• 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.
tres borrachos said:
It has nothing to do with hate. I don't hate Obama.
Click to expand...

Your own words suggest otherwise

tres borrachos said:
You keep defending the indefensible liar. "Bit disingenuous". I love that. Gotta hand it to you - your attempts at covering up his lies are a sight to behold. Pure blind partisanship all the way.

I will keep pointing out his lies. And unlike Obama, I never lied. I said what he said, and I proved my points with numerous links.

Face it. You lost this one. Badly, I might add. But at least your cluelessness was on full display.
Click to expand...

tres borrachos said:
So Obama's not a liar. He's just an incompetent, naive, "misleader" who will concurrently increase taxes while increasing spending.

I feel much much better now.
Click to expand...

tres borrachos said:
Obama had no real world experience before he became the most powerful man in the world. Do you really think he understands the difference between a debit and a credit?

He's an incompetent boob and he was caught here.
Click to expand...

tres borrachos said:
No, he's not stupid. He's a narcisstic, self-absorbed phony, but I actually think he's rather smart. That would explain how he managed to go from utter obscurity to where he is now with no qualifications to do so.
Click to expand...
 
CanadaJohn said:
So, your blatant bromance with Obama in your OP was just blowing wind. So what are we supposed to be conceding here? That Obama's winning smile has been good for the economy? That Obama's ability to carry a Motown tune has been good for the economy? That liberals getting a tingle up their leg when Obama enters a room has been good for the economy? Or maybe that the number of separate vacations the first family takes has boosted tourism employment?

So come on, rip off your Obama-girl t-shirt, your Yes we Can shorty shorts, and tell us just what it is we are conceding as your hero's contribution to the economy.
Click to expand...

Economic policy of Barack Obama - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 
Tettsuo said:
Can someone in the right please concede that Obama is, and has been, GOOD for the economy?
Click to expand...

Tettsuo said:
No president can take direct credit for decreasing unemployment unless it's the government doing the hiring. So these questions asking me for specific legislation that leads to an increase in hiring are in and of themselves nonsensical.
Click to expand...

You're the one who made the connection to the President, not us...
 
Tettsuo said:
There seems to be a pattern forming here. But of course, the naysayers are going to deride this good news as well.

U.S. Unemployment Falls to Lowest Level Since May 2008 - Bloomberg Business

[/FONT][/COLOR]
Can someone in the right please concede that Obama is, and has been, GOOD for the economy?
Click to expand...

Kushinator said:
He refused to embrace Republican economic policies that would see to reducing government spending in the wake of a once in a generation financial crisis. If he were to have followed that path, the U.S. economy would have undoubtedly fallen into a double dip.
Click to expand...

When and how???
 
Chomsky said:
This is because America is a consumer economy, and the consumers have been restrained through low/under employment and low wages & wage growth (though these factors appear to be slowly improving).

Corporations don't use money to create jobs - they create jobs in response to consumer demand.

The corps are sitting on money because there's no demand for it to be used elsewhere.
Click to expand...

Any business that waits for demand is doomed to failure. Businesses anticipate demand and take steps to create or enhance it are the successful ones. Those that wait are the ones who come into the market too late and end up being the Commodore 64s of the business world.
 
CanadaJohn said:
Perhaps the optimism was generate by the voters themselves, in November 2014, finally drumming the Democrats out of leadership of both Houses of Congress and perhaps soon the White House.
Click to expand...

Nice try but Congress has a approval rating of 16% vs. Obama's 48% so that is a fail. Besides according to Republicans, business optimism comes from the President. Did they lie about that?
On a side note...I am quite optimistic about Alberta. I think they will lead the way to a cleaner and more environmentally responsible Canada.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/other/congressional_job_approval-903.html
 
Last edited:
faithful_servant said:
Easy... Democrats. The more unemployed, the more people on welfare who vote overwhelmingly Democrat.
Click to expand...

Are you denying that there is less job growth under Republican administrations? That is absolutely true. Low unemployment tends to push up wages and that is not a Republican goal EVER.

jobs-created-per-year.jpg
 
tres borrachos said:
If they had all done nothing, the economy would be in worse shape. Great. I agree.

Now what does that have to do with specific policies that were implemented by Barack Obama that are responsible for creating private sector jobs and lowering the unemployment rate?
Click to expand...
I've answered your question. If you can't be bothered to read it, that's not my problem.
 
tres borrachos said:
Source, please? And when you say the wealthy, I assume you're including all of the wealthy Democrats, too...right?
Click to expand...

Source? Basic economics 101 dude. And yes....that would include wealthy Democrats as well.
 
faithful_servant said:
Easy... Democrats. The more unemployed, the more people on welfare who vote overwhelmingly Democrat.
Click to expand...

Nonsense. Most people would rather be working for a living rather than be on welfae.
 
iguanaman said:
Nice try but Congress has a approval rating of 16% vs. Obama's 48% so that is a fail. Besides according to Republicans, business optimism comes from the President. Did they lie about that?
On a side note...I am quite optimistic about Alberta. I think they will lead the way to a cleaner and more environmentally responsible Canada.

RealClearPolitics - Election Other - Congressional Job Approval
Click to expand...

Well, when the Democrats were in charge of Congress, their approval rating hovered between 14% and 15% - for the majority of this year, since the Republicans took control of the Senate, that approval number has been 18% for the most part - a 20% to 25% increase in the approval rating isn't bad for 4-5 months.

As for the NDP winning in Alberta - that's not terribly surprising considering the corruption and mismanagement of the Progressive Conservatives in Alberta the past several years - the former Premier was forced to resign in disgrace and the Premier who was just defeated raised taxes and fees as well as budgeted a $5 billion deficit, the first deficit the Province has had in decades. I hate to say it, but the Conservatives deserved to be slaughtered. But, it's important to note that in Alberta there are currently two conservative parties - one, you might call Tea Party-esq. Between those two, they got 52% of the vote, but in our first past the poll election format, many NDP candidates picked up sufficient votes to outnumber the highest of the conservative candidates' votes. We'll have to see what happens. Curiously, the markets in both Canada and the US dove on Wednesday, following the election, largely based on the NDP's stance both in Canada and as the largest exporter of oil to the US. The new Premier was forced to come out and try to quell the markets by saying good things about what effects her election will have on the oil patch. She'll have a hard time controlling her socialist flank and doing what's best for the Province. I'm guessing, in about 2 years on the outside, Alberta voters will be chomping to get a chance to turf her out.
 
A lower unemployment rate is good, a lower unemployment rate even with those who are no longer looking for work is even better, an economy where the public feels like they have recovered is best of all.

We are still at step 1.
 
I'm simply astounded as to how from this:

Fenton said:
Corporations are hoarding Trillions and using large percentages of their profits to buy back shares and Banks are chosing to earn nothing on Trillions of dollars in excess reserves instead of investing it back into the economy.
Click to expand...

Chomsky said:
This is because America is a consumer economy, and the consumers have been restrained through low/under employment and low wages & wage growth (though these factors appear to be slowly improving).

Corporations don't use money to create jobs - they create jobs in response to consumer demand.

The corps are sitting on money because there's no demand for it to be used elsewhere.
Click to expand...
You got this:

Fenton said:
LOL !

Soo we just need the Government to mandate arbitrary cost increases and a " living wage " and all is good, huh ?

The Corporations and the " Rich " are just going to go along with it because God knows there's NO other investment opportunities anywhere else in the world.......Lol

They're hoarding capital because the US economy is too risky of a investment under this President. They're hoarding Capital because they're responding to foolish AND current economy killing legislation and tax increases.

Really, whats wrong with you people ?

You don't incentivize new investment with threats of mandated cost increases based on insubstantial left wing talking points.

You don't incentivize new investment by demonizing Investors and job creators and you damn sure don't incentivize new investment by debasing and borrowing and spending.

When will you people ever learn that the " Rich " and investors and Corporations will ALWAYS have options that include investing in overseas markets and simply siting on their Capital.

When France's Hollande ( dip**** Socialist ) raised taxes on the " rich " outside investment into Frances economy dropped 77 percent the following year and the " Rich " simply moved.

Simple minded left wing initiatives that raise taxes and mandate arbitrary cost increases CAUSE disparity, not fix it.
Click to expand...
 
iguanaman said:
Are you denying that there is less job growth under Republican administrations? That is absolutely true. Low unemployment tends to push up wages and that is not a Republican goal EVER.

jobs-created-per-year.jpg
Click to expand...

That's a nice graph, but can you point to the specific policies instituted by the democrats that led to such job creation?
 
ludin said:
history revisionism won't help you. Obama has done nothing to help the economy and in fact most business say they are not expanding or hiring because of Obama and the policies of the left.

Umm no the banking crisis was due to the liberal mindset that banks should lend money to people that can't afford the loan. it was expanded under Clinton, and when bush attempted and republican in congress attempted to get Freddie and fannie under control chris dodd and barney frank both stopped them from doing it.

other liberals went on their typical rant of how republicans hate poor people nonsense. so chris dodd and barney frank are the largest two people responsible for the recession.

yes we would it beats the mediocrity and stagnation that we have lived with under Obama.
Click to expand...
You know,

I had to double check the record, but my memory was right - for the entire 8 years of the Bush presidency the GOP completely controlled both branches of government, including both the house & senate. There was majority control of both chambers for 6 out of 8 of those years, and a two year period where the house was in majority GOP control and the senate floor was evenly split - but the senate still stayed in GOP control due the the GOP VP tie-breaking vote.

Source: Composition of Congress, by Political Party, 1855–2017

To blame the Bush recession on a minority party seems ... a bit of ... a reach.

So now the GOP recession is due to (as you state) their having 'a liberal mindset'?

You gotta' be kidding!
 
LagerHead said:
If by "well-regulated" you mean as little as possible, then I agree wholeheartedly. But what many people ignore is the source and main beneficiaries of much of the regulation forced on business, namely big business. Big business tells Congress or their state/local governments that regulation is important to protect the safety of customers and integrity of business. That's how we end up with medallions for taxi cabs costing hundreds of thousands of dollars, license requirements to teach someone how to braid hair or give a horse a massage, regulations forbidding having employees if you run a home business, or price-fixing schemes for limousine companies. These are just a few real-world examples off the top of my head that were passed in the name of protecting the customer, but in reality only protect the incumbent businesses. For every example I can think of, there are a thousand that I missed.
Click to expand...
Correct.

I couldn't have said it better.
 
faithful_servant said:
Any business that waits for demand is doomed to failure. Businesses anticipate demand and take steps to create or enhance it are the successful ones. Those that wait are the ones who come into the market too late and end up being the Commodore 64s of the business world.
Click to expand...
I'm in full agreement - in the micro or specific instance sense.

I was referring to the macro effects in my post you've quoted.
 
Fletch said:
That's a nice graph, but can you point to the specific policies instituted by the democrats that led to such job creation?
Click to expand...

The same ones Romney promised were most important. Obama gave corporate America confidence in the economy and in the future. What else can a President do? You can add defeating the anti-growth policies of the opposition and not caving when he was in the right too. Of course the Republicans made it easier since they flat out refused to deal with the President choosing instead a policy of NO. In his 2nd term Obama has even found a way to deal with that.
 
Last edited:
I really never thought it was possible that there would be enough people in this country that would suspend their intelligence and critical thinking in order to swallow whatever BS Obama served them. How long does he have to have you bent over a table before you realize what's happening?
 
Layoffs hit 3-year high in April as energy cuts surge: Challenger

'Layoffs surged in April to the highest level in three years as energy sector employers announced a fresh wave of job cuts.

U.S.-based companies said they would let go 61,582 workers last month, the most since May 2012, according to a report by global outsourcing firm Challenger, Gray & Christmas.'

Layoffs hit 3-year high in April as energy cuts surge: Challenger
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom