• 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%

j-mac said:
You make several.

First, you arrogantly believe that you know my argument to the point that you take liberties with changing it to what you want to argue instead of addressing what I said. That sir, is called setting up a straw man argument, and fallacious.

Second, you completely set up in your straw man what it is that I never said, or compared, that is projection.

And third, you set up some false comparison with China which I never talked about, and can only conclude that you came up with not me. So, you'll excuse me if I let you argue your argument with yourself....

If you'd like to talk about it honestly, then feel free to actually address what I said, other than that, I am sure your debate with yourself would be interesting....If you're a psychiatrist that is. :2wave:
Click to expand...

No, I gave you an argument. I spelled out how it really works when government runs the show. You made an either or fallacy, and one based on misinformation to boot.

Go back and read what you wrote. Find something you honestly think wasn't addressed. Present it. Then read what I wrote and try to address one point. Just one.
 
Boo Radley said:
I do when I am. But you're not reading all of it. Not addressing the point at all.
Click to expand...

Then tell me where I am wrong?

As different parts of China have very different standard of living, China has not, in the past, set one minimum wage for the entire nation. Instead, the task of setting minimum wages is delegated to the local governments. Each province, municipality, or region sets its own minimum wage in accordance with its own local conditions. However, a law approved February 2013 will mandate a nationwide minimum wage at 40% average urban salaries to be phased in fully by 2015
Click to expand...
 
ReformCollege said:
LOL. Yeah no. Sorry but getting any doctorate degree does not take 12-16 years. Masters programs are two years and most doctorate programs are 3. MD school is 4 years, so someone could be nearly be done with their doctorate program (after getting their masters) before a medical student even begins residency. Not to mention, the sheer amount of rigor one has to endure to required to become a doctor has very, very few comparisons. Just the fact that you posted a website list any old doctorate degree as a response to my question seems to indicate to me that you are in no position to be making value judgments on what a doctor is or isn't worth.
Click to expand...

Doctorates are what doctors get. And many of those listed also have years of learning after their doctorates. Doctors are not special.
 
Fenton said:
Says who ? A online ideologue who doesn't possess the humility and honesty to critique his own party ?

Obama's signature legislation has caused the largest increase in part time employment in our Nations History.

Millions have been introduced to a new reality in America. Chronic Joblessness and dependemce and hey, you had a hand in it all.

Since 2008 you guys have been on the defensive and for good reason, because you people screwed this nation.
Click to expand...

I've linked things before. Do some research and get back to me.
 
j-mac said:
Maybe I am off base, but the scourge of progressivism has too been ongoing since then.
Click to expand...

An opinion i don't care to comment on (it is off topic!).
 
Conservative said:
If you ever managed anything or had any personal responsibility in dealing with actual people you might understand the concept of intervention.
Click to expand...

Wow just wow....the mighty one has spoken:roll:
 
Conservative said:
Then tell me where I am wrong?
Click to expand...

As I told you, in the column ip from your link to the right:

There is sector minimum wage in reality but no national one.

In that column, from your link, they talk of the reality versus the claim. I asked you to read it all.
 
Kushinator said:
No......
Click to expand...

When Bush "came into office" did he operate on a budget until 1 Oct (the new fiscal year) that Clinton had left him with? The answer is of course yes.

The deficit for that fiscal year was 133 billion and represented a huge downward spiral from the previous year which was plain as day indicative of how bad the economy was becoming. Bush coming into office on a "balanced budget" is a fairy tale.
 
ItAin'tFree said:
When Bush "came into office" did he operate on a budget until 1 Oct (the new fiscal year) that Clinton had left him with? The answer is of course yes.

The deficit for that fiscal year was 133 billion and represented a huge downward spiral from the previous year which was plain as day indicative of how bad the economy was becoming. Bush coming into office on a "balanced budget" is a fairy tale.
Click to expand...

Yes, it went bad before Bush took office. And it got worse before Obama took office. None of those presidents controlled the economy.
 
Boo Radley said:
I've linked things before. Do some research and get back to me.
Click to expand...

No you haven't. Your'e personal opinion doesn't add up to a hill of beans as you selectively apply your statistics and qualifications.

You people are dishonest, lack integrity and humility.

For example when you offer up your " proof " of job growth you leave out the nearly 10 million jobs that don't exist anymore.

When you claim that our economy is growing you leave out the fact that it's all being propped up with Trillions in QE, and then fail to realize that there is will be a HUGE price to pay for all this easy and free money.
 
Boo Radley said:
No, I gave you an argument. I spelled out how it really works when government runs the show. You made an either or fallacy, and one based on misinformation to boot.

Go back and read what you wrote. Find something you honestly think wasn't addressed. Present it. Then read what I wrote and try to address one point. Just one.
Click to expand...

:roll: ...Oh brother...Here we go with you trying to take the tact that only your opinion is proper, or relevant....I don't have time for this crap.
 
Boo Radley said:
I've linked things before. Do some research and get back to me.
Click to expand...

No you haven't. Your'e personal opinion doesn't add up to a hill of beans as you selectively apply your statistics and qualifications.

You people are dishonest, lack integrity and humility.

For example when you offer up your " proof " of job growth you leave out the nearly 10 million jobs that don't exist anymore.

When you claim that our economy is growing you leave out the fact that it's all being propped up with Trillions in QE, and then fail to realize that there is will be a HUGE price to pay for all this easy and free money.

Post all the links you want the truth is their stacked with Liberal Bull Sh** and talking points.

If you have to lie whether by ommision or directly to back some corrupt ideology, your still left with a shi** ideology.
 
Fenton said:
No you haven't. Your'e personal opinion doesn't add up to a hill of beans as you selectively apply your statistics and qualifications.

You people are dishonest, lack integrity and humility.

For example when you offer up your " proof " of job growth you leave out the nearly 10 million jobs that don't exist anymore.

When you claim that our economy is growing you leave out the fact that it's all being propped up with Trillions in QE, and then fail to realize that there is will be a HUGE price to pay for all this easy and free money.
Click to expand...

I have many times. But for you, I'll do it one more time:


(Photo: Anna Fox)
Our latest Freakonomics Radio on Marketplace podcast is called “It’s Not the President, Stupid.” (You can download/subscribe at iTunes, get the RSS feed, listen via the media player above, or read the transcript below.) The gist: it’s time to admit that the U.S. economy doesn’t have a commander-in-chief.

Freakonomics » It



Dubner: Look, personally, I have no horse in any race -- I dislike both political parties about equally. But here's the thing: We're heading into a presidential campaign now that is likely to focus on the economy, and rightly so. And I'm here to tell you and your listeners that of all the areas in which the president's influence is overrated, the economy is probably No. 1.

Does the president actually influence the economy? | Marketplace.org

And yet, elected officials have little control over things that actually affect the economy, such as natural disasters, changes in resource prices, changes in consumer wealth, changes in the exchange rates, or changes in the real interest rate. The Fed has a bit of control over interest rates, in the short run, and may even be able to offset some of the other changes through monetary policy, but the Fed is not under the control of elected officials!

http://www.pcecon.com/text/OptionsOutcomesMaCh14.pdf

There's more, much more, but I tried to give you three different types of sources. Also, conservative can direct you to the history and studies showing taxes and regulations have minimal effect (I think those are actually in this thread). Now before throwing around words like dishonesty, do some damn research.
 
j-mac said:
:roll: ...Oh brother...Here we go with you trying to take the tact that only your opinion is proper, or relevant....I don't have time for this crap.
Click to expand...

Don't be silly. It's how arguments are done. Instead of name calling and being childish, form a rebuttal.
 
Conservative said:
Has Obamanomics been a success?
Click to expand...

Already answered.

There you go again with the textbooks.
Click to expand...

I made no reference to textbooks. If you cannot address my comments without projecting my position, i will simply highlight the instance and not respond to your point.

Obama was hired because he told Americans that he would solve the problems, he has failed and with failure in a private sector economy there are consequences, not so with a Federal Govt. Companies don't create demand, consumers do and you create demand by having more spendable income. Happens all the time. No business owner is going to expand with the uncertainties of Obamanomics.
Click to expand...

It is my opinion that the majority of the problems he inherited have been corrected. All that is left is job creation.

That is your opinion, some banks didn't want TARP, wonder why?
Click to expand...

The same banks that didn't want TARP went back for round 2. They also made great use of the liquidity facilities provided by the Fed, e.g. TALF, CPLF, etc....

If you ever invested your own money in a business you would understand why
Click to expand...

Ad Hom

demand created by the private consumer and that isn't going to happen with massive govt. expenditures.
Click to expand...

How much demand does welfare and foodstamp disbursments create? By providing people who have very low incomes some sort of support, does it create economic activity, AKA do they spend it?

The Fed is purchasing Toxic Assets thus QE.
Click to expand...

You don't know what a toxic asset is. If they were purchasing toxic assets, the treasury would be on the hook for the losses incurred in the purchases. Instead, the Fed has handed hundreds of billions of dollars back to the treasury since credit easing activities began. This means that they have not been purchasing Toxic Assets.

Do you understand now?

Demand will never grow as long as consumer confidence remains low and the labor participation rate stays are record lows. Obama leadership is lacking and will never promote the private sector. That isn't his desire.
Click to expand...

800px-U.S._Consumer_Confidence_Index.png


Just so i don't have to explain it later over 50 means expansion.

You are easily swayed but a distorted view of personal spending habits and personal income levels.

Most book smart people are also incompetent when it comes to street issues.
Click to expand...

Ad hom

You are right and I have no interest in actually knowing you, but I do know a lot of people like you, book smart and street stupid.
Click to expand...

Ad hom.




Cite your source that 40% of all home owners are under water and tell me what leadership Obama has shown on the issue?
Click to expand...

Underwater.jpg


Negative equity is prevalent not just in obvious places like Las Vegas, once the poster child for the go-go real estate market that went bust. The painful aftermath lingers in Chicago and Minneapolis, where about one in three owners has negative equity. Seattle, Cleveland, and Baltimore also each have a larger share of owners in negative territory than the national average. Zillow computes a second, broader measure of underwater homeowners. It adds together people with negative equity and those who have some equity, though not enough to pay a real estate agent and related costs to sell their house and move. When this second group is included, the share of home borrowers in a financial bind increases to 44 percent, from 25 percent, Zillow said.
Click to expand...

Never have I supported increasing the size and scope of govt. Looks like another reading comprehension problem.
Click to expand...

Then there was no need to bring up the dot-com bubble, recession, and 9/11.

Obama is in over his head lacking any understanding of the private sector and how it works. He and you have a lot in common with regard to that area.
Click to expand...

Don't see the surplus then that you said existed. only a true liberal takes a victory lap for what will be a deficit of around 800 billion or more dollars because it is a cut? Bush never had a 800 billion dollar deficit
Click to expand...

Now the deficit is going to be $800 billion? It went from over a trillion, to less to a trillion, and now around 800 billion or more.

Great, so what is the govt. doing to create incentive and grow demand? We agree, the goal is to make a profit, the incentive to grow more will be there when there is incentive to create demand. People buy during a sale, why? Obama is an economic failure in understanding how to motivate people and how to increase demand.
Click to expand...

The economy is driven by the private sector. It is silly to believe the economy requires the president to increase demand.

Is that how the stimulus was sold? Seems I remember shovel ready jobs being mentioned over and over. Name for me one economic prediction Obama has made that has been accurate?
Click to expand...

Republicans wouldn't agree to anything without tax breaks.

Ok, what is Obama doing to create better regulations rather than growing regulations? Why is the Keystone Pipeline not up to the states to decide? Why is coal being regulated by anyone other than the people of W. Va. Why should the NLRB try to block Boeing from opening a plant in Carolina? Why is it a bureaucrats responsibility to administer healthcare for individuals in 50 states?
Click to expand...

The president obviously has environmental concerns. Not that i necessarily agree with many of them, but i believe his current policy will have a limited impact on employment.

You are part of the problem because you are so out of touch with the real world and real people
Click to expand...

Ad hom

Whether it was spent, saved, invested, or used to pay down debt, it doesn't matter, all benefit the economy. A free market capitalist would understand how
Click to expand...

No it does not. When money is used to pay down debt, it creates a contraction in the money supply. When many people begin paying back debt, saving more, it reduces consumption and investment, and imports. This is how the recession began in December 2007.

Yep, and Obama is doing nothing to return us to normal times.
Click to expand...

All the government can do is ease the pain. It is up to the private sector to do the rest.

The economic numbers are a disaster and Obama is a failure.
Click to expand...

Depends on how you define disaster. Does GDP at $9 trillion qualify for a disaster?
 
Boo Radley said:
I have many times. But for you, I'll do it
one more time:



(Photo: Anna Fox)
Our latest Freakonomics Radio on Marketplace podcast is called “It’s Not the President, Stupid.” (You can download/subscribe at iTunes, get the RSS feed, listen via the media player above, or read the transcript below.) The gist: it’s time to admit that the U.S. economy doesn’t have a commander-in-chief.

Freakonomics » It



Dubner: Look, personally, I have no horse in any race -- I dislike both political parties about equally. But here's the thing: We're heading into a presidential campaign now that is likely to focus on the economy, and rightly so. And I'm here to tell you and your listeners that of all the areas in which the president's influence is overrated, the economy is probably No. 1.

Does the president actually influence the economy? | Marketplace.org

And yet, elected officials have little control over things that actually affect the economy, such as natural disasters, changes in resource prices, changes in consumer wealth, changes in the exchange rates, or changes in the real interest rate. The Fed has a bit of control over interest rates, in the short run, and may even be able to offset some of the other changes through monetary policy, but the Fed is not under the control of elected officials!

http://www.pcecon.com/text/OptionsOutcomesMaCh14.pdf

There's more, much more, but I tried to give you three different types of sources. Also, conservative can direct you to the history and studies showing taxes and regulations have minimal effect (I think those are actually in this thread). Now before throwing around words like dishonesty, do some damn research.
Click to expand...

Freakonomics doesn't address the specific issues and policies that Obama's responsible for.

I DO !

The other paragragraph mentioned narural disasters and real estate interest rates.

ARE YOU KIDDING ???
 
Last edited:
Fenton said:
Freakonomics doesn't address the specific issues and policies that Obama's responsible for.

I DO !

The other paragragraph mentioned narural disasters and real estate interest rates.

ARE YOU KIDDING ???
Click to expand...

You're not thinking. There are many things that happen beyond a presidents control. The list is just a few. Add outsourcing, automation, the hosing bubble. Think it through.

And read all of it, including the like earlier concerning taxes and regulations.
 
Boo Radley said:
As I told you, in the column ip from your link to the right:

There is sector minimum wage in reality but no national one.

In that column, from your link, they talk of the reality versus the claim. I asked you to read it all.
Click to expand...

Yet I posted the statement that a law was passed in Feb of this year providing for a national minimum wage something we don't even have in this country. States are authorized to create their own here just like in China. What you seem to have a problem with is you were caught making a bogus claim and refuse to admit it
 
Conservative said:
Yet I posted the statement that a law was passed in Feb of this year providing for a national minimum wage something we don't even have in this country. States are authorized to create their own here just like in China. What you seem to have a problem with is you were caught making a bogus claim and refuse to admit it
Click to expand...

Then WTH is this:
http://www.dol.gov/whd/minimumwage.htm
 
Kushinator;1062109094]Already answered.
Click to expand...


You qualified your answer, the answer is Obamanomics is a failure as the economic numbers show.


I made no reference to textbooks. If you cannot address my comments without projecting my position, i will simply highlight the instance and not respond to your point.
Click to expand...

You don't have to reference them because that is all you post, charts and graphs from textbooks



It is my opinion that the majority of the problems he inherited have been corrected. All that is left is job creation.
Click to expand...

Yet the economic numbers say differently. All the govt. did was reward bad behavior so how is that corrected? What changes have the banks made



The same banks that didn't want TARP went back for round 2. They also made great use of the liquidity facilities provided by the Fed, e.g. TALF, CPLF, etc....
Click to expand...

An example that you don't know what you are talking about showing that the banking industry wasn't collapsing just like the auto industry wasn't collapsing because GM/Chrysler were in trouble. A manufactured crisis that only rewarded bad behavior

Former Wells Fargo CEO: The FED forced us to take TARP money when we didn't want or need it | Peace . Gold . Liberty

The Buzz: Banks that said no to TARP still happy they did so - Sep. 15, 2010



Ad Hom
Click to expand...

Grow a pair



How much demand does welfare and foodstamp disbursments create? By providing people who have very low incomes some sort of support, does it create economic activity, AKA do they spend it?
Click to expand...

Very little if any and certainly not enough to create economic growth and job creation as the numbers show



You don't know what a toxic asset is. If they were purchasing toxic assets, the treasury would be on the hook for the losses incurred in the purchases. Instead, the Fed has handed hundreds of billions of dollars back to the treasury since credit easing activities began. This means that they have not been purchasing Toxic Assets.
Click to expand...

Better look up the definition of QE. I would have thought someone like you who spends all their time with their nose in the books would know that


800px-U.S._Consumer_Confidence_Index.png
Click to expand...

So consumer confidence remains at record lows thanks for confirming that
Just so i don't have to explain it later over 50 means expansion.


Ad hom
Click to expand...

Truth hurt?


Ad hom.
Click to expand...

Statement of fact


Underwater.jpg
Click to expand...

That chart doesn't address ALL homeowners thus your statement is false and should have stated that home owners in those selected cities are under water


Then there was no need to bring up the dot-com bubble, recession, and 9/11.
Click to expand...

Then stop blaming Bush for problems that "your" President cannot correct and still ignores


Now the deficit is going to be $800 billion? It went from over a trillion, to less to a trillion, and now around 800 billion or more.
Click to expand...

Obama proposed a 3.77 trillion dollar budget thus has nothing to do with any deficit reduction

The economy is driven by the private sector. It is silly to believe the economy requires the president to increase demand.
Click to expand...

Yes, then tell "your" President to stop creating policies that stifle it. The President's economic policies are keeping the economy from expanding. Predictions are that it may even be contracting again. Just goes to show what happens when you put a community agitator who lacked executive and private sector experience in the office



Republicans wouldn't agree to anything without tax breaks.
Click to expand...

Nor should they



The president obviously has environmental concerns. Not that i necessarily agree with many of them, but i believe his current policy will have a limited impact on employment.
Click to expand...

As if the people of Nebraska and W. Va don't? Obama's approval rating in W. Va is in the low 30's. Why?


Ad hom
Click to expand...


Your opinion noted


No it does not. When money is used to pay down debt, it creates a contraction in the money supply. When many people begin paying back debt, saving more, it reduces consumption and investment, and imports. This is how the recession began in December 2007.
Click to expand...

So the money used to pay down debt just disappears? Where did you get your education again? What does the company owed that debt do with the money? Where does investment capital come from?



All the government can do is ease the pain. It is up to the private sector to do the rest.
Click to expand...

That message hasn't gotten to the Obama Administration as they are fueling the pain. There are over 2 million less people employed today than when the recession began and after adding trillions to the debt we have 177,000 fewer people unemployed. That is a disastrous record and would get you fired in the private sector



Depends on how you define disaster. Does GDP at $9 trillion qualify for a disaster?
Click to expand...

Govt spending as a component of GDP has doubled its contribution to GDP and has done nothing but add to the debt
 
Conservative said:
Yet I posted the statement that a law was passed in Feb of this year providing for a national minimum wage something we don't even have in this country. States are authorized to create their own here just like in China. What you seem to have a problem with is you were caught making a bogus claim and refuse to admit it
Click to expand...

It is the difference between what is said, and what the reality is. YOUR link, not mine, says the reality is that there is no national minimum wage. I asked that you read your own link for meaning.
 
Boo Radley said:
Don't be silly. It's how arguments are done. Instead of name calling and being childish, form a rebuttal.
Click to expand...

I have no desire to enter into an "argument" with someone who thinks his opinion is the only one that is right, and can't be bothered to open his mind....Good day.
 
Boo Radley said:
You're not
thinking. There are many things that happen beyond a presidents control. The list is just a few. Add outsourcing, automation, the hosing bubble. Think it through.

And read all of it, including the like earlier concerning taxes and regulations.
Click to expand...


Let me clarify something for you.

Making excuses 5 years in after 7 Trillion in new debt, Trillions in new printing, increased poverty and increased dependence is not the same as " thinking".

Actually its quite the opposite as youv'e ignored glaring exapmles of Obama's incompetence time and time again.

Natural disasters ? They happen in every Presidency. The Housing Collapse ? If you weren't so purposely ignorant you would know your President used to go around suing banks in Chicago for " discrimination " and was #3 on the list of Politicians that recieved the highest campaign contributions from the corrupt and Democrat run Fannie Mae.

You would know that the collapse was madated by policies pushed by Clinton and the Democrats and that Obama's actually started those policies back up through FHA.

So your'e the only one not thinking, not us.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom