• 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!

Unemployment dips to 8.9 pct., 192K jobs added

So, in short you'd much rather continue to look backwards and find any and all ways to continue condemning the man, not once acknowledging the difficult situation he AND this country was in upon his inaguration, than to try and give him credit for taking steps to move this country out of its economic downturn which per the evidence from the OP and other like stories indicates that his actions are proving positive? Is that it?

You can dislike his policies all you want, but the evidence that his actions are bearing fruit is in the positive job growth numbers modest though they may be.

Without Obama and his subprime spending to nowhere.........

.........not one other job would have ever been created in this country.
.
.
.
.
 
there was a budget deficit. that means bush's budget planned on more expense than revenue. do you know how that works? clearly YOU can't admit when you are wrong. btw, i don't think bush WAS responsible for the entire deficit in 2009, just most of it, because his policies led us to our condtion in 2009.

Trying to weasel out of your comments. Obama stated he inherited a 1.3 trillion dollar deficit which is a lie. now you can continue to try to defend that and ignore reality or you can admit Obama did indeed lie. Guess you don't know what the budget deficit was or even what it was projected to be. There is a difference between budget deficit and actual deficit and since TARP, the Stimlus, and supplementals aren't part of the budget process they are over and above the budget deficits. Since they were over the budget deficit withouth them the budget deficit would have been significantly less than the actual deficit and the one Obama said he inherited. Obama relies on the lack of understand of his supporters to spread his lies. Stop buying them.
 
Obviously you don't know was a deficit is and that it is yearly not cummulative as that is the debt. GW Bush didn't create a 1.4 trillion dollar deficit in 3+ months of the fiscal year. There was no deficit when Obama took office, there was a projected deficit and that wasn't 1.4 trillion dollars. The 350 billion TARP money that Obama was left didn't have to be spent but much of it was, the 787 billion stimlus was created and that added to the deficit. How did those dollar amounts affect the deficit? Since Bush didn't spend them how is he responsible for the entire deficit?

That was true for one brief instant. Within less than a second, there was a deficit when Obama took office, and that deficit came from the previous administration. By the way, you do realize that the stimulus did grow the economy(as per your CBO link in another thread) ~ 3 %, which increased revenue and to an extent offset cost? I have no idea what that exact amount was, but it is worth pointing out. You love to post incomplete pictures.
 
Trying to weasel out of your comments. Obama stated he inherited a 1.3 trillion dollar deficit which is a lie. now you can continue to try to defend that and ignore reality or you can admit Obama did indeed lie. Guess you don't know what the budget deficit was or even what it was projected to be. There is a difference between budget deficit and actual deficit and since TARP, the Stimlus, and supplementals aren't part of the budget process they are over and above the budget deficits. Since they were over the budget deficit withouth them the budget deficit would have been significantly less than the actual deficit and the one Obama said he inherited. Obama relies on the lack of understand of his supporters to spread his lies. Stop buying them.

He inherited a projected 1.3 trillion deficit, which is not a lie.
 
oh boy......because obama had to spend on bush's war it's obama's fault?

So being the Commander in Chief that not grant Barry Obama the authority to direct the armed forces of the United States, and remove those forces at his direction? Or, to stop using the Patriot Act, instead of using it in almost a verbatim fashion? Or, keeping GITMO open in spite of the promise to close it within a year?
 
Last edited:
Redress;1059326605]Did the war come from Bush? Was there Bush war supplements? Did Bush choose not to put the war supplement in his budget? Then how can you blame Obama for the war supplement? The 2009 war supplement was a direct result of Bush's policy, but you still blame it on Obama.

Yes, Bush passed supplementals but Bush didn't designed the Afghanistan surge and that is the supplemental Obama proposed and signed in June 2009. I know this is hard for you to understand or probably even remember but we were attacked on 9/11 from Afghanistan. Obama called Afghanistan the "good war" but that isn't even the issue. Keep trying to divert from the Obama lie that he inherited a 1.3 trillion deficit.

To be complete and accurate, I did misspeak myself. I was thinking 2008, though the logic only changes, not the end result.


Almost an apology, that is a start.
 
here ya go: bush submitted his budget, which clearly wasn't nearly what was required to keep things moving. so yes, obama inherited the 2009 deficit. what do you suppose would have happened to our economy had obama not spent what what did?

.....300 million Americans would have layed down and died.


Unemployment Rate Since Obama's "Stimulus/Jobs Bill"
UnemploymentRate.gif



....all hail the almighty......our saviour....without Obama's spending it would have been worse....and when its worse....it would have been worser.
.
.
.
 
I'm sure you're seen the countless jobs reports that state employers (mostly in financial sectors, i.e., banks) have money to burn, but they're just sitting on it right now. And why?

you'd have to ask the thousands of individuals who are sitting on the trillions of dollars

but it might not be too far a reach to speculate that they are hesitating because of all the uncertainty clouding this economy---in obamacare, in the reg reform, in energy policy...

heck, this admin couldn't even come down on americans' precise 2012 relationship with the irs until almost new year's eve

resentment may also play a role

perhaps some of our uber rich feel they've been demonized and villified at every turn by this woebegone white house, which has in actuality done a whole lot more to protect and reward the fatcats and toobigs while doing almost nothing for the normal nates and nells while especially neglecting our african american neighbors and friends (ask the cbc)
 
He inherited a projected 1.3 trillion deficit, which is not a lie.

That isn't what Obama said. There was no projected 1.3 trillion dollar deficit until after TARP and the Obama stimulus.
 
And this doesn't count the people that they file under "no longer looking for work".

Curious question: How do they know who quit looking?

We the People were led to believe that if they threw 1.4 Trillion dollars at Wall St., Fannie and Freddie, General Electric, General Motors, The UNIONS.....etc., that MAIN ST. would not witness more than an 8% rate of unemployment....WHAT UP? Now, two years later we are BRAGGING about a 9% rate as being a good thing and on course for the plan..really? And, if a bullfrog had wings...yada, yada, yada, he would not bump his proverbial ass every time he jumped.
 
Last edited:
Yes, Bush passed supplementals but Bush didn't designed the Afghanistan surge and that is the supplemental Obama proposed and signed in June 2009. I know this is hard for you to understand or probably even remember but we were attacked on 9/11 from Afghanistan. Obama called Afghanistan the "good war" but that isn't even the issue. Keep trying to divert from the Obama lie that he inherited a 1.3 trillion deficit.

You keep showing only part of the picture. Most of the supplemental spending was not for the surge in Afghanistan. Most of it was going to have to be spent anyways as a result of Bush's policy. You could even argue that if Bush had kept Afghanistan as a priority, that the surge would not have been necessary, but that is impossible to prove either way.

Almost an apology, that is a start.

One of us is not afraid to admit when they say something wrong.
 
We the People were led to believe that if they threw 1.4 Trillion dollars at Wall St., Fannie and Freddie, General Electric, General Motors, The UNIONS.....etc., that MAIN ST. would not witness more than an 8% rate of unemployment....WHAT UP? Now, two years later we are BRAGGING about a 9% rate as being a good thing and on course for the plan..really? And, if a bullfrog had wings...yada, yada, yada, he would not bump his proverbial ass every time he jumped.

If you believed that, it is only because you did not actually pay attention to what was said. The word "projection" has meaning. In point of fact, the document the numbers came from made numerous references to the fact that the numbers where projections and could change, possibly significantly.
 
Redress;1059326638]You keep showing only part of the picture. Most of the supplemental spending was not for the surge in Afghanistan. Most of it was going to have to be spent anyways as a result of Bush's policy. You could even argue that if Bush had kept Afghanistan as a priority, that the surge would not have been necessary, but that is impossible to prove either way.

Sorry, but that simply isn't true, Afghanistan supplementals as I posted was for the surge authorized and proposed by Obama. Bush's policy? Bush's policy was Constitutional in that it requires the CIC to defend and protect this country. Afghanistan is where the attacks originated and almost 3000 Americans were killed. Whether or not it was Bush's war, it was Obama's surge and that contributed to the 2009 deficit.

You can speculate until hell freezes over and that won't change the Obama lie. He could have easily reduced the deficit by applying TARP repayment to the expense but didn't. He could have easily not proposed the 787 billion stimulus plan. "Your" President lied and you continue to defend him.


One of us is not afraid to admit when they say something wrong.[/QUOTE]
 
Technically correct. 1.3b is what the deficit would have been if Obama had done nothing. By the way, stimulus spending for 2009: 190m, or 0.19b. http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/106xx/doc10682/11-30-ARRA.pdf

The projection was before the Stimulus plan which was 787 billion dollars and was with TARP of which 350 billion was left for Obama but didn't have to be spent but was. None of the repayment ever hit the budget but instead was respent on other items. So, again Obama lied about inheriting a deficit when he helped create it.
 
Let me know when the employment numbers gets back to the level it was when Obama took office?

We are almost there now! :sun

U.S. unemployment lowest since April '09

"U.S. employers added 192,000 positions in February, as the national unemployment rate edged lower to 8.9 percent from 9 percent in January, according to data released Friday by the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics.

The 8.9 percent unemployment rate is the lowest level since April 2009.

Since February 2010, total U.S. payroll employment has risen by 1.3 million jobs.

Last month, manufacturing employment rose by 33,000. Construction employment also added 33,000 positions, following a loss of 22,000 jobs in January."


Read more: U.S. unemployment lowest since April '09 | The Business Journal
 
We are almost there now! :sun

U.S. unemployment lowest since April '09

"U.S. employers added 192,000 positions in February, as the national unemployment rate edged lower to 8.9 percent from 9 percent in January, according to data released Friday by the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics.

The 8.9 percent unemployment rate is the lowest level since April 2009.

Since February 2010, total U.S. payroll employment has risen by 1.3 million jobs.

Last month, manufacturing employment rose by 33,000. Construction employment also added 33,000 positions, following a loss of 22,000 jobs in January."


Read more: U.S. unemployment lowest since April '09 | The Business Journal

Congratulations, it only took 3.5 trillion added to the debt to get "close" but your definition of close means 2 million less employed than when Obama took office. Liberals have such low standards. Seems you confuse employment with unemployment and one month does not a year make. We aren't even close yet
 
Congratulations, it only took 3.5 trillion added to the debt to get "close" but your definition of close means 2 million less employed than when Obama took office. Liberals have such low standards. Seems you confuse employment with unemployment and one month does not a year make. We aren't even close yet

We are not still sliding towards a another great depression as we were under Bush. That is far more than I expected could be accomplished in just 2 years by a moderate to right president! And our money spent was on infrastructure needs have had been ignored, as well as investment in alternative energy and nuclear power. :sun
 
We are not still sliding towards a another great depression as we were under Bush. That is far more than I expected could be accomplished in just 2 years by a moderate to right president! And our money spent was on infrastructure needs have had been ignored, as well as investment in alternative energy and nuclear power. :sun

LOL, continuing to buy the Obama lies, I see. Economists say TARP prevented that and TARP was Bush's. I didn't agree with TARP however.

Money was spent on infrastructure? Then why is he asking for more? the govt. doesn't invest in anything, they spend money.
 
LOL, continuing to buy the Obama lies, I see. Economists say TARP prevented that and TARP was Bush's. I didn't agree with TARP however.

Money was spent on infrastructure? Then why is he asking for more? the govt. doesn't invest in anything, they spend money.

So you place zero value to our country on our infrastructure? You are not making sense.
 
The numbers will be very flexible in the next few days I'm sure. In light of the current situation, anything reported as "news" is suspicious to me. I like to find it out for myself.

For all the partisans here, this is a summation. Bush messed things up with two poorly prosecuted wars and not being aggressive with Congress about Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae. Obama messed it up too and one could say more, due to the staggering amount, with the bailouts and stimulus which was paying back all his political favors.

So it's a wash. Both guys are pretty lousy statesmen.
 
this is a marginally better jobs report, it's about time, it does a tiny better than keep up with population growth, it will take forever to grow out at this rate

we need a WHOLE LOT more

and faster than fast, we need it YESTERDAY

because of ALL WE'VE BEEN THRU

IN TIMES LIKE THESE

we are still facing STRUCTURAL infirmities that are SEISMIC

housing, #1---it's STILL no basement in sight, millions more foreclosures inevitable, fannie and freddie are gonna cost the better part of a HALF TRILLION DOLLARS

words like that, "half trillion dollars," are NOT abstractions

they are not really SUBJECT to DEBATE

they are CANCER and HIV and DIABETES and EXTREME OLD AGE all at the same time

and EVERYBODY knows it

still YOU debate---it's LAUGHABLY unserious

GET SOBER---our housing which brought us all here is fractured, we cannot REALLY recover til we turn it

and PROPERTY TAXES upon which our sadsack, swooning STATES are all utterly DEPENDENT are CAVED IN

as you know

MEDICAID is already NOW another CRISIS for our new yorks, californias, illinois's, wisconsins, jerseys, indianas, ohios...

as you know

our FED has "pumped," ie, it's OBLIGATED our TWO POINT SEVEN TRILLION dollars of public TRUST in total CRAP---treasuries and mortgage backed securities---all, astonishingly, UNDIVERSIFIED

yes, you KNOW what that means

our MUNI MARKETS, upon which the STATES like addicts MUST finance all this DEBT...

as you know

our STATES, according to the financial times of london, still the most prestigious publication economic on earth, face a full TWO POINT FIVE TRILLION DOLLARS of public pension shortfall ALONE

ie, this is only PUBLIC pensions, we're talkin

these are only at the STATE level, we're talkin

ie, the ENTIRETY is proportionally WORSE

the NEW YORK TIMES reported a year ago that service on the debt, MERE INTEREST ALONE, will soon approach ONE TRILLION DOLLARS per year---and NOTHING has been done to forestall

OBAMACARE depends on more than THREE QUARTERS OF A TRILLION DOLLARS of new revenues---says the C-B-O

OIL is about to explode, FOOD already has, especially internationally, the un and the world bank have been talking "crisis"

the G-A-O on tuesday of THIS WEEK released an audit showing a full HALF TRILLION DOLLARS of waste---pfft---in govt spending, MOST OF IT IN THE LAST TWO YEARS

and our president PUNTS away these burdens like RAY GUY

his preposterous budget which is D-O-A---as you know---recommends a RAISING of our current DEFICIT by a brazen, wanton THIRTY PERCENT

its OUTYEARS are screaming with strain, the interest rates, the gdp's

as you know

ever since his destitute sotu he's gone wtf HIMSELF on his win-the-future, his stimulus-not-stimulus, his "innovation" and "investment"

that's no spin, wynn

it's WHERE WE ARE

a slightly better jobs report and HELL to pay

stay up
 
So you place zero value to our country on our infrastructure? You are not making sense.

I place a lot of value on infrastructure and understand that it is paid for by excise taxes collected when you buy gasoline and/or diesel. You don't seem to have a clue on this or any other issue.
 
Back
Top Bottom