• 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%

I believe it should be as simple as, if they aren't filing for unemployment they must be employed.

I believe firing Obama will create jobs...history is on my side..lowering tax rates will bring in more tax revenue and create more jobs then any social engineering by Obama to enslave us to the nanny state..

Obama is a fraud.. a lie that was sold to an uneducated mass...
 
I believe firing Obama will create jobs...history is on my side..lowering tax rates will bring in more tax revenue and create more jobs then any social engineering by Obama to enslave us to the nanny state..

Obama is a fraud.. a lie that was sold to an uneducated mass...

there is only one legal way for obama to leave the presidency: impeachment. barring that option there is nothing preventing him from completing his second term
 
and republicans do not have enough votes to accomplish that.

impeachment requires 2/3s of the house and senete to charge and convict Obama.

stay tuned.. its not over yet..
 
I believe firing Obama will create jobs...history is on my side..lowering tax rates will bring in more tax revenue and create more jobs then any social engineering by Obama to enslave us to the nanny state..

Obama is a fraud.. a lie that was sold to an uneducated mass...

How many politicians haven't?
 
You dont "teach me"..??? (I will chalk that up is just more condescending sniping)... or my children... nor do you provide me with anything but bluster and nonsense along with agenda driven Lib talking points..
And you don't employ me, so we're even. I thought we were trying to compare importance of jobs. It'd be nice if you'd stick to one position instead of flip-flopping to whatever was most convenient.

again.. I hire people.. I fire people
You don't hire or fire me. Because apparently that's important now?

I look at the P & L all day...I aquire companies and competitors... I see the real economy
No, you see the economy you're directly tied into. Your personal anecdote is not a useful gauge for the economy as a whole.

I know what lib policy does to the private sector and companies are not growing
A claim without a source is pointless. I've already quoted how the economy has regained every private sector job lost in the recession. I can show you how we've had job growth every month for years. I can show you the growth of the stock market, growth in GDP and a shrinking national deficit.

All you can give me are personal anecdotes which could just as easily be lies.

I teach you.. and I may hire your children...
No, you don't and you won't.

God forbid you ever teach children...
I do teach children, that's what I told you already. Do you even read to what you respond?

You may have fancy typing
It's called "intelligence" and "literacy".

but I see right through your liberal talking points
Facts are not talking points and I'm not a liberal.

and who talks in absolutes like you with your " we made back every job"...laughable
CNN said:
After a winter slowdown, the job market hit a milestone in March as the private sector finally recovered all the jobs lost in the 2008 financial crisis.
The fact you find facts laughable says quite a bit.
 
That is an absolute lie
No, it's a truth. I've quoted it twice in this thread.

the recession began in December 2007 and we had 146 million working Americans and today we have 145 million, hardly recovering all the lost jobs.
I said private sector jobs, not all jobs. Government jobs have not been regained.
 
No, it's a truth. I've quoted it twice in this thread.

I said private sector jobs, not all jobs. Government jobs have not been regained.

Obama has absolutely no control over private sector jobs and employment, but his economic policies have led to still 20 million unemployed/under employed/discouraged workers. The recession began in December 2007, not January 21, 2009. It is almost 6 years after Bush left office and we now have the new liberal normal, high unemployment, high debt, and low economic growth. You must be so proud.
 
One would assume that, if the unemployment rate is unchanged that the economy lost about 192000 jobs as well?

Or, as the case is more and more, people are dropping out of the labor force due to length of unemployment.

Jobs numbers these days mean diddly squat. Political party doesn't matter, they are all useless.
 
No, it's a truth. I've quoted it twice in this thread.

I said private sector jobs, not all jobs. Government jobs have not been regained.

We only recovered about half of what was lost during the Great Recession after 2008. The quality/pay of the new jobs is nowhere near the old jobs that were lost. All jobs were NOT regained.
 
A claim without a source is pointless. I've already quoted how the economy has regained every private sector job lost in the recession. I can show you how we've had job growth every month for years. I can show you the growth of the stock market, growth in GDP and a shrinking national deficit.

Arguments like these make me irritated. Rather than do a little digging and learn on your own, you need to have everything spoon fed.
Here, read this.

Job growth means diddly squat when at the same time, good jobs are gone forever. $3.5 trillion in money printing and we aren't even near recovery. That's a hefty tab for the future American's to pick up with nothing to show for it other than the ultra wealthy got even more wealthy due to near zero interest from the FED while the middle class disappears. Must be good to be a banker. I would love to get free FED money at below 1% interest rate to then loan it out to the serfs at an interest rate multitudes above the rate they obtain it at. So the FED debases our currency while the banks collect free money as interest. All for doing nothing but being a sleazy middle man. Yeah, that smells like full recovery. What a joke.

Wake up FFS.
 
Last edited:
Obama has absolutely no control over private sector jobs and employment
Then why would you criticize him for jobs?

but his economic policies have led to still 20 million unemployed/under employed/discouraged workers.
You just said he has no control over private sector jobs and employment. You're contradicting yourself.

Either his policies have led us to regain every private sector job lost since the recession began or he has nothing to do with private sector jobs. Which is it?

The recession began in December 2007, not January 21, 2009.
I didn't say anything about 2009, I simply noted how every private sector job lost has now been regained.
We only recovered about half of what was lost during the Great Recession after 2008. The quality/pay of the new jobs is nowhere near the old jobs that were lost. All jobs were NOT regained.
Every PRIVATE sector job. I've said that every time in this thread and have sourced it twice. I really wish people would pay closer attention.
 
Then why would you criticize him for jobs?

You just said he has no control over private sector jobs and employment. You're contradicting yourself.

Either his policies have led us to regain every private sector job lost since the recession began or he has nothing to do with private sector jobs. Which is it?

I didn't say anything about 2009, I simply noted how every private sector job lost has now been regained.
Every PRIVATE sector job. I've said that every time in this thread and have sourced it twice. I really wish people would pay closer attention.

The point is he doesn't do the hiring or firing for companies but his policies affect company profitability which influences hiring and firing. We us the most incompetent President with zero leadership skills this country has ever elected and unfortunately far too many view social issues more importantly than fiscal issues and voted with their heart instead of their brain.

I am sorry if you think recovering all the lost jobs over 7 years after the beginning of the recession and 5 years after the end of the recession is a success. We have a growing population and should have a growing labor force but the labor force today isn't growing in relationship to the population and that reality is ignored. Businesses aren't going to hire people and grow at the rate required to put people back to work until they truly understand the costs of Obama's ACA and whether or not he is going to continue to punish producers by raising taxes. That is common sense, something liberals don't seem to have
 
The point is he doesn't do the hiring or firing for companies but his policies affect company profitability which influences hiring and firing.
And they've been hiring, to the point we've regained every private sector job lost. So his policies have worked.
 
And they've been hiring, to the point we've regained every private sector job lost. So his policies have worked.

We had 115.9 million private sector employees in December 2007 and you call it a success having 116.0 million private sector jobs today, almost 7 years later? Why do people like you have such low standards and expectations? Population alone should require more people than that in the private sector
 
We had 115.9 million private sector employees in December 2007 and you call it a success having 116.0 million private sector jobs today, almost 7 years later?
But Obama didn't take office in December of 2007, he took office in January of 2009. And his policies didn't begin to take affect until a few months after, while the effects of the recession were still climbing.

You're being very careless with your timetables. It's been roughly 4 years since the negative effects of the recession started to turn the other way and, in a country with a divided legislative branch and considering how many jobs were lost, I'd say under the circumstances 4 years isn't too bad, especially since it's still trending in the right direction.
 
Last edited:
But Obama didn't take office in December of 2007, he took office in January of 2009. And his policies didn't begin to take affect until a few months after, while the effects of the recession were still climbing.

You're being very careless with your timetables. It's been roughly 4 years since the negative effects of the recession started to turn the other way and, in a country with a divided legislative branch and considering how many jobs were lost, I'd say under the circumstances 4 years isn't too bad, especially since it's still trending in the right direction.

No, he was hired to return us to pre recession levels and hasn't done that. It makes no sense to have 115.9 million in the private sector before the recession began, have a growing population, implement a 842 billion stimulus program that was signed in February 2009 and have 116 million people in the private sector today. What we have today are record numbers of Discouraged workers, a stagnant economy, high unemployment, and 6.7 trillion added to the debt. That apparently is good enough for you.

Your time table is wrong, the recession ended in June 2009 so we were ending the recession when Obama took office. Leadership is about taking responsibility and implementing policies that benefit the American economy, Obama did no such thing. Why do you have such low standards?
 
Last edited:
No, he was hired to return us to pre recession levels and hasn't done that.
He could if he expanded government jobs like Bush did. Are you wanting a bigger government?

Your time table is wrong, the recession ended in June 2009
But I didn't say the end of the recession, I specifically said "since the negative effects of the recession started to turn the other way". It's things like this which prove to me you're not interested in any real debate, just partisan responses.
 
He could if he expanded government jobs like Bush did. Are you wanting a bigger government?

But I didn't say the end of the recession, I specifically said "since the negative effects of the recession started to turn the other way". It's things like this which prove to me you're not interested in any real debate, just partisan responses.

With a booming economy, growing population you need more govt. jobs including jobs in the military after we were attacked.

The negative impacts of the recession were prolonged by having a President who lacked any leadership skills or the ability to get things done through others. Far too many like you don't seem to understand leadership or their roles. Want to see good leadership, look at the Reagan numbers two years after the end of a recession, a recession by all economic standards was much worse than this one and was compounded by high inflation, high unemployment thus a high misery index. That recession impacted EVERY American which is unlike this one.
 
With a booming economy, growing population you need more govt. jobs including jobs in the military after we were attacked.
And if those government jobs returned under Obama, we'd have a lot more jobs. Are you saying you want more government jobs?

The negative impacts of the recession were prolonged by having a President who lacked any leadership skills or the ability to get things done through others.
Useless partisanship that ignores the reality of this country.

Far too many like you don't seem to understand leadership or their roles.
No, people like me understand the machine is bigger than any individual cog. We know money talks and if there's money in something, there will be a politician advocating it. For years, there was great money for Republicans to oppose Obama. There still is, though the strategy cost them in the 2012 elections. There's money in keeping an overinflated defense budget, but not as much money in government contracts to rebuild infrastructure. That's why we still have an incredibly large military and lagging infrastructure.

It has nothing to do with Obama. You could have put McCain or Kerry or Romney in the same position and very little would have changed, so long as there was a divided Congress and unlimited financial contributions. People like me know this. People like you probably know it as well, but that reality gets in the way of useless political attacks.
 
And if those government jobs returned under Obama, we'd have a lot more jobs. Are you saying you want more government jobs?

The negative impacts of the recession were prolonged by having a President who lacked any leadership skills or the ability to get things done through others.Useless partisanship that ignores the reality of this country.

No, people like me understand the machine is bigger than any individual cog. We know money talks and if there's money in something, there will be a politician advocating it. For years, there was great money for Republicans to oppose Obama. There still is, though the strategy cost them in the 2012 elections. There's money in keeping an overinflated defense budget, but not as much money in government contracts to rebuild infrastructure. That's why we still have an incredibly large military and lagging infrastructure.

It has nothing to do with Obama. You could have put McCain or Kerry or Romney in the same position and very little would have changed, so long as there was a divided Congress and unlimited financial contributions. People like me know this. People like you probably know it as well, but that reality gets in the way of useless political attacks.

No, I want the privates sector job growth we saw under Reagan after a worse recession, 15 million

Sorry, but you have no concept as to the role of the govt. and the machine you are spouting about. You have no idea what would have happened with McCain, I do not believe McCain would have promoted class warfare and redistribution of wealth neither of which promotes the private sector. You buy what you are told and all that does is promote massive govt. growth, high debt, and higher debt service. Infrastructure spending is paid for everytime you fill up your car or buy petroleum products or cars. Obama promoted infrastructure spending then sent money for shovel ready jobs to bail out union contracts. That stimulus didn't work so what did he do, promoted Obamacare. Does that make sense to you
 
No, I want the privates sector job growth we saw under Reagan after a worse recession, 15 million
I want a smaller military payout, no wars and higher taxes. Different situations are different.

Sorry, but you have no concept as to the role of the govt.
But I do. You just won't accept it because you won't accept any narrative which doesn't paint the Democrat is a bad light. You're playing team politics.
 
Back
Top Bottom