• 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!

Economy adds 192,000 jobs; unemployment rate holds steady at 6.7%

j-mac said:
Wow, hang on to your socks there TNE...You're not totally wrong here....I'll explain...We have in place today a certain level of creeping Marxism that has taken progressive socialists in this country a century to put in place...And a hint for you, these progressives were in the Republican party, as well as the Democrat party...In fact the last time that progressives tried to poison the wonderful experiment called America was during FDR's reign, and before that during Wilson's reign...In both cases progressives showed too much of their true face, and were soundly rejected for decades...Now, they rear their ugly heads again...I don't know what the outcome of the current push will be the history is still being written, but I can only hope that this country wakes the hell up before this generation fully embraces the **** that comes with unabashed authoritarian socialism, and gets back to the rugged individualism we are founded on.
Click to expand...

A country can be judged best on how it treats its poor. I don't have a problem with the idea of government welfare. I have a problem with how it has been implemented and its currently run. It is in need of DESPERATE reform and accountability. But the fact it exists is not Marxism to me, it's humanity.

Welfare was not designed to be some super secret plot to bring down America. Just because people believe that the less fortunate should have a safety net does not make them a Marxist by any stretch of the imagination. Again, I'm not saying welfare doesn't need reform, it does.

Even Romney who most of the right voted for didn't believe in getting rid of all welfare and I am willing to bet ANY right-wing candidate isn't going to either.
 
Conservative said:
I asked you a question and you ignored it, where does the money come from to pay unemployment benefits and what effect does that have on the economy? Further why hasn't two years of unemployment insurance generated the theory based results?
Click to expand...

I think intuitively he knows.
 
newpublius said:
I think intuitively he knows.
Click to expand...

You may be right but sometimes socialism and liberalism are so entrenched into the minds of far too many that they ignore history and actual results.
 
A glaring question would be how would you reform it I guess.? But allow me to address some of your post seperately...


TheNextEra said:
A country can be judged best on how it treats its poor.
Click to expand...

Yes, and I think that our charity is unmatched in the world...

I don't have a problem with the idea of government welfare.
Click to expand...

I do as it is constructed today..

I have a problem with how it has been implemented and its currently run.
Click to expand...

On this we agree.

It is in need of DESPERATE reform and accountability.
Click to expand...

Again how would you do it?

But the fact it exists is not Marxism to me, it's humanity.
Click to expand...

Making sure that able bodied people become dependent on government services, then using it to tie people to a political party through their vote is bordering on evil...

Welfare was not designed to be some super secret plot to bring down America.
Click to expand...

You're right...It's right there in the open...Take a look around and open your eyes...Hell, even in these boards the brazen audacity of self described 'socialists' and 'communists' is right there in the open...

Just because people believe that the less fortunate should have a safety net does not make them a Marxist by any stretch of the imagination.
Click to expand...

Not saying that...But there is a proper role of the government, and there is a proper role of charities like the church system....

Again, I'm not saying welfare doesn't need reform, it does.
Click to expand...

Can't wait to read how....But for now I have to do something profoundly un socialist....Go to work....:mrgreen: C-ya after a while....:2wave:
 
j-mac said:
Yes, and I think that our charity is unmatched in the world...
Click to expand...

Because of how we treat our poor with welfare especially.

I do as it is constructed today..
Click to expand...

AGain, I was talking about the idea of welfare, not how it was run today.

Again how would you do it?
Click to expand...

It needs better management and most of all it needs accountability by both sides. It needs limitations in time and it needs to take a look at "why" they are on welfare. If they need retraining, it is cheaper to do that retraining than to keep them on welfare for generations. Most of all, there should be a point that consequences are brought upon the person if they knowingly, willingly, aren't trying to better themselves if provided retraining opportunities. Tying into that is unemployment, we need to find out why and adapt. I am a bing conservationalist, but I am also a realist. I don't think oil and gas is the devil and until a viable alternative arises through the market we need to embrace drilling but hold those accountable for shady practices in keeping safety. Again, that isn't a be all in all solution, I am of course limiting several factors due to it would take hundreds of pages to exhaustively go through the plan. I hope you get the gist of it though and it isn't to keep people on welfare for generations.

Making sure that able bodied people become dependent on government services, then using it to tie people to a political party through their vote is bordering on evil...
Click to expand...

That isn't welfare and that's not what I am suggesting.

You're right...It's right there in the open...Take a look around and open your eyes...Hell, even in these boards the brazen audacity of self described 'socialists' and 'communists' is right there in the open...
Click to expand...

It was not designed that way. Just because someone twists and warps it, doesn't mean that is what its purpose was. When the atom was split, Einstein didn't do it for world domination or for weapons. However, it was misused from the original design.

Not saying that...But there is a proper role of the government, and there is a proper role of charities like the church system....
Click to expand...

That's fine an dandy for a small population, but not for a large one. The church system is not able to handle the load. Add in the fact people are not religious today like they were hundreds of years ago. You are holding on to an archaic system. Much like the horse and buggy worked for the population in the past, the majority it would not work for now.

Can't wait to read how....But for now I have to do something profoundly un socialist....Go to work....:mrgreen: C-ya after a while....:2wave:
Click to expand...

Laters and have a good day!
 
Conservative said:
I asked you a question and you ignored it, where does the money come from to pay unemployment benefits and what effect does that have on the economy?
Click to expand...

UI is mostly self-funding, with the public sector making up for any short-falls. I believe we could be simplifying that public policy by only resorting to general forms of taxation instead of our more complicated, current regime.

Increasing the circulation of money is our Institution of money based markets has already been proved to have a positive multiplier effect on our economy.
 
Helix said:
monthly jobs report. rage or rejoice.
Click to expand...

neither, meaningless, so many just gave up looking, what kind of jobs, no subject is more easily convoluted by the skunks we call leaders than the jobs numbers.
 
danielpalos said:
Let me help you out under our form of Capitalism; our federal Congress has recourse to an official Mint. Any questions?
Click to expand...

You haven't helped at all, since you are mistaken. You are confusing the government printing money with creating wealth. The government does not add to the economy, everything they do is a drain on the economy.
 
So GDP went to 0.1% and we created 100's of thousands of jobs. Can we expect a boom in the next few months?
 
Anthony60 said:
You haven't helped at all, since you are mistaken. You are confusing the government printing money with creating wealth. The government does not add to the economy, everything they do is a drain on the economy.
Click to expand...

You seem to be begging the question and that I accept what you say as true. It seems like only fallacy, to me. Our government creates wealth merely by existing. It should be a self-evident Truth.
 
Anthony60 said:
You haven't helped at all, since you are mistaken. You are confusing the government printing money with creating wealth. The government does not add to the economy, everything they do is a drain on the economy.
Click to expand...

The interstate highway system or air traffic control is not a drain on the economy. ;)
 
danielpalos said:
UI is mostly self-funding, with the public sector making up for any short-falls. I believe we could be simplifying that public policy by only resorting to general forms of taxation instead of our more complicated, current regime.

Increasing the circulation of money is our Institution of money based markets has already been proved to have a positive multiplier effect on our economy.
Click to expand...

Self funding from the taxpayers if that is what you mean by self funding. It takes money from people to give to someone else who isn't working. You don't seem to understand that concept and how that affects the economy. Paychecks and business profits are less because of unemployment insurance.

Increasing the circulation of money through capitalism benefits the economy, not creation of capital by the Fed printing money or giving money to people not to work isn't the foundation upon which this country was built.

You really have no idea how our economy works, where the money comes from for these programs, and how increasing the amount of cash in the economy affects the value of the dollar that your parents have.
 
Conservative said:
Self funding from the taxpayers if that is what you mean by self funding. It takes money from people to give to someone else who isn't working. You don't seem to understand that concept and how that affects the economy. Paychecks and business profits are less because of unemployment insurance.

Increasing the circulation of money through capitalism benefits the economy, not creation of capital by the Fed printing money or giving money to people not to work isn't the foundation upon which this country was built.

You really have no idea how our economy works, where the money comes from for these programs, and how increasing the amount of cash in the economy affects the value of the dollar that your parents have.
Click to expand...

I am not sure I understand your point of view under our form of Capitalism, where it only takes money to make more money. In any case, you are omitting any positive multiplier effect as a form of investment in the general welfare; or do you believe investing also takes money from some and results in lower profits.
 
Conservative said:
We have had over 20 million Americans collecting unemployment many for two years and what has that done to productivity, the debt, the .economic growth? I hope I am around when you realize that you don't know nearly as much as you think you do. The best multiplier effect is putting those people back to work not paying them to be unemployed. You think unemployed people spend money on cars? You simply have no idea how our economic works.
Click to expand...

because we are not solving simple poverty with it and closing that "full employment of resources" gap in our economy.
 
danielpalos said:
I am not sure I understand your point of view under our form of Capitalism, where it only takes money to make more money. In any case, you are omitting any positive multiplier effect as a form of investment in the general welfare; or do you believe investing also takes money from some and results in lower profits.
Click to expand...

Working people create a positive multiplier effect, not unemployed who buy basically the essentials and that isn't what drives our economy. You really should learn the four components of GDP and what each contribute and what makes up those components. Unemployed people don't invest in our economy, they survive on the essentials while taking money from those who produce and pay the taxes.
 
danielpalos said:
because we are not solving simple poverty with it and closing that "full employment of resources" gap in our economy.
Click to expand...

I have not seen one proposal from you to do what you say, only normally one sentence responses that say the same thing over and over again, basically nothing. It isn't the govt. that is going to solve poverty, but rather the private sector
 
Conservative said:
Working people create a positive multiplier effect, not unemployed who buy basically the essentials and that isn't what drives our economy. You really should learn the four components of GDP and what each contribute and what makes up those components. Unemployed people don't invest in our economy, they survive on the essentials while taking money from those who produce and pay the taxes.
Click to expand...

You may be missing the point about our form of Capitalism where it only takes money to make more money or generate a positive multiplier effect on our economy. Why do you believe any private sector would be worse off by solving for a simple poverty of money in our Institution of money based markets in our republic?
 
Conservative said:
I have not seen one proposal from you to do what you say, only normally one sentence responses that say the same thing over and over again, basically nothing. It isn't the govt. that is going to solve poverty, but rather the private sector
Click to expand...

only because of your limited reading compression skills. private charity can only cover a multitude of sins not solve official poverty because only a public sector can do that whenever it is an externality to our Institution of money based markets.
 
danielpalos said:
You may be missing the point about our form of Capitalism where it only takes money to make more money or generate a positive multiplier effect on our economy. Why do you believe any private sector would be worse off by solving for a simple poverty of money in our Institution of money based markets in our republic?
Click to expand...

You really don't understand capitalism, risk taking, investing personal cash, and wealth creation. It isn't the govt. that does that as evidenced by the results today, results that you ignore. We have over 100 million people dependent on taxpayers for some form of dependence excluding SS and Medicare yet we have stagnant economic growth, high total unemployment, high debt all hurting the economy and promoting massive govt. Noticed you ignored our Founders vision for America and interpreted the Constitution as liberals have defined it today, not as our Founders.

How do you explain the small central govt. and part time legislature our Founders created? You simply ignore history and try to re-write it the way you want.
 
Conservative said:
You really don't understand capitalism, risk taking, investing personal cash, and wealth creation. It isn't the govt. that does that as evidenced by the results today, results that you ignore. We have over 100 million people dependent on taxpayers for some form of dependence excluding SS and Medicare yet we have stagnant economic growth, high total unemployment, high debt all hurting the economy and promoting massive govt. Noticed you ignored our Founders vision for America and interpreted the Constitution as liberals have defined it today, not as our Founders.

How do you explain the small central govt. and part time legislature our Founders created? You simply ignore history and try to re-write it the way you want.
Click to expand...

No, it isn't. It is simply, about spending money by more people that will create demand for more goods and more services, which may require more labor, gainfully employed and doing the same.
 
Blue_State said:
So GDP went to 0.1% and we created 100's of thousands of jobs. Can we expect a boom in the next few months?
Click to expand...

Dunno.

But remember, the 288K job creation number is not the only number put out by the BLS. They also said that - using a different form of computation/estimation - that 73,000 jobs were lost in April. And that the labor force shrunk by 806,000 people.

Employment Situation Summary Table A. Household data, seasonally adjusted. 4th and 2nd lines, respectively.


Both GDP and labor numbers were lousy.

If it was 'the weather' - then it maybe an aberration (even though more then half of the nation's population never/rarely sees any snow).

If it wasn't some 'my dog ate my homework' reason...we shall see.
 
danielpalos said:
No, it isn't. It is simply, about spending money by more people that will create demand for more goods and more services, which may require more labor, gainfully employed and doing the same.
Click to expand...

What goods and services do unemployed people buy with their unemployment insurance? You simply have no idea what you are talking about. Still waiting for a valid proposal from you not bumper tag slogans.
 
danielpalos said:
You seem to be begging the question and that I accept what you say as true. It seems like only fallacy, to me. Our government creates wealth merely by existing. It should be a self-evident Truth.
Click to expand...

Well, that's a new one on me. How about some examples? That is, of the government creating wealth, not taking money from citizens and spending it.
 
Conservative said:
What goods and services do unemployed people buy with their unemployment insurance? You simply have no idea what you are talking about. Still waiting for a valid proposal from you not bumper tag slogans.
Click to expand...

They spend most of their income on consumables. Some may even pay some part of their rent or mortgage. Any increase in demand may require more labor to meet it. It really is that simple.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom