• 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:
Yes, we need liberals to keep all us conservatives from starving kids, killing seniors, and polluting the air, in other words to protect us from ourselves. We need liberals about as much as we need another virus without an antidote. There obviously isn't enough arrogance in the world thus we need liberals.
Click to expand...

Not the way I'd say it, but yes with unchecked conservatism there comes more control and ultimately abuse. It works the same way with unchecked liberalism, in a different way.
 
Boo Radley said:
Not the way I'd say it, but yes with unchecked conservatism there comes more control and ultimately abuse. It works the same way with unchecked liberalism, in a different way.
Click to expand...


Interesting...And what in your opinion happens with "unchecked liberalism"???
 
AlabamaPaul said:
Trust me, I used to feel the same way, but I am currently free from pain killers and loving it...
Click to expand...

I'm personally convinced that back pain is due to not having a strong enough back to properly maintain posture and therefore distribute your weight. Take that as you will.
 
Boo Radley said:
No one suggests over wise. Not that we pay for things that way. Are you sure you know what's being argued?
Click to expand...

You're arguing that essentially doctors are no better then plenty of other people with doctorates and therefore deserve to be paid less. I've attacked both the premise and the conclusion of that argument.
 
j-mac said:
Interesting...And what in your opinion happens with "unchecked liberalism"???
Click to expand...

Just as bad. Less order. Less constraints where we need constraints. Less attention to the hard decisions. All of which leads to abuse of someone as well.
 
ReformCollege said:
You're arguing that essentially doctors are no better then plenty of other people with doctorates and therefore deserve to be paid less. I've attacked both the premise and the conclusion of that argument.
Click to expand...

Actually, that was never my argument. I merely noted many are educated and don't always get paid based on that education. Nor did I say anything about deserved. I said clearly I don't want them not to make a good living, but that a small decrease would not equal them being poor. The number I used or an example was my brother in law telling me he thought he go from 300k to !295 k per year. Neither number is what we should call poverty.
 
Boo Radley said:
Debt is another issue. We're talking about
the economy. Jobs. These things. No
president can control these. No president can create jobs without hiring and spending money. It grows the debt, but it is all a president can do.

The economy responses to a multitude of factors, few of which government has anything to do with. Instead of reading all that was linked and referred to, you limit your response to what you think will most marginalize my argument. This is a poor tactic, mostly because 1) it shows you haven't read it all and 2) doesn't dispute the the effect of other factors.

You then turn to moving the goal posts. We're not talking about the debt, which is a separate issue.

As for the collapse, you also fail to recognize other players. I could present something like this:

Bush drive for home ownership fueled housing bubble

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/21/b...iht-admin.4.18853088.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

But I actually believe many are responsible. Not just democrats and republicans, but greedy lenders, unrealistic borrowers, and a silly belief that prices would never go down.

But here's some reading for you:

Most of the economists we spoke to agreed that the recession was caused most directly by long-term trends, especially a bust in housing prices and high energy prices, rather than by political factors.

"The Democrats can be blamed for setting the economy on a bubble-driven path in the 1990s, but the Republicans cannot escape blame for continuing this path and allowing an even larger and more dangerous bubble to develop in the first decade of the 21st century," said Dean Baker, an economist with the liberal Center for Economic and Policy Research. "Is Rep. Foxx claiming that if we just left the Republicans in control, the housing bubble would still be growing so that we would have an even greater disaster to look forward to at the point when it finally collapsed?"

(snip)

"Anyone who tries to link the ups and downs in business to something happening in D.C. is obligated to explain what it is that happened," Reynolds said. "Otherwise, it's likely random luck. Politicians are not as important as they like to think they are."

We agree. The evidence shows that the economy did not "nose dive" for at least a year after the Democrats took control of Congress, and experts of various ideological backgrounds agree that long-term trends in the housing and energy markets played a bigger role in directly causing the recession. While what happens in Washington can certainly influence the economy, it is only one of many factors. We believe it is the height of partisan wishful thinking to imply that one party's accession to power in Congress is to blame for a major recession. Pants on Fire!

PolitiFact | Foxx blames recession on Democratic Congressional takeover




http://www.uvu.edu/woodbury/jbi/volume8/journals/SummaryofthePrimaryCauseoftheHousingBubble.pdf
Click to expand...

You have no idea what your'e talking about.

Clintons Long list of Executive Orders in his 1995 National Homeowners Strategy among other things lowered Capital Requirements for Fannie and Freddie from 10% down to 3%.

Not too mention Clinton replaced all of the GSEs executives and most of their board members with his corrupt Democrat buddies.

Fannie Mae started turning crap loans into securities in 1997 and by 2000 had pumped enough toxic securities into the markets to cause a systemic failure.

The whole affordable housing agenda was pushed by Democrats and included the lowering of lending standards based on the false narrative of " redlining".

By 2008 Fannie and Freddie held over 5 TRILLION in crap loans and toxic MBSs backed by crap loans. Close to 70% of ALL Sub-Prime, Alt-A, NINA and CRA loans bought and sold in America.

In 2004 when Fannie's Regulator was warning Democrats that Fannie and Freddie were Corrupt and on their way to collapse, the Democrats were sitting in front of REPUBLICAN chaired comittee's lying about the health of the GSEs.

Bush from the start of his Presidency tried to pass strict and new regulatory controls on the GSEs with Republicans holding Committee's trying to get to the bottom of the inevitable collapse of the Bubble.

A bubble that was built from the ground up by policies put in place in the 90s, that was perpetuated by Clinton's corrupt appointee's which included Franklin Raines who misreported billions so he could meet his executive bonus targets.

Bush and the Republicans were the ONLY politicians who actually TRIED to do something about the coming collapse.

Lets see if you can point to ONE Democrat initiative to reign in the corrupt GSEs during the Bush Presidency.
 
Last edited:
Boo Radley said:
Actually, that was never my argument. I merely noted many are educated and don't always get paid based on that education. Nor did I say anything about deserved. I said clearly I don't want them not to make a good living, but that a small decrease would not equal them being poor. The number I used or an example was my brother in law telling me he thought he go from 300k to !295 k per year. Neither number is what we should call poverty.
Click to expand...

Why exactly should they take a small decrease in the first place? Chopping doctors salaries by 5-10% a year isn't going to decrease healthcare costs by even 1%, so what is the point of it? I can't really think of a reason, other then envy. Sure, we should restructure incentives to prevent excessive testing and such, but lets also remember a large of doctors and hospitals start ordering unnecessary tests in response to cuts in reimbursement in the first place.

Salary is based on factors other then education. The demand and rigor for that profession being one of them. Doctors have a very rigorous and difficult profession, require 12-16 years of secondary education, and play a role that is very much in demand in a modern day society. Someone who is just "highly educated" without the other two legs to stand on may not be paid as well as someone "less educated" in a more competitive and in demand field. That's just how it works.
 
Boo Radley said:
Actually, that was never my argument. I merely noted many are educated and don't always get paid based on that education. Nor did I say anything about deserved. I said clearly I don't want them not to make a good living, but that a small decrease would not equal them being poor. The number I used or an example was my brother in law telling me he thought he go from 300k to !295 k per year. Neither number is what we should call poverty.
Click to expand...

Liberal greed , envy, and spite on example in that post. I say good for your brother in law and with any luck maybe his talents can allow him to make a little more. Of course I'd say the same about anybody else too. He did the work to place himself in position to earn that amount, same as the guy riding around on the back of a garbage truck. Everybody in America gets a shot, some take advantage of it, others chose to live a lifestyle that shuts the door of opportunity in many areas. Nobody to credit but yourself, nobody to blame but yourself. Minus government obstruction all along the way, of course.
 
Fenton said:
You have no idea what your'e talking about.

Clintons Long list of Executive Orders in his 1995 National Homeowners Strategy among other things lowered Capital Requirements for Fannie and Freddie from 10% down to 3%.

Not too mention Clinton replaced all of the GSEs executives and most of their board members with his corrupt Democrat buddies.

Fannie Mae started turning crap loans into securities in 1997 and by 2000 had pumped enough toxic securities into the markets to cause a systemic failure.

The whole affordable housing agenda was pushed by Democrats and included the lowering of lending standards based on the false narrative of " redlining".

By 2008 Fannie and Freddie held over 5 TRILLION in crap loans and toxic MBSs backed by crap loans. Close to 70% of ALL Sub-Prime, Alt-A, NINA and CRA loans bought and sold in America.

In 2004 when Fannie's Regulator was warning Democrats that Fannie and Freddie were Corrupt and on their way to collapse, the Democrats were sitting in front of REPUBLICAN chaired comittee's lying about the health of the GSEs.

Bush from the start of his Presidency tried to pass strict and new regulatory controls on the GSEs with Republicans holding Committee's trying to get to the bottom of the inevitable collapse of the Bubble.

A bubble that was built from the ground up by policies put in place in the 90s, that was perpetuated by Clinton's corrupt appointee's which included Franklin Raines who misreported billions so he could meet his executive bonus targets.

Bush and the Republicans were the ONLY politicians who actually TRIED to do something about the coming collapse.

Lets see if you can point to ONE Democrat initiative to reign in the corrupt GSEs during the Bush Presidency.
Click to expand...

Clearly the point was lost on you. :think::smileyfart
 
ReformCollege said:
Why exactly should they take a small decrease in the first place? Chopping doctors salaries by 5-10% a year isn't going to decrease healthcare costs by even 1%, so what is the point of it? I can't really think of a reason, other then envy. Sure, we should restructure incentives to prevent excessive testing and such, but lets also remember a large of doctors and hospitals start ordering unnecessary tests in response to cuts in reimbursement in the first place.

Salary is based on factors other then education. The demand and rigor for that profession being one of them. Doctors have a very rigorous and difficult profession, require 12-16 years of secondary education, and play a role that is very much in demand in a modern day society. Someone who is just "highly educated" without the other two legs to stand on may not be paid as well as someone "less educated" in a more competitive and in demand field. That's just how it works.
Click to expand...

It's not about wanting to lower them, or thinking that's the problem. Only that if that is a by product, we can live with it.
 
ItAin'tFree said:
Liberal greed , envy, and spite on example in that post. I say good for your brother in law and with any luck maybe his talents can allow him to make a little more. Of course I'd say the same about anybody else too. He did the work to place himself in position to earn that amount, same as the guy riding around on the back of a garbage truck. Everybody in America gets a shot, some take advantage of it, others chose to live a lifestyle that shuts the door of opportunity in many areas. Nobody to credit but yourself, nobody to blame but yourself. Minus government obstruction all along the way, of course.
Click to expand...

He's a good man, and I wish him and very one else success. But that's not really the point. And it's dishonest to suggest it is.

The point is that in solving problems, it may see some results that favor some and not others. It's life.

One other minor point. Yes my brother-in-law worked hard. But like most successful people he had help. His grand parents paid all his bills and gave him a monthly allowance of $5,000. I would also say I wouldn't have gotten where I am without support from others. And that's also how it works for most.
 
winston53660 said:
The results are of ideas like this:

[h=3]On the economy[edit][/h]
  • You know, Paul, Reagan proved that deficits don't matter. We won the mid-term elections, this is our due.
Click to expand...

Since you are so concerned about deficits as a percentage of GDP what was that percentage under Reagan and what is it now?
 
Boo Radley said:
It's not about wanting to lower them, or thinking that's the problem. Only that if that is a by product, we can live with it.
Click to expand...

I would disagree. You have to be careful not to continue to drive out private practices by continuing to cut into their revenues..... Giving hospitals CEOs an even greater monopoly on the healthcare business isn't healthy in the long term.
 
ReformCollege said:
I would disagree. You have to be careful not to continue to drive out private practices by continuing to cut into their revenues..... Giving hospitals CEOs an even greater monopoly on the healthcare business isn't healthy in the long term.
Click to expand...

That's really a false concern. They won't leave the profession, and their salaries have no effect on hospital CEOs.
 
Obama is given credit for creating 195000 jobs most of which are part time jobs and then supporters claim he has cut the deficit. What is it about liberalism that creates this kind of loyalty. simply wanting results doesn't guarantee results. Obama has no ability to motivate and manage anything in the private sector and has no interest in lowering the deficit.

Obama didn't agree to the sequester cuts and now this?


White House doubles down on vow Obama won't agree to more spending cuts | Fox News
 
Conservative said:
Obama is given credit for creating 195000 jobs most of which are part time jobs and then supporters claim he has cut the deficit. What is it about liberalism that creates this kind of loyalty. simply wanting results doesn't guarantee results. Obama has no ability to motivate and manage anything in the private sector and has no interest in lowering the deficit.

Obama didn't agree to the sequester cuts and now this?


White House doubles down on vow Obama won't agree to more spending cuts | Fox News
Click to expand...

Where would you cut. Be specific.
 
Boo Radley said:
Where would you cut. Be specific.
Click to expand...

I have posted the cuts many times, so suggest you do some research. Here are the line item budget items. Remove SS and Medicare and take it all off budget, dissolve the unified budget completely. Then start cutting starting with the education department, EPA, Energy, Commerce Dept. and return all social programs back where they belong, the state and local communities. Charge all foreign countries that have illegal immigrants in this country and take the money out of foreign aid. Cut Unemployment insurance back to its original intent from the current two years.

That would be a good start. Why do we need a Federal Govt. to administer these programs when they are duplicated at the state level. Removing SS and Medicare from the budget and cutting departments would get us down to an approximate 1.5 trillion dollar federal govt. Which is what it should be. Defense and not much else.
Defense
International Affairs
Gen. Science, Space
Energy
Natural resources/env
Agriculture
Commerce/Housing Cr
Transportation
Community Dev
Education/Train/Social
Health
Medicare
Income Security
Social Security
Veterans Benefits
Justice
General Govt.
Net Interest
Click to expand...
 
Conservative said:
I have posted the cuts many times, so suggest you do some research. Here are the line item budget items. Remove SS and Medicare and take it all off budget, dissolve the unified budget completely. Then start cutting starting with the education department, EPA, Energy, Commerce Dept. and return all social programs back where they belong, the state and local communities. Charge all foreign countries that have illegal immigrants in this country and take the money out of foreign aid. Cut Unemployment insurance back to its original intent from the current two years.

That would be a good start. Why do we need a Federal Govt. to administer these programs when they are duplicated at the state level. Removing SS and Medicare from the budget and cutting departments would get us down to an approximate 1.5 trillion dollar federal govt. Which is what it should be. Defense and not much else.
Click to expand...

What do you think happens to those you remove healthcare, ss, and training from?
 
Boo Radley said:
What do you think happens to those you remove healthcare, ss, and training from?
Click to expand...

SS and Medicare are funded by Payroll taxes and thus nothing happens to them. They go off budget where they are supposed to be along with the taxes to fund them. MA implemented a healthcare program like a few others. There is no way the Federal Govt. should be involved in healthcare, they can manage nothing. These are personal responsibility issues best handled by the state and local communities. That is where the jobs will be created.
 
Conservative said:
SS and Medicare are funded by Payroll taxes and thus nothing happens to them. They go off budget where they are supposed to be along with the taxes to fund them. MA implemented a healthcare program like a few others. There is no way the Federal Govt. should be involved in healthcare, they can manage nothing. These are personal responsibility issues best handled by the state and local communities. That is where the jobs will be created.
Click to expand...

Most things are paid with taxes. There's also administrative functions, so not sure not counting them really makes a difference. A piecemeal system, where it varies is far less effective and efficient than one single system. Think of it practically and not ideologically. Responsibility also comes in the form of solving a problem. As a people, we have both personal and collective responsibility.

Government, neither nationally nor locally creates jobs. The private sector does that, unless you want government jobs.

Cuts must come to the big three. I accept that. But not blind cuts. Instead, we should do things more efficiently, which leads to spending less. This is true whether we're talking the military or SS or Medicare / Medicaid.
 
Boo Radley said:
Most things are paid with taxes. There's also administrative functions, so not sure not counting them really makes a difference. A piecemeal system, where it varies is far less effective and efficient than one single system. Think of it practically and not ideologically. Responsibility also comes in the form of solving a problem. As a people, we have both personal and collective responsibility.

Government, neither nationally nor locally creates jobs. The private sector does that, unless you want government jobs.

Cuts must come to the big three. I accept that. But not blind cuts. Instead, we should do things more efficiently, which leads to spending less. This is true whether we're talking the military or SS or Medicare / Medicaid.
Click to expand...

Yes, everything that was created had a tax established to pay for it. Democrats lumped all the tax dollars together in the unified budget and people like you bought the concept. Now what you and others like you are doing is trying to support a 3.77 trillion dollar federal govt. ignoring that there are 50 states with many duplicate activities that are funded by state and local taxes. Exactly what is the role of the Federal govt. in your world?

Govt. creates the atmosphere for economic activity that creates jobs. This Administration contradicts your view that govt. doesn't create jobs for this govt. micromanages the private sector trying to do just that
 
Conservative said:
Yes, everything that was created had a tax established to pay for it. Democrats lumped all the tax dollars together in the unified budget and people like you bought the concept. Now what you and others like you are doing is trying to support a 3.77 trillion dollar federal govt. ignoring that there are 50 states with many duplicate activities that are funded by state and local taxes. Exactly what is the role of the Federal govt. in your world?

Govt. creates the atmosphere for economic activity that creates jobs. This Administration contradicts your view that govt. doesn't create jobs for this govt. micromanages the private sector trying to do just that
Click to expand...

Stay focused. You're talking to me and not the liberal universe.

No matter how it is "lumped" there should be a way to pay for it clearly spelled out. Neither party has done this well.

And I'm all for doing away with duplicate efforts. That's why I support a single healthcare system and not piecemeal efforts.

And no, government only has minimal effect on everything, including the atmosphere. I've shown you historically and through studies that everything you think has a major effect really doesn't. The only way to have the effect you speak of is for the government to actually control production. That is not the case here in the US.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom