• 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.
I think we need fewer poor people. I figure an upper-middle-class lifestyle is just fine. Perhaps I'm not ambitious enough.

More rich people means fewer poor people. That is why capitalism is so great...it creates opportunities for people who would otherwise have nothing.
 
Why wouldnt I want more people to be rich? I think we need MORE rich people, not fewer.

Again, your point was that you want greater numbers of higher paying wage jobs in the macro, I have shown over and over, you don't get there with more SB's.
 
I can't think of a better reason to continue to post that way. But don't let me discourage you from posting in response to me. Another thing I can't think of … is someone more easily defeated in a debate. Not because you disagree with me. I'm sure there are many valid ways to counter my arguments. You just do a really lousy job of it. Yer too busy slamming me as a "blind liberal" who "can't do any research." I "need to grow up." I won't say that I don't descend to that level of worthless comment. But I'm confident that I don't start it.

Tell me WHY Obama should be held responsible for the job losses in 2009. WHY should the money in government retirement accounts not be used to purchase Treasury bonds? WHY is Obama responsible for the big increase in the national debt when federal spending has been growing so slowly by historical standards?

View attachment 67184389

Because there you go again, percentage change. do you understand the role denominator and numerator play in determining percentage change? Reagan's last budget was a trillion dollars and took GDP from 2.8 trillion to 5.6 trillion. Obama has taken GDP from 14.4 trillion to 17.2 trillion which one has the higher percentage increase?

You think Obama is a deficit hawk proposing a 3.9 trillion dollar budget?

You are indeed a legend in your own mind, thinking you won the debate when BLS, BEA, and Treasury make you look foolish
 
I think we need fewer poor people. I figure an upper-middle-class lifestyle is just fine. Perhaps I'm not ambitious enough.

With fewer poor people there is less need for liberal politicians to create dependence. Liberal politicians have a job for life giving people "things" and apparently that is ok with you
 
More rich people means fewer poor people. That is why capitalism is so great...it creates opportunities for people who would otherwise have nothing.
That is not the trend, we have more wealth being concentrated into the hands of the top 1%, lower levels of wealth for the majority. You are arguing out of both sides of your mouth when you say you do not like all these low wage jobs while you argue for a few to get much wealthier.
 
Because there you go again, percentage change. do you understand the role denominator and numerator play in determining percentage change? Reagan's last budget was a trillion dollars and took GDP from 2.8 trillion to 5.6 trillion. Obama has taken GDP from 14.4 trillion to 17.2 trillion which one has the higher percentage increase?

You think Obama is a deficit hawk proposing a 3.9 trillion dollar budget?

You are indeed a legend in your own mind, thinking you won the debate when BLS, BEA, and Treasury make you look foolish

LOL Con....you love to try to spout BLS, BEA....but repeatedly you have been shown the BLS/BEA numbers that don't support your positions...and when you are shown this your response is always the same....shuffle off and hide.
 
With fewer poor people there is less need for liberal politicians to create dependence. Liberal politicians have a job for life giving people "things" and apparently that is ok with you
This is just so stupid, it is the "soup kitchens create depressions" argument. Cutting social services will not cause job creation. "dependence" is created by destroying good wage employment. If you want fewer poor, support job creation, not neoliberal/supply-side job destruction.
 
LOL Con....you love to try to spout BLS, BEA....but repeatedly you have been shown the BLS/BEA numbers that don't support your positions...and when you are shown this your response is always the same....shuffle off and hide.

Feel free to post those numbers because you have never done so. The one hiding is always you when confused by data and facts. I have posted the BLS charts which of course you ignored. I post Treasury data which you ignore, I post BEA.gov data which you ignore. The one that runs is you. Don't blame you because being in California anything that refutes your comments has to be false.
 
This is just so stupid, it is the "soup kitchens create depressions" argument. Cutting social services will not cause job creation. "dependence" is created by destroying good wage employment. If you want fewer poor, support job creation, not neoliberal/supply-side job destruction.

Holding people accountable and people accepting personal responsibility will create jobs. How many people do you employ? Why don't you do something about it by creating a business that actually helps people
 
This is just so stupid, it is the "soup kitchens create depressions" argument. Cutting social services will not cause job creation. "dependence" is created by destroying good wage employment. If you want fewer poor, support job creation, not neoliberal/supply-side job destruction.

The more frequently a poster uses the words "liberal" or "leftist" in a given post, the greater the chance of said poster being completely full of ****.
 
That is not the trend, we have more wealth being concentrated into the hands of the top 1%, lower levels of wealth for the majority. You are arguing out of both sides of your mouth when you say you do not like all these low wage jobs while you argue for a few to get much wealthier.

So why wouldnt you want more poor/middle class people to open businesses and become rich?
 
The more frequently a poster uses the words "liberal" or "leftist" in a given post, the greater the chance of said poster being completely full of ****.

Aw, yes, now the thread is complete as we have the same liberal hacks here promoting their ideology and bashing anything including actual results that destroy it. What is it about liberalism that creates this kind of loyalty? Same people over and over again promoting the same failed economic policies and results. Guess some people will never change or learn.
 
Feel free to post those numbers because you have never done so. The one hiding is always you when confused by data and facts. I have posted the BLS charts which of course you ignored. I post Treasury data which you ignore, I post BEA.gov data which you ignore. The one that runs is you. Don't blame you because being in California anything that refutes your comments has to be false.

Why.....so you can run off and hide again? You have REPEATEDLY been shown the numbers but you choose to spin and shuffle rather than address the issue. Typical of your M.O.

Here's an easy to comprehend chart for you:






bls.jpg

Oh yeah....notice the source? BLS
 
Last edited:
Holding people accountable and people accepting personal responsibility will create jobs. How many people do you employ? Why don't you do something about it by creating a business that actually helps people
I just got through destroying this "small business" meme, and I know you read it, it was admitted that it is done to enrich the owner. And, instead of trying to defend this old, worn out, BS argument about "Dems create dependency" (from a former "states rights" Dem himself, no less!!!) you instead decide to restart a dead argument. I don't have the capital to hire, it was wiped out by the Bush Recession.
 
Why.....so you can run off and hide again? You have REPEATEDLY been shown the numbers but you choose to spin and shuffle rather than address the issue. Typical of your M.O.

Here's an easy to comprehend chart for you:






View attachment 67184390

And what exactly does that tell you? You think that TX leading the nation in job creation benefited from the Obama economy? you have no idea what the charts show but because you think they make your point you post them. Here are the numbers that matter

December 2007 there were 146 million working Americans and today that is 148 million

When Obama took office and passed his stimulus to create shovel ready jobs there were 142 million working Americans, today that is 148 million

In January 2001 the debt was 10.6 trillion and today it is 18.2 trillion. Are those the result you want to tout?
 
More recent account:

fredgraph.png
 
So why wouldnt you want more poor/middle class people to open businesses and become rich?
If the goal was for the creation of larger numbers of higher paying WAGE employment........why do you insist on going in circles? I'm not arguing for greater concentrations of wealth in fewer hands, you are, by your own admission. Again, you are arguing out of both sides of your mouth, contradicting yourself. You don't lament the large numbers of low wage jobs, you want it by arguing for wealthier owners.

Further, the poor cannot create jobs, since they are capital poor....durr.
 
Last edited:
More recent account:

fredgraph.png

Awesome, so we are back to 200-07 numbers when we had 52 straight months of strong job creation. Bush added 4.9 trillion to the debt and to date Obama has added 7.6 trillion. Is that the kind of return on investment that people like you think is good?

Let me know why the labor force hasn't kept up with population growth and why there are still so many part time employees and discouraged workers with such a strong Obama economy?
 
December 2007 there were 146 million working Americans and today that is 148 million

You fail to account for the 9 million jobs lost during the recession. Why do you chose to ignore this fact?

When Obama took office and passed his stimulus to create shovel ready jobs there were 142 million working Americans, today that is 148 million

The labor market did not reach it's bottom. Since 2010, more than 12 million jobs have been created; this is a fact that you cannot deny.

In January 2001 the debt was 10.6 trillion and today it is 18.2 trillion. Are those the result you want to tout?

You have your years mixed up.
 
Guess Texans disagreed as Obama lost the state by 3 million votes and just elected another Republican governor with 60% of the vote.
Texas benefiting from improving national economic conditions is not dependent upon who Texans casts a vote for....unless you have some BLS data linking those unrelated data sets. Obama won in spite of your fellow idiots.
 
You fail to account for the 9 million jobs lost during the recession. Why do you chose to ignore this fact?



The labor market did not reach it's bottom. Since 2010, more than 12 million jobs have been created; this is a fact that you cannot deny.



You have your years mixed up.

You seem to ignore the shovel ready job stimulus program and the reality that yes we have recovered those jobs but not grown at all keeping up with population growth. In addition still waiting for you and others to address the full time part time workers because of economic conditions and the high number of discouraged workers

My numbers come from the Treasury dept. Prove them wrong

Debt to the Penny (Daily History Search Application)
 
And what exactly does that tell you? You think that TX leading the nation in job creation benefited from the Obama economy? you have no idea what the charts show but because you think they make your point you post them. Here are the numbers that matter

December 2007 there were 146 million working Americans and today that is 148 million

When Obama took office and passed his stimulus to create shovel ready jobs there were 142 million working Americans, today that is 148 million

In January 2001 the debt was 10.6 trillion and today it is 18.2 trillion. Are those the result you want to tout?


You distort the numbers the same way you distort the Texas record. Lead the nation is job creation....What you didn't say is lead the nation is minimum wage job creation by handing out billions in corporate welfare while Texas health care and education are at the bottom of the country. Not so sure that is a record to be proud of Con.

Only in your world is losing hundreds of thousands of jobs better than net job gain. You worship GWB who is known as the Herbert Hoover of the 21st century (for good reason).

Sorry Con....but I'll let the numbers speak for themselves. Hint: They are not on your side. Doh!
 
Let me know why the labor force hasn't kept up with population growth and why there are still so many part time employees and discouraged workers with such a strong Obama economy?

Advanced economies entered a period of secular stagnation at the turn of the century, as automation began replacing labor. A housing bubble masked the symptoms for a time.

Secular stagnation:

Secular stagnation is a condition of negligible or no economic growth in a market-based economy. When per capita income stays at relatively high levels, the percentage of savings is likely to start exceeding the percentage of longer-term investments in, for example, infrastructure and education, that are necessary to sustain future economic growth. The absence of such investments (and consequently of the economic growth) leads to declining levels of per capita income (and consequently of per capita savings). With the reduced percentage savings rate converging with the reduced investment rate, economic growth comes to a standstill – ie, it stagnates. In a free economy, consumers anticipating secular stagnation, might transfer their savings to more attractive-looking foreign countries. This would lead to a devaluation of their domestic currency, which would potentially boost their exports, assuming that the country did have goods or services that could be exported.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom