• 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!

Obama's Approval Rating Drops to Lowest Ever, According to Gallup

Status
Not open for further replies.
AdamT said:
I had hoped that common sense would suffice, but apparently that's lacking. So here you go: http://www.economy.com/mark-zandi/documents/End-of-Great-Recession.pdf
Click to expand...

July 27, 2010 which obviously missed the first and second quarter GDP numbers as well as the job numbers showing a reduction in the labor force. You keep buying what you want to believe and ignore the actual results. The question is why? Do you believe having .4% and 1% GDP growth shows the kind of economic results that should have been generated by 4 trillion added to the debt? Do you think having fewer jobs and more unemployed than when he took office is good economic performance? What is it going to take to get you to admit that you are wrong?
 
Conservative said:
Right, borrowing money from the bank and putting it into your budget showing a surplus is reality
Click to expand...
Again, learn the difference between the deficit and the debt and stop embarrassing yourself. Start with learning about how payments against the debt are made; maybe then you'll understand that the debt shrinks based on how much is paid back during the fiscal year and why those payments are irrelevant to comparing the annual deficit with how much the debt increases or decreases during a fiscal year.
 

Right, what you did was take Perry's numbers in December 2007 and ignored the January 2009 numbers vs. today
 

J-Mac asked for an explanation by a credible economist, and I gave him one by two very credible economists. Obviously you didn't read it -- not that you would have understood it if you had. You can't even grasp the difference between raw and adjusted data or the debt and the deficit.
 
Last edited:
Conservative said:
Right, what you did was take Perry's numbers in December 2007 and ignored the January 2009 numbers vs. today
Click to expand...

So borrowing money from the bank is debt but putting that money into your current budget creates a surplus? LOL, great spin but typical of an Obama supporter. Better join Adam in taking a civics and economic class. A public debt surplus doesn't assure that the total budget is in surplus because like most liberals you don't understand intergovt. holdings.
 

You gave him a 2010 article before fiscal year 2011 showing again that you don't understand what you are talking about. Obama spent over a trillion dollars and today we have .3% and 1% GDP Growth, that is a disaster. 25+ unemployed and under employed Americans today doesn't show an improving economy.
 

Apparently you don't understand that the total debt includes public debt and intergovt. holdings. Taking from one to make the other one look good doesn't create a surplus. Looks like you are confused by the term public debt which throws you off. That really is the deficit in your example.
 

You seem to think having more unemployed even despite an increase in jobs is a good thing in the case of Perry's tenure as Governor of Texas:shrug:

Unemployment Texas
....Jan 2001 4.2
.....Jul 2011 8.4

Current Unemployment Rates for States and Historical Highs/Lows
 

No, 8.4% isn't acceptable but beats the 9.1% National rate as well as the 16.1% total national unemployment. The net job growth in TX however trumps the net job loss nationally mostly in liberal states that love Obamanomics
 
AdamT said:
I had hoped that common sense would suffice, but apparently that's lacking. So here you go: http://www.economy.com/mark-zandi/documents/End-of-Great-Recession.pdf
Click to expand...


Notice I said a credible economist. Moody's, and Zandi have been on board shaping the narrative since the push for this middle of the night increase in debt occurred. IOW, Zandi has been a mouthpiece for the administration. Giving me the drawn out excuse for why a stimulus was needed in the Keynes model tells me nothing about how you objectively measure a "saved job".... The whole argument that libs are using now, combined with a plethora of skewed numbers, and hyperbolic partisan double talk, combined with platitudes shows me that libs are busted.

Yours, and Obama's plan to explode the debt, and only aid those businesses and Unions that supported him are destroying this country, and the only answer you drones have is NOT accountability, it is NOT holding responsible that which did nothing but push us into crisis, but rather argue that more of what has already failed is needed.

That is INSANE!

j-mac
 
Conservative said:
Right, what you did was take Perry's numbers in December 2007 and ignored the January 2009 numbers vs. today
Click to expand...
Can't you pay attention? Is that really too much to ask?

What I did was prove the statement, "going back to 2008," private sector jobs fell in Texas -- true.

You actually tried to define private as all jobs that are not government jobs, which of course, is a lie. And the reason you did so was to avoid putting a link to the private jobs sector on the BLS website since those numbers do indeed show that private sector jobs fell during that period.
 
Conservative said:
No, 8.4% isn't acceptable but beats the 9.1% National rate as well as the 16.1% total national unemployment. The net job growth in TX however trumps the net job loss nationally mostly in liberal states that love Obamanomics
Click to expand...

Yet by your own criteria of results mattering you would still vote for a guy who has seen in his tenure as Governor his state's employment rate double simply out of party loyalty.
 

Adam, I know what it is like to be like you as I grew up a liberal and remember well the time that the lightbulb went off in my head that liberalism was a total and complete failure. It was extremely hard on me because I had spent so much time defending liberalism and buying the rhetoric. I learned to call that thinking with my heart. Once I started thinking with my brain the lightbulb kicked on as I always heard about spending in the name of compassion but never saw real compassionate spending which I identify as actually solving a problem and going away. Instead of solving problems, bureaucracies are created and grow every year keeping power in the hands of those bureacrats. I actually found that spending my own money to help people in the local communities solved problems and weren't accompanied by bureaucratic administrative costs and strings.
 

Zandi is a mouthpiece for Obama? That's a novel take on it, given the fact that he was one of McCain's economic advisors in 2008. :lol:

You asked for credible economists and both Zandi and Blinder are considered to be among the best. You fail the Pinocchio test.
 
And you don't understand that the amount of debt from year to year is also impacted by how much is paid back, which has absolutely nothing to do with the deficit.
 

So the lightbulb went on and that's what caused you to spew misleading data and lose sight of cause and effect? If that's the case I think I'll just stay here in the sunlight.
 
winston53660 said:
Yet by your own criteria of results mattering you would still vote for a guy who has seen in his tenure as Governor his state's employment rate double simply out of party loyalty.
Click to expand...

Yep, because it all about trends in employment numbers, not percentage change. There are more people employed in TX than were employed when Obama took office and when the recession begain. You see net job increase, labor force increase, and a balanced budget with Perry. With Obama it is a net job loss, reduction in the labor force, and 4 trillion added to the debt
 
AdamT said:
So the lightbulb went on and that's what caused you to spew misleading data and lose sight of cause and effect? If that's the case I think I'll just stay here in the sunlight.
Click to expand...

Misleading data? I never claimed I created or SAVED 3.5 million jobs. I posted BLS data which of course you ignored. Show me where saved jobs are counted.
 

Total jobs doesn't mean sh*t unless you consider the size of the employment pool. You could create a million jobs, but if your unemployment rate still goes from 4.4% to 8.4% you were a failure. This is so typical of you.
 
Sheik Yerbuti said:
And you don't understand that the amount of debt from year to year is also impacted by how much is paid back, which has absolutely nothing to do with the deficit.
Click to expand...

Debt service is part of the debt and low interest rates kept debt service down which was a reduction in the debt service expense. You really have never looked at the budget of the United States

From the budget of the United States, Debt service the last three years 2010-2009-2008

Net Interest 196.9 190.9 252.8
 
AdamT said:
Total jobs doesn't mean sh*t unless you consider the size of the employment pool. You could create a million jobs, but if your unemployment rate still goes from 4.4% to 8.4% you were a failure. This is so typical of you.
Click to expand...

Total jobs mean **** to those that get them and today Obama keeps reducing the labor force by creating dispair and watching people drop out of the labor force. reduce that force far enough and the percentage change will look great.
 
AdamT said:
Zandi is a mouthpiece for Obama? That's a novel take on it, given the fact that he was one of McCain's economic advisors in 2008. :lol:
Click to expand...


I don't give two hoots whom he was with in '08. You think that conservatives see McCain as a true conservative? I got news for ya, he isn't. McCain was on the same path as your boy Obama, just on a slower train.

You asked for credible economists and both Zandi and Blinder are considered to be among the best. You fail the Pinocchio test.
Click to expand...

Yeah, ok man, a bit of projection is going on here from you....Read about what the market analysis's think of Zandi...


and here...


And these things are clearly seen in the public today, which is why the predictable addition from Zandi by you is so wrong and NOT what I asked for...."Saved Jobs" is a myth, and a cover for paybacks to political cronies that helped Obama get elected in the first place....You have been duped.

j-mac
 

Any idea why there is such loyalty to Obama and the liberal ideology in the face of total and complete failure of the stimulus and Obamanomics
 

Seriously? You're trying to complain about bias, and your source is the conservative Real Clear Politics and Cato Institute websites? :lol:

"The Cato Institute is a libertarian think tank headquartered in Washington, D.C. It was founded in 1977 by Edward H. Crane, who remains president and CEO, and Charles Koch, chairman of the board and chief executive officer of the conglomerate Koch Industries, Inc., the second largest privately held company (after Cargill) by revenue in the United States."

:lol: :lol:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Menu
Log in
Register
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more…