• 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!

New jobless claims up sharply as layoffs persist

apdst said:
Which makes me wonder why it's suddenly ok to kill of the oil and gas industry, plus the spin off jobs. Things that make you go, hmm!
Click to expand...

Well

When you have a massive oil spill that is shutting down the fishing industry, and the tourist industry over a few states, perhaps putting a hold on more drilling untill a review of the drilling regulations is completed to ensure a repeat of the problem does not occur might not be a bad thing.

Besides the oil and gas industry is not being killed it is going strong in ND over the Bakken oil field and in NY, Pen for shale gas. Only in the area that is currently seeing a massive enviromental problem has it been put on hold

Things that make you go hmmm, what was he smoking
 
TurtleDude said:
wait til the dems let the clinton tax hikes hit the people who create jobs. It won't hurt the dembats in 2010 but 2012 is going to be alot of fun for the party of tax hikes and income redistribution
Click to expand...

The Clinton tax hikes? Pray tell. Clinton has been out of office for 10 years.
 
ptif219 said:
There is no proof it helped. It did 2 things. Tripled the debt and expanded government. Obama did not learn from the failed policies of the great depression
Click to expand...

Tripled the debt? He inherited a debt of $10 trillion. Last time I checked it was not at $30 trillion.

Please explain how we did exit the great depression...
 
ptif219 said:
It did nothing for jobs or to improve the economy. Unemployment continues to increase
Click to expand...

LOL.

"Okay, I fully realize you are going to, as usual, run away from hard questions, but here are some for others to laugh at you on when you flee:"

And what do you do? Run away from hard questions.

When asked to actually back up your arguments with relevant questions, you just keep going on the vague it didn't help despite obvious points it did.

I can start getting really mean and showing everyone just how little you know. So how about you save yourself some grief and start answering?
 

Yawn.

Talk about running and hiding.

JFK stated the realities clearly. In recent history Reagan proved what happens when you follow that path... Or is JFK not good enough for you folks any longer?

Obama has sprinted in the other direction, and has created confusion in the market.
He has business owners sitting on their hands waiting out the storm.

Was it not Obama who implored business to hire and not look at profits? Yes it was.
He thinks jobs are social programs and businesses an extension of his government.
Business owners see him and the Dem controlled Congress as hostile, and... will wait for safer, more sane waters.

Government creates an environment for business to operate, and Obama's climate is scary-ugly.

He's changed America alright, but temporarily. Once a pro-business, pro-American president is elected and can reduce burdens, we will do what we always have done. Prosper.

Until Obama loses his job... it will be tough sledding.

.

For the individual who stated a stop of drilling might be wise.
Obama's folks thought so highly of the idea they forged documents of 8 experts who disagreed.
http://www.debatepolitics.com/break...rts-speak-out-obama-deepwater-moratorium.html
 
Last edited:
zimmer said:
Yawn.

Talk about running and hiding.
Click to expand...

Well, you do it to. You make a broad comment, I ask you to answer some questions, and you run away from them.

JFK stated the realities clearly. In recent history Reagan proved what happens when you follow that path... Or is JFK not good enough for you folks any longer?
Click to expand...

Look Kiddies! Another person who doesn't know what linear regression is! And you are ignoring how Reagan practiced Keynesian policies as well. Spending hundreds of billions on defense poured huge amounts into the defense industry which then increased demand down the supply chain, but you will ignore that because it's easier then actually addressing how your ideology isn't fact based.

Obama has sprinted in the other direction, and has created confusion in the market.
He has business owners sitting on their hands waiting out the storm.
Click to expand...

Good luck proving that.

Was it not Obama who implored business to hire and not look at profits? Yes it was.
Click to expand...

I'd ask for a link...but I know better then to ask you.

He thinks jobs are social programs and businesses an extension of his government.
Business owners see him and the Dem controlled Congress as hostile, and... will wait for safer, more sane waters.
Click to expand...

Yeah. Business owners hate bonus depreciation and tax cuts. eace

Do you have any actual arguments or just partisan ranting?

I see you can't answer my questions either.

And your link is relevant how?

For all of you who claim Obama didn't do anything, why can't you answer my simple questions?

Simple: all you have is partisan ranting.
 
I think it's just common sense. I saw 3/4 of a trillion dollars put aside and being spent to soften the recession, raise spending, raise consumer confidence, and lower unemployment to a level of around 8%. What I see in reality was and is: The recession continuing, spending at a low/moderate level, consumer confidence low, and unemployment at 9.7% with little movement. What I also see is an inability to balance a federal budget, promised spending of 4 trillion over the next decade adding to that deficit, Washington printing more money, and continued efforts to inject money we do not have into delaying another bubble.

:shrug:

More and more people just don't like the dog food Obama's White House is selling no matter how slick the advertisements look.
 
 
Last edited:
'Stimulus' or not, Obama seeks new spending - Washington Times
 
obvious Child said:
I'd ask for a link...but I know better then to ask you.
Click to expand...
Found it. Took some digging.

The speech reads like comedy today... like a Grade School teacher... but he threw some barbs in about small business.
The barbs reveal his perverse mentality about business.

What pro-business President speaks like this?
None I know of... they instinctively understand that is what businesses do! Squeeze, fight, cut costs AND TRY TO INSTILL IT INTO THEIR CULTURE.

The best businesses stay lean. They behave like start-ups. Always looking to increase productivity.
 
Last edited:

The only time you can make a claim such as (The spending has caused the recession to be shallower then it would have been.) you have is with hindsight after a number of years have passed.
 

a few comments :
a) it doesn't matter to balance the budget, what needs balancing is the "comprehensive annual financial report". (look it up)
b) all the fed knows how to do is print more money... and then trillions more get 'created' through derivatives... those are all numbers on a screen, so the majority of the currency litterally is not worth the paper it's not printed on.
c) To call this a 'recession' is being nice... unemployment figures are getting close to levels of the great depression, the only jobs that have been created were census workers, who are not creating an 'economy' and those jobs will be gone this summer, and even those are cooking the numbers by firing and rehiring employees everymonth.
d) Gerald Celente has forecast that the TARP money will dry up in the near future, and before the end of the year there would be the "collapse of 2010"... he then went on to say that history shows that when a government goes bankrupt it takes it's people to war. Look at the escalations going on surrounding Israel and Iran recently.
:shrug:

More and more people just don't like the dog food Obama's White House is selling no matter how slick the advertisements look.
Click to expand...

It's about time people are starting to realize that it doesn't matter Republican or Democrat... oh an I'm sure finding out that pre-existing conditions are not covered.... these people don't even read the bills they are supposed to sign and they don't write the bills they are supposed to read, the lobbies do that.

Noone considers how the things they sign will affect the people.
 
TBone said:
No way to prove it.
Click to expand...

There is proof that FDR's decision to revalue the currency (in effect moving away from the international gold standard) and his decision to have a banking holiday and create FDIC did have a significant effect. They marked the turning point of the great depression.
 
zimmer said:
How's your alternative energy thang work'in for ya?
Your midget mobiles? Buy one yet for the family? LOL...
Click to expand...

Not surprising Zimmer cannot address what he replies to.

You are just as bad as him.

Cute, but expected from an Obamatron.
Click to expand...

So basic statistics is following an Obama cult?

Can you even define linear regression?

The military isn't a social program. It's Constitutional too.
Post Vietnam and Carter, the military needed upgrading, and that costs money.
Paid off too, as it helped break the backs of the Soviets.
Click to expand...

One must wonder if you can even read. I discussed how military spending in the defense contractor aspect produces significant economic activity. You replied with something entirely unrelated. Thus, this suggests you only understand a few words of English and therefore assume whatever the one or two words of 50 you understand are the entire discussion. How the hell is what you posted relevant to what I said?

ROTFLOL.
"The Economy Stupid". Says it all.
Click to expand...

Got it. You want it to be true therefore it is despite no evidence to support your position.


Actually they do. Most large businesses utilize short term commercial lending to finance operations. The US is in many ways similar to South Korea circa 1995. Hence why the credit freeze was very capable of wiping out many good businesses. And why Bush and Obama spent huge sums of cash to reduce the impact of the credit crisis. This is basic economics 101. What is painfully clear is you have absolutely no understand of it at all. Rather then address my specific points, you reply with partisan vague commentary that is often irrelevant to what you quoted.

Why not make deep, permanent cuts as JFK (R-MA) explained?
Why not come out and say Cap and Tax is dead?
Why not cut regulations?
Click to expand...

How about you answer my questions first?

And I see you refuse to actually admit that Obama did things to help small business. What a hack you are. Bush did the same thing but you outright refuse to give Obama the same credit for the same policies.

Republican = Good
Democrat = Bad despite following identical policies.

And your link in no way shows what you claim it to be. Nowhere in his speech does he call for businesses to ignore profits and just hire. I seriously question if you can even understand the English Language given your complete lack of comprehension here.
 

I don't believe that. If Obama would have let car companies go into bankruptcy they would have been better off. Obama was looking out for the unions. Everything Obama did benefitted someone Obama wanted to pay back
 
ptif219 said:
I don't believe that. If Obama would have let car companies go into bankruptcy they would have been better off. Obama was looking out for the unions. Everything Obama did benefitted someone Obama wanted to pay back
Click to expand...

Where did you get your tin foil hat?

So you're saying that we would have been better off watching millions of Americans lose their jobs directly at GM and Chrysler, and then watching millions more lose their jobs in supply companies, and then many more lose their jobs supply raw materials to their suppliers and the MILLIONS more who derive their jobs from spending by such workers?

Or you could just run away from another hard question because it forces you to think.
 
upsideguy said:
Tripled the debt? He inherited a debt of $10 trillion. Last time I checked it was not at $30 trillion.

Please explain how we did exit the great depression...
Click to expand...

Really?

CNN Political Ticker: All politics, all the time Blog Archive - CNN Fact Check: Is the annual deficit under Obama 12 times the deficit under Republicans? « - Blogs from CNN.com


The non-partisan Congressional Budget Office says the budget deficit for 2009 was $1.4 trillion, slightly more than triple the $458.6 billion deficit for 2008.

– An annual budget deficit of $1.4 trillion averages to about $117.8 billion per month.

– The average annual budget deficit during President George W. Bush's presidency was $250.7 billion, ranging from a high of $458.6 billion in 2008 to a low of a $128.2 billion surplus in 2001.

– The national debt held by the public was $5.8 trillion at the end of 2008 and increased by 30 percent to $7.5 trillion at the end of 2009, according to CBO calculations.

– The CBO has projected that if the president's first budget had been enacted as is, the national debt would have increased to $17.1 trillion by 2019, about triple the $5.8 trillion level at the end of 2008. In comparison,
the CBO said that the debt would have doubled to $11.7 trillion if the president's first budget had not been enacted and if the CBO's baseline economic assumption had instead been in place for the next 10 years.

– The CBO released a projection in January 2009 that the deficit would reach $1.2 trillion in 2009, before the costs for any new economic stimulus plans or new legislation were factored in.

Bottom line: Hensarling was correct in that the annual budget deficit soared in 2009, though it did not increase by twelve-fold as he asserted in his comments. However, he does come close for some years. The 2009 deficit was about nine times the size of the 2002 and 2007 deficits, when Republicans
controlled the White House and at least one chamber of Congress.

Obama was essentially correct when he said he inherited a budget deficit of $1.3 trillion. Though the budget deficit for 2008 was a then-record $458.6 billion, the CBO issued a projection in January 2009, just days before Obama took office that the budget deficit would reach $1.2 trillion that year, before the cost of any new stimulus plan or other legislation was taken into account.

As for the impact that Obama's first budget would have on the national debt, the CBO estimated the national debt would indeed triple by the year 2019 under the president's budget, from $5.8 trillion to $17.1 trillion. The
president's budget office, the Office of Management and Budget, projected that the national debt would increase to $16.0 trillion by 2019.

When the CBO issued its projections for Obama's budget in June 2009, it projected that the national debt would double to $11.7 trillion by 2019 if its pre-Obama baseline economic assumptions were held steady for 10 years. A more recent CBO baseline projection from this month puts the national debt at $14.3 trillion in 2019 and $15.0 trillion in 2020.
 

It would have thrown out government contracts causing more money to hire people. Many lost there jobs because of the Obama take over
 

You understand that most of car suppliers would be at more/less the same employment?

If you think that car suppliers only supply one car company, then you don't understand the industry. Merely taking out a two weak (getting weaker) players wouldn't affect the national economy. Only if consumers started buying significantly less cars would it become a problem, but if the demand stays the same... Who gives a crap if the marquee changes from GMC to Ford? From Chevy to Nissan?
 

You do realize that most parts suppliers in the US operate at very thin margins, that most still support the Big 3, rather then Japanese car makers, that losing 30% or more of their business would cause most to go bankrupt.

You do realize that demand would not have remained the same, and that it did not? Auto sales in the US went from an annual rate of around 16 million a year to about 10 million.

GM and Chyrsler going bankrupt would have seen not only those two companies going out of business, sending their specific employees on the unemployment lines but about 40% of the parts suppliers as well. This is not to mention that pensioners would have had their pensions cut drastically.
 
Lord Tammerlain said:
You do realize that most parts suppliers in the US operate at very thin margins, that most still support the Big 3, rather then Japanese car makers, that losing 30% or more of their business would cause most to go bankrupt.
Click to expand...

You don't realize the quantities of "foreign" cars that are actually produced within the United States. Significantly more "foreign" cars are produced within the United States than are imported by those "foreign" cars and the trend is only getting stronger. Trying to say that "Buy American," for cars, has any relevance is like some bad re-run from the 80s.

You do realize that demand would not have remained the same, and that it did not? Auto sales in the US went from an annual rate of around 16 million a year to about 10 million.
Click to expand...

If GMC and Chrysler went under, suddenly, less cars would be bought? That's a bad joke. Car sales have little to do with the strength of car manufactors. Actually, the reverse is true.


So 40% of suppliers go under, but guess what? Those 40% would be remployed by the other car companies picking up the slack.

As for their pensions, well, they're bloated monstrosities that need to go anyhow.
 
Areopagitican said:
You understand that most of car suppliers would be at more/less the same employment?
Click to expand...

Over the long run yes, but in the short run what I said would have come true. Over the long run, compeitors would have ramped up production, built new plants and hired more workers. However, that takes significent amounts of time. In the mean time the economic impacts of their bankruptcy would be immediate and extremely painful. The net change to employment largely would have stayed the same over the long run.

If you think that car suppliers only supply one car company, then you don't understand the industry.
Click to expand...

Ah, but car suppliers tend to focus on a particular firm. While they supply others, generally most don't supply to the point of non-reliance. Furthermore, remember that the non-Detroit manufactuers didn't and still don't have the capacity to ramp up production to meet the drop in demand from a Detroit bankruptcy. Considering how leveraged some of the suppliers were, any interruption in business would have been fatal. You're thinking over the long run and I agree with your views over the long run, but I'm talking 3-6 months.


See above. Furthermore, you really think Ford would have taken over GM or Nissan to Chevy?
 

But that's Keynesian philosophy right there! In essence, you're shutting down an inefficient part of your economy, razing it to the ground (in an economic sense) and rebuilding it leaner. If you don't agree with demolishing factories to build them up again (better, stronger, faster) then you have to be 110% against Obama's policies which are, basically, rebuilding bridges or schools or whatever it is like a true Keynesian. Remember the old metaphor to explain it? Keynesian policy is a storm that destroys a window, and the economic stimulus is the owner buying a new one? That's all throwing GM and Chrysler would have been. Throwing their, old, broken windows to the floor and having new, fresh and optimistic companies replace them.


The longer we draw out inefficiencies in the market, the worse they'll hurt when it finally falls to pieces. For a reference, I point you to the recent financial crisis. You fix things before they get totally destroyed.


See above. Furthermore, you really think Ford would have taken over GM or Nissan to Chevy?
Click to expand...

I think everyone would get a piece. It doesn't really matter.
 

Hard to know where to start. For one thing there are not millions of Americans working for GM and Chrysler.

Next most folks understand that when a company goes into bankruptcy protection, the company does not stop producing. The workers would have been there but their contracts could have been changed.

In the bailout not everyone got to keep their jobs, a similar result would have happened if the company went under. My sense is that you know this but are having fun talking about stuff you know would not happen.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more…