• 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%

Gimmesometruth said:
LOL....you recognize that GDP increased with that tiny level of tax cuts/spending.....and when it declined, so did GDP...and you can see that Reagan spent magnitudes of levels greater.....but you then complain when the stimulus ends and GDP declines!

Too frigging funny!
Click to expand...

842 billion is tiny? LOL, amazing how little you understand about the economy. What is friggen funny if it weren't so sad is the support the empty suit in the WH is getting for his poor performance.
 
ocean515 said:
What kind of impact do you think Obamacare has on business hiring and expansion?
Click to expand...
Show it. This is the technique of sowing seeds of doubt. You brought up the doubt twice now (taxes/stimulus....and now "regs") but cannot support your claims....at all.
 
Gimmesometruth said:
So this is it, this is your proof that those with massive reserves are not spending because of concerns for future taxes/regs?

Wow....that is some proof!

Further, since those with the cash reserves are not spending (regardless of why), should it not be that the govt step up....like Reagan did?
Click to expand...

Why exactly would any business owner spend money with this President in the WH? You think Business is a charity? Questions have been asked of Obama supporters but all you and others do is run back to the liberal play book of diverting to Reagan or Bush. Post 1124 deserves an answer from a smart business person like you think you are.
 
Conservative said:
842 billion is tiny? LOL, amazing how little you understand about the economy. What is friggen funny if it weren't so sad is the support the empty suit in the WH is getting for his poor performance.
Click to expand...
Yes, tiny in comparison to GDP or the budget. Most of it was a one time tax cut. You could see the levels of spending increases over the entire term of Reagan, yet all you can see with Obama is a one time shot orders of magnitude smaller than what Reagan spent.

Too sad!
 
Gimmesometruth said:
Yes, tiny in comparison to GDP or the budget. Most of it was a one time tax cut. You could see the levels of spending increases over the entire term of Reagan, yet all you can see with Obama is a one time shot orders of magnitude smaller than what Reagan spent.

Too sad!
Click to expand...

As continues to be proven, one time cuts are never effective long term. Are you sending GW Bush a thank you note for more spendable income because of his 2003 tax cuts? What I see in Obama is a do as I say not as I do very poor leader and yet people like you fall for the bs.
 
Conservative said:
Why exactly would any business owner spend money with this President in the WH? You think Business is a charity? Questions have been asked of Obama supporters but all you and others do is run back to the liberal play book of diverting to Reagan or Bush.
Click to expand...
I am still waiting for you to present data to support your claim, all you have is rhetoric.

Reagan spent massively on private business, he picked the winners (the defense industry) and stimulated the economy back into positive territory. You don't want Obama to do even one tenth of that.
 
Conservative said:
As continues to be proven, one time cuts are never effective long term.
Click to expand...
We are trying to effect short term stimulus. And I agree, a one time shot that small had no chance of turning around an economy of this size.

You keep agree with me without realizing it.
 
I'm sorry...what is the debate about now?

It seems a thousand miles away from the original topic, or maybe I'm missing something. :confused:

Could someone let me know what the issue is and how it ties to unemployment and the number of jobs that came on the market?
 
Gimmesometruth said:
I am still waiting for you to present data to support your claim, all you have is rhetoric.

Reagan spent massively on private business, he picked the winners (the defense industry) and stimulated the economy back into positive territory. You don't want Obama to do even one tenth of that.
Click to expand...

What data do you want, I have provided you with data that you ignore, You want GDP data, You want data showing how much business is holding in reserve? What exactly do you want. You call Reagan spending massive yet ignore the results as well as the peace dividend created. You see, it is ok to spend if you get results, not ok if you get Obama results because all that spending was wasted. I suggest you read the Preamble to the Constitution and tell me where defense fits in?
 
Captain Adverse said:
I'm sorry...what is the debate about now?

It seems a thousand miles away from the original topic, or maybe I'm missing something. :confused:

Could someone let me know what the issue is and how it ties to unemployment and the number of jobs that came on the market?
Click to expand...
The debate is still the effect of stimulus in an economy with depressed demand.

Con made the argument that Reagan did the right thing, I agreed, massively increasing fed stimulus did make a huge difference in getting the economy going, yet Con doesn't want Obama to use the same stimulus used by Reagan.
 
Gimmesometruth said:
We are trying to effect short term stimulus. And I agree, a one time shot that small had no chance of turning around an economy of this size.

You keep agree with me without realizing it.
Click to expand...

Obama's stimulus dumped 842 billion into the economy and generated a short term return as it stimulated one of the four components of GDP, try to figure out which one. What you don't seem to comprehend is that we have a private sector economy, one you claim you are part of. Do you really have a problem keeping and spending more of what you earn? Do you really believe it is the national taxpayer's responsibility to fund local services in your state and community? Do you believe rewarding bad behavior is the proper use of taxpayer money? So many questions and yet all you do is divert or run.
 
Gimmesometruth said:
The debate is still the effect of stimulus in an economy with depressed demand.

Con made the argument that Reagan did the right thing, I agreed, massively increasing fed stimulus did make a huge difference in getting the economy going, yet Con doesn't want Obama to use the same stimulus used by Reagan.
Click to expand...

Okay, I think I can see that now. Thanks. :)
 
Gimmesometruth said:
The debate is still the effect of stimulus in an economy with depressed demand.

Con made the argument that Reagan did the right thing, I agreed, massively increasing fed stimulus did make a huge difference in getting the economy going, yet Con doesn't want Obama to use the same stimulus used by Reagan.
Click to expand...

What stimulates demand in a private sector economy? Figure that out then you will have answers to a lot of your questions. Do you have any idea where the Federal Govt. gets their money?

Reagan's stimulus was tax cuts over three years that were permanent and allowed businesses and individuals to plan. Reagan rebuilt our military and our national reputation. All this generated 17 million jobs thus new taxpayers, doubled GDP and grew federal income tax revenue. That is a pretty good return on that investment generated by quality leadership.

By the way, you will never see Obama implement tax cuts to taxpayers nor will you ever see him promote the private sector so your point is moot.
 
Conservative said:
Obama's stimulus dumped 842 billion into the economy and generated a short term return as it stimulated one of the four components of GDP, try to figure out which one. What you don't seem to comprehend is that we have a private sector economy, one you claim you are part of. Do you really have a problem keeping and spending more of what you earn? Do you really believe it is the national taxpayer's responsibility to fund local services in your state and community? Do you believe rewarding bad behavior is the proper use of taxpayer money? So many questions and yet all you do is divert or run.
Click to expand...
You still won't support your original claim that reg and taxes are holding back business from hiring......and now you want to go back to arguing about the ARRA from the standpoint of "one of four GDP components".

The ARRA stimulated primarily from 3 aspects, direct benefits (UI and SNAP), via tax reduction and via local govt job retention....and there was even more than that.......but it was tiny compared to levels of increased spending by Reagan.
 
Conservative said:
What stimulates demand in a private sector economy? Figure that out then you will have answers to a lot of your questions. Do you have any idea where the Federal Govt. gets their money?

Reagan's stimulus was tax cuts over three years that were permanent and allowed businesses and individuals to plan. Reagan rebuilt our military and our national reputation. All this generated 17 million jobs thus new taxpayers, doubled GDP and grew federal income tax revenue. That is a pretty good return on that investment generated by quality leadership.
Click to expand...
I know! lets do half of the relative amount of spending by Reagan, I will accept a 25% increase in fed spending devoted to businesses. Let's buy some dams, lets buy some bridges, some highways, some fiber lines.....ANYTHING.

By the way, you will never see Obama implement tax cuts to taxpayers nor will you ever see him promote the private sector so your point is moot.
Click to expand...
He did both in the ARRA, WTF is wrong with you?
 
Gimmesometruth said:
You still won't support your original claim that reg and taxes are holding back business from hiring......and now you want to go back to arguing about the ARRA from the standpoint of "one of four GDP components".

The ARRA stimulated primarily from 3 aspects, direct benefits (UI and SNAP), via tax reduction and via local govt job retention....and there was even more than that.......but it was tiny compared to levels of increased spending by Reagan.
Click to expand...

Answer Post 1124. Are you really this poor of a business person that would risk your money in this Obama economy?
 
Gimmesometruth said:
I know! lets do half of the relative amount of spending by Reagan, I will accept a 25% increase in fed spending devoted to businesses. Let's buy some dams, lets buy some bridges, some highways, some fiber lines.....ANYTHING.

He did both in the ARRA, WTF is wrong with you?
Click to expand...

You mean that govt. spending called tax cuts? You mean that expense to the govt where taxpayers kept more of what they earned which liberals call an expense. Yes, rebate checks that when spent were gone is a tax cut to a big govt. liberal. Again, are you sending thank you notes to Bush because you keep more of what you earn or are you really a pawn for the federal govt?
 
Conservative said:
Answer Post 1124.
Click to expand...
WTF? You won't answer the post you responded to, instead you direct me to answer some other poster's comment.......which I already did 4 posts later?

FFS Con, you avoid my post.....and ignore the fact that I did counter someones elses post.

Hint: Worry about the challenges facing you, not others.....answer my POST.


Are you really this poor of a business person that would risk your money in this Obama economy?
Click to expand...
Millions are.

Get off the pointless rhetoric, the diversions to other posters, the ignoring of supporting your own claims.
 
Conservative said:
You mean that govt. spending called tax cuts? You mean that expense to the govt where taxpayers kept more of what they earned which liberals call an expense. Yes, rebate checks that when spent were gone is a tax cut to a big govt. liberal. Again, are you sending thank you notes to Bush because you keep more of what you earn or are you really a pawn for the federal govt?
Click to expand...
You can twist yourself into whatever you want, the fact is that the ARRA contained both tax cuts and direct spending to private businesses.

All you have is a forgetting of what was in the ARRA and stupid rhetoric.
 
winston53660 said:
With the stock market hitting record highs?
Click to expand...

The Fed is hitting record high because of one major reason - the Fed.

The minute they even threaten to take the punch bowl away - the markets will plummet.


And who exactly benefits from this record?

Unemployment is still over 7.5% and the GDP last 1/4 was only 1.8% - so not the economy as a whole, clearly.

I'll tell you who - the rich...the ones that own most of the stocks.

The poor own almost none. And the middle class own little themselves.

Yet the rich are getting richer off this stock market boom.
 
Gimmesometruth said:
WTF? You won't answer the post you responded to, instead you direct me to answer some other poster's comment.......which I already did 4 posts later?

FFS Con, you avoid my post.....and ignore the fact that I did counter someones elses post.

Hint: Worry about the challenges facing you, not others.....answer my POST.


Millions are.

Get off the pointless rhetoric, the diversions to other posters, the ignoring of supporting your own claims.
Click to expand...

Yes, I forgot the new liberal normal, high unemployment, low economic growth and massive debt. Yes millions are investing in that Obama economy as the numbers show.

This really has been a waste of time. You are why I need a break every now and then from this forum. You symbolize a true Obamabot and before you report this an Obamabot is an official definition of an Obama supporter from the urban dictionary

Urban Dictionary: Obamabot

You simply have no concept of investment, return on investment, and the role of the Federal Govt. Maybe if millions more would just trust Obama and Obamanomics like you we wouldn't have these economic numbers but bet we would have more bankruptcies.
 
winston53660 said:
With the stock market hitting record highs?
Click to expand...

Great, so the rich get richer under Obama. How does that help the millions of unemployed, under employed, discouraged along with the contract employees and business owners who lost their business but aren't counted?
 
Mr.Nick said:
So why didn't the unemployment rate move?

Kinda proves my point doesn't it - at least considering your numbers.

You're not going to see a significant move in unemployment numbers until the "void" has been closed. Well, that or if Obamacare is enforced you will see companies/business/corporations dropping workers left and right or at least dropping them to part-time.
Click to expand...
Your question is based on a false premise. The unemployment rate has moved over the last 40 consecutive months. The U3 has fallen from 9.8% to 7.6% and the U6 has fallen from 17% to 14.3%

Also, there are other factors affecting the unemployment rate. For example, employment in the public sector has fallen by 619,000 jobs during that same period when the private sector increased by 7.2 million.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom