Political Discussion thread

[Guest121613]

i am not faulting clinton, it was a good era. lots of growth in technology for american companies, companies were hiring, then he signed nafta. Ok why do unions think democrats help them when Clinton signed nafta

my issue, i can't help but to think obama wants to force equity by bringing the middle class down, not bring the middle class up.

The U.S. had 133,561,000 total jobs when Obama took office in January 2009. As of May, the BLS reported that the U.S. had 133,009,000 jobs. That is the net, not the chart to make obama look like he is doing something

[Doove]

Originally Posted by lostforkate

that chart is only the adds, not the losses

Originally Posted by lostforkate

also, the meager job creation charter has better correlation to a republican congress.

So when lying about the chart gets you nowhere, spin it!

[Doove]

Originally Posted by lostforkate

The U.S. had 133,561,000 total jobs when Obama took office in January 2009. As of May, the BLS reported that the U.S. had 133,009,000 jobs. That is the net, not the chart to make obama look like he is doing something

Things you ignore:

1)The time period from May to current.

2)The first 12 months of Obama's term. Hell, only people like GP would claim Obama can drastically control much or any of what happens in this gargantuan economy for the first 12 months.

And best of all....

3)The impact of public sector job losses. If instead of shedding jobs on a monthly basis, the public sector was adding jobs at the rate they were added during the Bush (and or Reagan) years, things would look a whole lot different. And again, isn't a shrinking public sector something you guys always run around screaming for? Then when you get it, you point the finger at Obama and say, because of it this guy sucks.

Talk about chutzpah.

Best part is, you asked about private sector and i gave it to you. Then when you hate the information i throw at you because it refutes what you want to believe, you then resort back to relying on the shrinking public sector that again, your side screams for, to attempt to make your point.

Make up your mind.

[drluv1]

Originally Posted by montana1958

ROTFLMAO


We can discuss what Clinton did was because the republicans forced welfare reform and budgetary cuts and how Democratic spending during the Bush years raised the deficit all day long. But in these two cases Clinton was credited with doing a great thing even though Republicans had a big part in his success and how Bush took all the blame for overspending. I know I know he signed off on everything with an actual budget so he was totally responsible for his weakness in not following conservative fiscal responsibility policy. And this has led to all the we can't go back to the Bush years rhetoric. It's all a bunch of crap. Obama said he created 5 million jobs.........Bulls@!&. Romney said he was going to create 14 million jobs...... bull@!& again. Other than hiring more IRS employees to make sure we all pay the Obama care taxes, gov't is not responsible for people getting hired. Economic recessions come and go. Look back in history and you will see a record of market corrections going way back. What happened in 2007 was a worldwide recession which affected our economy combined with a housing market correction in our country that caused all the economic ammo Democrats needed for Obama to win in 2008. But the reason for the recession it was argued was it happened because of W's overspending. His deficits were horrible but not the reason. Fast forward to 2009 and the Obama stimulus plan. I have argued that there was some spending put into our economy but the majority of spending went to unions and states to support unions pensions and their security. So these claims of Obama creating 5 million jobs. Again bull!s@&. I believe his stimulus plan did nothing substantial for this country. His hope for change was an economic recession rebound like had happened so many times before. Reagan, Clinton and sorry everyone even W. experienced this and why not for Obama. Limited Govt regulations help but more can and have stifled growth in the past and that is a major reason for our continued downturn during the last 4 years. A perfect example was after the hurricane that just hit NYC/New Jersey.The administration suspended several regulations to ease the hassles of delivering fuel and other clean-up activities. It just points out how Govt can get in the way of our existence. This country will come back despite the government roadblocks put in place. It may take longer now and we may see longer lines or poorer service due to less employees and you may see more people being forced to part time work vs full time but I for one believe in the free market model in this country. Jobs will return but it won’t be from anything our political leaders have done. I may not be in the 1 percent but I would sure love to be.

Nice little spin on history, some of it has validity. But i'll just interject a few points you overlooked.

Bush would sign anything, so long as it didn't threaten funding for the wars. Remember the special funding requests for continuation of the wars? Congress could add major pork and the pres would have to approve it or he wouldn't get funding for the wars. Dems were as guilty as reps. But bush's refusal to put it in the regular budget created this situation. Keeping it out of the regular budget meant his deficit numbers look better. As bush said, he didn't count the cost of the wars because the weren't an "ongoing expense". NOW THAT"S FUNNY
The world economy nearly collapsed in the fall of 2008, not only because of an over heated housing market and bad loan practices, because financial institutions created financial instruments so complex that nobody knew who own what. When the glass-steagall act was repealed in 1996, I don't think the intention was to raped american investors and taxpayers. Another case where deregulation hurt a lot more than it helped. The resulting loss of faith in the market caused the economy to crash much harder than if had just been a houseing bubble. All of this was the result of the economic stewardship of bush. Tax cuts and reckless spending gives you an economy on the brink of ruin. President obama stepped right into an economy hemmoraging jobs and gets blamed for the loss of 2 million jobs from feb of 2009 to june of 2009 that he had little to do with. What did obama do to cause the loss of all those jobs in early 2009? I know what bush did, spend recklessly, squandered a surplus and created a disaster for this and probably a future president or 2.
Things are getting better, they have steadily been getting better. When the crash first happened , economists predicted it would be at least 3 to 5 years before things were decent and towards the end of the decade before unemployment levels got back to the 4 to 5 % range. I'm not going to tell you I believe them 100%, as I know economics is an inexact science. I wish someone would have told reagan that. maybe then he wouldn't have set the country on a path of deficit spending as economic growth.

[drluv1]

Originally Posted by Doove

Things you ignore:

1)The time period from May to current.

2)The first 12 months of Obama's term. Hell, only people like GP would claim Obama can drastically control much or any of what happens in this gargantuan economy for the first 12 months.

And best of all....

3)The impact of public sector job losses. If instead of shedding jobs on a monthly basis, the public sector was adding jobs at the rate they were added during the Bush (and or Reagan) years, things would look a whole lot different. And again, isn't a shrinking public sector something you guys always run around screaming for? Then when you get it, you point the finger at Obama and say, because of it this guy sucks.

Talk about chutzpah.

Best part is, you asked about private sector and i gave it to you. Then when you hate the information i throw at you because it refutes what you want to believe, you then resort back to relying on the shrinking public sector that again, your side screams for, to attempt to make your point.

Make up your mind.

You are a very intelligent and valuable poster!!

[GP]

Originally Posted by Doove

Hell, only people like GP would claim Obama can drastically control much or any of what happens in this gargantuan economy for the first 12 months.

You think you know me so well again. Some day you might stop trying to put words in my mouth. Until then I will keep proving you wrong, since it is so easy to do.

I do not think any president has very much control over the economy. He is only a small factor in the big equation.

Originally Posted by drluv1

You are a very intelligent and valuable poster!!

LOL, after the comments he made. PUH-LEASE!

[Guest121613]

again, know anyone who has one these new jobs??? I don't anyone who has a better job now than they had four years ago. Oh wait, I do have a relative that has a better job, but they are 22 now and got a degree.

it is not getting better.

DOOVE, i don't hate the data, I just know that jobs declined. what it means is those that lost public sector jobs, they enough could not find real work, and probably drawing welfare now, and food stamps, and they might even have an obama phone.

500K jobs created to 133million, that is about a 0.4% increase. big woop

[Guest121613]

if your still blaming Reagan, i don't know what to tell ya, american industry started rebounding during the 80s, and clinton benefited from the long term gains

either way Obama won, and he is president, so be it

[cowboy8055]

Originally Posted by lostforkate

i am not faulting clinton, it was a good era. lots of growth in technology for american companies, companies were hiring, then he signed nafta. Ok why do unions think democrats help them when Clinton signed nafta

my issue, i can't help but to think obama wants to force equity by bringing the middle class down, not bring the middle class up.

The U.S. had 133,561,000 total jobs when Obama took office in January 2009. As of May, the BLS reported that the U.S. had 133,009,000 jobs. That is the net, not the chart to make obama look like he is doing something

I'm not a fan of Obama but I can't imagine he would deliberately bring down the middle class. That would be suicide for the dems. I think he wants equity by bringing the upper class down a bit.

[montana1958]

Originally Posted by GP

Sounds like he said she said. Who should we believe?

Wikipedia



Great discussion boys. We can all claim the other is rewriting history but lets see where we go during the next 4 years. My prediction is poor economic times for the next year and then the free market will take over despite this administrations efforts to regulate and redistribute.

Now it's time to send out an e-mail or text to see who is available to meet today. After all this is a hobby and is supposed to be fun.




.

[guest042413-2]

Originally Posted by SweetElizabeth

I would personally like to know people's thoughts about banning minimum wage as it is, and requiring a "living wage" be paid instead.

Vastly more unemployment would follow.

[SweetElizabeth]

Originally Posted by OccasionalStray

Vastly more unemployment would follow.

Okay, bread costs more when that happens.

Next inquiry:

How do we approach businesses like Wal Mart that rape our economy and leave tons of cement when they relocate 1 mile down the road? WHAT could we do to make sure we don't get screwed FINANCIALLY, yet allow for businesses to expand and make money?

I mean, we can't say I am sorry, I don't like you, and you can't make money in the US.

Everyone should be able to make as much money as they wish.

Consider this, though, we all pay taxes, and there is typically a government agency overseeing everything, from Code enforcement to OSHA and BEYOND.

So, how can we prepare to stop a monopoly and price demands from such companies as Wal Mart fairly?

I might add that air waves, telecommunications such as cable, internet, cell phones, ... , medical corporations, utility companies, cemeteries and crematories are some items I consider as dangerous as "Wal Mart"

I use Wal Mart loosely as a general example for discussion purposes. I will share that I do not like shopping there, I do not believe in supporting an evil entity, however, there have been times I have had no where else where I could possibly stop while on the road. A shame really.... .

[GP]

Why should there be any government intervention to determine how much someone earns? A free market system always balances itself out and people will earn the wages they deserve. If not, find another job.

[SweetElizabeth]

Gp if you are replying to my recent post:
I think companies should be held responsible for removing their cement. I didn't say a company or person should have a government limit how much one can earn. I said the exact opposite. I'm shocked that you don't have a more in depth reply to what I feel is a great topic..

[GP]

I am saying, why should there be a minimum wage or even a living wage? Why should the government have any say? Some jobs are not meant for people to make a living off of. What about students? There are many entry level jobs that they take while still living with Mom and Dad.