• 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. Unemployment Falls to Lowest Level Since May 2008[W:489, 497]

Status
Not open for further replies.
But that was Carter's fault from his short four years.



Oh contraire--that would be on the DEM Congress that came in to start 2007, don'tchaknow ?

Where there was a republican issue, somewhere/sometime, there was a democrat to blame it on.
 
...
After 7 years of Bush there were 146 million working Americans, less than 4.5 trillion added to the debt, 4.5 trillion added to GDP, less than 500k discouraged workers, 4.6% unemployment rate so you tell me?

How many more jobs were they when Bush left office than when he took office? We have gained more jobs in the past six months under Obummer, than under all 8 years of Bush. For that matter, we have gained more jobs in the past two years of Obummer, than under all three Bush terms.

And yes, after 7 years of Bush, we were in our second recession, both which started on Bush's watch. Blame it on whoever you like, since you can't handle the truth.
 
Where there was a republican issue, somewhere/sometime, there was a democrat to blame it on.

If it was Reagan's amnesty, it was the DEM Congress.
If it was Clinton handing off the baton with a great lead, it was the GOP Congress.
If it was Iraq-2, it was DEMs like HRC and Kerry who voted YES due to lying and manipulated Cheney intel.
We need to change DP to RP: 'Rewrite Politics' . :mrgreen:
 
It was 62.2 when he got there and 58.6 (the third lowest in 50 years, the other two all within his terms) as of 2013.

How negative was that GDP in the 2nd half of 2008 ?
 
Where there was a republican issue, somewhere/sometime, there was a democrat to blame it on.

How do you explain the FACT that I grew up a Democrat, voted for Democrats for national office for about 20 years, and now realize that the party of Pelosi, Reid, and Obama don't represent the Democrat Party that I knew and supported?
 
.

that is your opinion, a recession began in March 2001 long before Bush economic policies were implemented...

And yet you blame the record 2009 fiscal year deficit, which started not only before most of Obummers policies were implemented, but before he even was elected, on Obummer. You don't see how that is hypocritical?
 
Last edited:
imagep;1064626270]How many more jobs were they when Bush left office than when he took office? We have gained more jobs in the past six months under Obummer, than under all 8 years of Bush. For that matter, we have gained more jobs in the past two years of Obummer, than under all three Bush terms.


About 6 million with most of the losses occurring in 2008. When Obama took office there were 142 million working Americans, when the
recession began there were 146 million. That number today is 147 million. I don't call that great economic performance. Why do you

And yes, after 7 years of Bush, we were in our second recession, both which started on Bush's watch. Blame it on whoever you like, since you can't handle the truth.

Waiting for the economic policies of Bush that created the March 2001 recession??
 
And yet you blame the record 2008 fiscal year deficit, which started not only before most of Obummers policies were implemented, but before he even was elected, on Obummer. You don't see how that is hypocritical?

No, I don't I blame the 2008 deficit on Bush, the problem is you don't even know when the 2008 deficit was created. Bush left office with 10.6 trillion debt, an unsigned 2009 budget that Obama signed knowing quite well that people like you would blame Bush for that deficit. Amazing how Bush created the 2009 deficit from October 1, 2008 to January 21, 2009. Got it, all the expenses but none of the revenue? Stimulus, Afghanistan supplemental, GM/Chrysler takeover, recycling of TARP repayment all under Obama and all ignored and blamed on Bush.
 
About 6 million with most of the losses occurring in 2008. When Obama took office there were 142 million working Americans, when the
recession began there were 146 million. That number today is 147 million. I don't call that great economic performance. Why do you

Because not only has Obummer recovered from all the jobs lost during Bush's last year, but also from the entire Great Bush Recession, AND THEN SOME.

But since you prefer to ignore Bush's recession job losses, let's just start counting the Obummer job gains from employment bottomed out.
 
And yet you blame the record 2008 fiscal year deficit,
which started not only before most of Obummers policies were implemented, but before he even was elected, on Obummer.

It's similar to McConnell taking credit for the largest job growth in 15 years, during 2014, before the GOP took over D.C.

You don't see how that is hypocritical?

For every Gruber, there are a dozen Cheney's telling us that "deficits don't matter", as per Reagan.

Though his questioning when 'each and every deficit actually began', so as to blame DEMs in every one of his posts, is a new rewrite of history on me.
 
Not to mention the tax revenue lost from those Bush job losses.
Surely those job losses didn't make deficits worse .

Because not only has Obummer recovered from all the jobs lost during Bush's last year, but also from the entire Great Bush Recession, AND THEN SOME.

But since you prefer to ignore Bush's recession job losses, let's just start counting the Obummer job gains from employment bottomed out.
 
Because not only has Obummer recovered from all the jobs lost during Bush's last year, but also from the entire Great Bush Recession, AND THEN SOME.

But since you prefer to ignore Bush's recession job losses, let's just start counting the Obummer job gains from employment bottomed out.

It took him 7 years to get back to the level of the recession at a cost of 8.2 trillion to the debt. Today there are still 17 million unemployed/under employed/discouraged plus marginally attached which of course doesn't resonate to you. What bothers me are the high numbers of discouraged, the huge number of part time employees. Seems the electorate got it this last election, when will you?
 
Not to mention the tax revenue lost from those Bush job losses.
Surely those job losses didn't make deficits worse .

Thought the stimulus was for shovel ready jobs to create new taxpayers. Ooops didn't happen, did it but then again you bought another Obama lie.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4p4-vPrcDBo

What is it about people like you that continues to buy the Obama rhetoric and believing in the Obama lies?
 
It's similar to McConnell taking credit for the largest job growth in 15 years, during 2014, before the GOP took over D.C.



For every Gruber, there are a dozen Cheney's telling us that "deficits don't matter", as per Reagan.

Though his questioning when 'each and every deficit actually began', so as to blame DEMs in every one of his posts, is a new rewrite of history on me.

Keep patting yourselves on the back for the Obama performance and enjoy the GOP takeover of Congress. Guess the electorate finally got it, when will you? What is it about liberalism that creates people like you, who want badly to believe what you are told but actually ignore data.
 
It took him 7 years to get back to the level of the recession at a cost of 8.2 trillion to the debt.

Reagan ran up three times more debt than every president before him COMBINED. So yea, if deficit spending is stimulative, then Obama has done a piss poor job compared to Reagan.

Today there are still 17 million unemployed/under employed/discouraged plus marginally attached which of course doesn't resonate to you.

Why should it? How many "unemployed/under employed/discouraged plus marginally attached" were their when Obama took office? Again, just raw numbers don't mean anything, unless we have something to compare them to. If someone told me that there were 17 thousand of those people, that might would sound like a lot, unless I knew that it's typically tens of millions.

Try this one, under Obama, the foodstamp roll grew by 14.2 million people. Sounds outragous, almost unbelievable, until we find out that it grew by 14.7 under Bush.
 
imagep;1064626384]Reagan ran up three times more debt than every president before him COMBINED. So yea, if deficit spending is stimulative, then Obama has done a piss poor job compared to Reagan.

Show me the spending in the Reagan stimulus? This has to be a game, you ought to know better

Why should it? How many "unemployed/under employed/discouraged plus marginally attached" were their when Obama took office? Again, just raw numbers don't mean anything, unless we have something to compare them to. If someone told me that there were 17 thousand of those people, that might would sound like a lot, unless I knew that it's typically tens of millions.

How many times do I have to post the numbers. You don't pay any attention to them. Where was Obama in 2006-2008?

Try this one, under Obama, the foodstamp roll grew by 14.2 million people. Sounds outragous, almost unbelievable, until we find out that it grew by 14.7 under Bush.

so let's ignore the unemployed, under employed, discouraged to focus on 500,000 increase in food stamps most of which are handled by the state and local governments.
 
There was no balanced budget

Yer correct, in the sense that it was never exactly balanced. Here are the numbers of SURPLUS, in billions of dollars:

FYnominalinflation-adjusted
199869.2100.6
1999125.6178.4
2000236.4325.2
2001127.3170.2

Here's a chart going back to 1970. The numbers are from OMB and published by the Fed.

fed_def_surp_1970_2014.jpg

>>any gains were PROJECTED gains

Well, there were projected gains, yes. Large ones. Chaingang and friends took care of that.
 
Of course there weren't any retirees during the Bush term

Rhetorical nonsense. The point is that baby boomers have been retiring in much larger numbers under Obama.

>>retirees are not included in discouraged workers

Of course I never said they are. You said:

explain to me why there hasn't been a similar growth in the labor force

That was what I quoted and that's what I responded to. Keep it up and I'll have to put you on the list with Fenton.

>>parents staying home to raise their kids never happened prior to Obama.

It's happening more now. This is getting very tedious.

>>What is it about liberalism that creates people like you who always make excuses for poor performance?

What is it about modern so-called conservatism that creates people like you who can't analyze their way out of a paper bag?

>>It would be much more mature just to admit that you are wrong and made a mistake in supporting Obama. The electorate got it finally in 2014. When will you?

It would be much more mature just to admit that Obama has done a good job cleaning up the mess created by eight years of failed policies. The electorate got it in 2012 and re-elected him by a wide margin. I don't see any hope for you.

Clinton never had a balanced budget and added 1.4 trillion to the debt so one would think with a balanced budget that debt wouldn't have increased.

That depends, as you know, on how debt is defined.

>>How many times do I have to post the Treasury links to prove that?

You will (completely arbitrarily) decide not to use the unified budget. Whatever it takes, no mater how biased and partisan.

>>It is amazing to me how a recession ended in June 2009 before Obama's economic policies went into effect and yet he is given credit for it.

Here again you are using definitions that fit yer argument as opposed to common sense. Luckily, the American people know better. The effects of the Great Recession went on for at least a year or two after GDP growth once again became positive. Federal revenues went down and federal expenditures went up. Obama is given credit because his policies brought the labor market back and cut the deficit substantially.

How do you explain the FACT that I grew up a Democrat, voted for Democrats for national office for about 20 years, and now realize that the party of Pelosi, Reid, and Obama don't represent the Democrat Party that I knew and supported?

Senility?

Keep patting yourselves on the back for the Obama performance and enjoy the GOP takeover of Congress.

We're not patting ourselves on the back. We're happy that the economy has recovered, that 12.3 million private-sector jobs have been added to payrolls over the past sixty-two months, that the deficit has been cut by two-thirds, and that seventeen million more Americans now have health insurance. Hence, two terms. Hope yer enjoying that.

>>What is it about liberalism that creates people like you, who want badly to believe what you are told but actually ignore data.

What is it about modern-day so-called conservatism that creates people like you, who want badly to believe what you are told but actually manipulate data?

Show me the spending in the Reagan stimulus?

$1.4 trillion in deficits. That's more than three trillion in inflation-adjusted dollars.

>>This has to be a game

You lose. Again.

"Chart: How The Clinton Surpluses Turned Into More Than $6 Trillion Worth Of Deficits," Business Insider, Jan 8, 2013

causesofdeficits.jpg

Q: During the Clinton administration was the federal budget balanced? Was the federal deficit erased?

A: Yes to both questions, whether you count Social Security or not. — "The Budget and Deficit Under Clinton," PolitiFact, Feb 11, 2008​

US-national-debt-GDP-graph.jpg
 
Last edited:
No. The number employed today is only slightly higher than it was in 2007. There ought to be 10 million more employed by now.

And there probably would have been, if it weren't for the Great Bush Recession in between then and now. Maybe you didn't notice.
 
Yer correct, in the sense that it was never exactly balanced. Here are the numbers of SURPLUS, in billions of dollars:

FYnominalinflation-adjusted
199869.2100.6
1999125.6178.4
2000236.4325.2
2001127.3170.2

Here's a chart going back to 1970. The numbers are from OMB and published by the Fed.

View attachment 67184373

>>any gains were PROJECTED gains

Well, there were projected gains, yes. Large ones. Chaingang and friends took care of that.

Wow, you people are amazing, we pay debt service on the actual budget, not projected surpluses. It is absolutely stunning how you railed against the lies and performance of Bush while ignoring the lies and performance of Obama. Obama said his stimulus would create shovel ready jobs but rather than doing that it created large numbers of people dropping out of the labor force while adding 8.2 trillion to the debt. When will you people stop proving Gruber right?
 
Rhetorical nonsense. The point is that baby boomers have been retiring in much larger numbers under Obama.

>>retirees are not included in discouraged workers

Of course I never said they are. You said:



That was what I quoted and that's what I responded to. Keep it up and I'll have to put you on the list with Fenton.

>>parents staying home to raise their kids never happened prior to Obama.

It's happening more now. This is getting very tedious.

>>What is it about liberalism that creates people like you who always make excuses for poor performance?

What is it about modern so-called conservatism that creates people like you who can't analyze their way out of a paper bag?

>>It would be much more mature just to admit that you are wrong and made a mistake in supporting Obama. The electorate got it finally in 2014. When will you?

It would be much more mature just to admit that Obama has done a good job cleaning up the mess created by eight years of failed policies. The electorate got it in 2012 and re-elected him by a wide margin. I don't see any hope for you.



That depends, as you know, on how debt is defined.

>>How many times do I have to post the Treasury links to prove that?

You will (completely arbitrarily) decide not to use the unified budget. Whatever it takes, no mater how biased and partisan.

>>It is amazing to me how a recession ended in June 2009 before Obama's economic policies went into effect and yet he is given credit for it.

Here again you are using definitions that fit yer argument as opposed to common sense. Luckily, the American people know better. The effects of the Great Recession went on for at least a year or two after GDP growth once again became positive. Federal revenues went down and federal expenditures went up. Obama is given credit because his policies brought the labor market back and cut the deficit substantially.



Senility?



We're not patting ourselves on the back. We're happy that the economy has recovered, that 12.3 million private-sector jobs have been added to payrolls over the past sixty-two months, that the deficit has been cut by two-thirds, and that seventeen million more Americans now have health insurance. Hence, two terms. Hope yer enjoying that.

>>What is it about liberalism that creates people like you, who want badly to believe what you are told but actually ignore data.

What is it about modern-day so-called conservatism that creates people like you, who want badly to believe what you are told but actually manipulate data?



$1.4 trillion in deficits. That's more than three trillion in inflation-adjusted dollars.

>>This has to be a game

You lose. Again.

"Chart: How The Clinton Surpluses Turned Into More Than $6 Trillion Worth Of Deficits," Business Insider, Jan 8, 2013

View attachment 67184375

Q: During the Clinton administration was the federal budget balanced? Was the federal deficit erased?

A: Yes to both questions, whether you count Social Security or not. — "The Budget and Deficit Under Clinton," PolitiFact, Feb 11, 2008​

View attachment 67184374

You wasted a lot of time posting this garbage again focusing on projected numbers. Don't recall 9/11 being projected and that cost 1 trillion dollars according to the GAO.

I posted the Treasury site that doesn't show a Clinton surplus but that is being ignored. Do you always ignore information from your bank because what you are dong is ignoring the information from the Bank of the U.S.?

Also, did you take an accounting course that taught you that keeping more of what you earn(tax cuts) is an expense to the govt? What accounting teacher taught you that? I keep hearing liberals claiming that the Bush tax cut cost the govt. Prove it with Treasury data?

You sound like a young kid focusing on some leftwing professors rhetoric. Inflation adjusted numbers mean absolutely nothing to the taxpayers nor the deficit or debt.
 
And there probably would have been, if it weren't for the Great Bush Recession in between then and now. Maybe you didn't notice.

Reagan took a worse recession and turned it into 17 million more jobs created than what he inherited. Obama hasn't even come close. For someone who supported Reagan you should have understood and known that.
 
we pay debt service on the actual budget, not projected surpluses.

Why would we pay "debt service" on any surpluses?

You should be more careful about the way you word things if you want to carry on this deception. You should say that "we pay debt service on the actual debt." And yes, when, e.g., the Treasury borrows money from the Social Security Trust Fund to cover budgeted spending, interest is paid on that borrowing. The Treasury pays interest to the Social Security Trust Fund — currently 3.8%, I believe. One part of the federal government pays interest to another part of the federal government. Sadly for you, even correctly worded deceptions don't carry any weight.

>>It is absolutely stunning how you railed against the lies and performance of Bush

So you agree that Bush43's administration lied and performed poorly.

>>Obama said his stimulus would create shovel ready jobs

12.3 million private-sector added in the last sixty-two months. And counting.

>>it created large numbers of people dropping out of the labor force

Demographic trends.

>>adding 8.2 trillion to the debt

The price of Bush43's failures.

You wasted a lot of time posting this

Didn't take long, and I don't consider it a waste. It would have been if I'd posted it in an effort to help you understand these issues. You either have no interest in that, or are incapable of it, or both. I posted it to refute the BS you spewed about economic policy and its effects over the past thirty-five years.

>>focusing on projected numbers

Where did I use any projected numbers?

>>Don't recall 9/11 being projected and that cost 1 trillion dollars according to the GAO.

If you add up the actual costs of the Chaingang Group's reaction to 9/11, the figure is much, much higher. And you might want to think about all the people who were killed or seriously wounded in Iraq as a consequence of that miserably inappropriate reaction. Hard to place a dollar figure on all that. And then there's the fact that those foreign policy wizards IGNORED EXPLICIT WARNINGS OF AN IMMINENT ATTACK. So in reality, it was very clearly "projected."

>>I posted the Treasury site that doesn't show a Clinton surplus but that is being ignored.

I explained why it should be dismissed. Surpluses and deficits relate to current budgets, not accumulating debt where the interest is paid TO the federal government.

>>Do you always ignore information from your bank because what you are dong is ignoring the information from the Bank of the U.S.?

No I'm not. Yer playing yer usual game of obfuscation. I ignore marketing assholes who tell me to invest my retirement savings in highly volatile commodities.

>>did you take an accounting course that taught you that keeping more of what you earn(tax cuts) is an expense to the govt?

Fwiw, I did study accounting in graduate school. But I knew going in that revenues are revenues. I knew that in the first grade. You might learn it someday.

>>Prove it with Treasury data?

Now that would be a waste of time. Only a complete idiot would think otherwise. No sense trying to inform people who suffer from that limitation.

>>You sound like a young kid focusing on some leftwing professors rhetoric.

You sound like what you are.

>>Inflation adjusted numbers mean absolutely nothing to the taxpayers nor the deficit or debt.

A concept that is over yer head, is it? I can sympathize. But if you don't adjust for inflation, you cannot meaningfully compare deficits from more than a few years apart. Stay with it. You may be able to handle this fairly simple concept at some point.
 
mmi;1064627171]Why would we pay "debt service" on any surpluses?

No one pays debt service on a surplus but debt service is in the debt and every year Clinton had a deficit and added 1.4 trillion to the debt. You are the one claiming Clinton had a surplus and Treasury does not show any surplus. You really ought to call them and ask to correct the issue. Deficits are made up of two parts, Public Debt and Intergovt. holdings. You want to buy the liberal rhetoric that public debt had a surplus when the reality is SS funds were taken from intergovt. holdings to come close to a surplus but still leaving a deficit in those holdings knowing that people like you would ignore it.


You should be more careful about the way you word things if you want to carry on this deception. You should say that "we pay debt service on the actual debt." And yes, when, e.g., the Treasury borrows money from the Social Security Trust Fund to cover budgeted spending, interest is paid on that borrowing. The Treasury pays interest to the Social Security Trust Fund — currently 3.8%, I believe. One part of the federal government pays interest to another part of the federal government. Sadly for you, even correctly worded deceptions don't carry any weight.

Where do you think the money comes from to pay for the interest on the SS funds being borrowed? You don't seem to have a clue as to what you are talking about so you claim I offer deceptions. All you have to do is post Treasury data supporting your claim and include intergovt. holdings.

It is absolutely stunning how you railed against the lies and performance of Bush

It has been almost 7 years left office, don't you think it is time to stop diverting from the Obama record?


So you agree that Bush43's administration lied and performed poorly.

Said no such thing, just quoted other liberals like you. There isn't a performance number from Bush that Obama has beaten.


>>Obama said his stimulus would create shovel ready jobs

12.3 million private-sector added in the last sixty-two months. And counting.

Prove it using BLS data? You can't so I expect an apology. You buy the leftwing lies. Obama inherited 143 million working Americans that is now 147 million so where are those 12.3 million jobs??
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom