Top Obama Adviser: Unemployment Won't Be Key in 2012

[Conservative]

The way to grow jobs is to cut spending? So why did Reagan do they exact opposite?

I doubt that you have a clue as to what Reagan did as you probably weren't old enough to understand the economy and the conditions when he took office. Reagan isn't the issue here, Obama is and his economic policy is a failure.

 

[sangha]

How does my property belong to you? How does the internet service I pay for from a private company belong to you?

You looters seem to think everything belongs to you, you've never understood the word "mine."

The Internet service you use does not belong to me. The Internet you access through your internet provider belongs to the public and was developed with taxpayer money. It is maintained with taxpayer money.

You freeloaders seem to think everything belongs to you, you've never understood the word "ours"

 

[sangha]

Do you see a "police state" in everything as you do the "nanny state"? Why be so paranoid?

My sig applies here

 

[Badmutha]

Did I say that? No, I did not. I was merely pointing out that the notion the GOP has that the federal government can't generate jobs nor create wealth is a ridiculous notion! There are plenty of people/private businesses that have made a fortune off the government, mostly through government contracts. Former VP Dick Cheney got rich that way (re: Halliburton), as did TVA, Beoing, Lockhead, CTX, and so many others through public/private partnerships. Many of our politicians have made their fortunes off the government. Why do you think folks like Mitch McConnell is so reluctant to give up earmarks in his state? It's call "kickbacks" from lobbyists for getting certain bills or provisions within same passed or kept out of legislation!

What you see is government handing money off to (insert any entity)......and you make the assumption that jobs were automatically created via this handoff......perhaps at the bargian cost around $278,000 per job

.....what you fail to see.......is where government got that money to begin with. All the Job Creators, Entreprenuers, Consumers, Employers, Business Owners that had to sacrifice the fruits of their labor and the potential for their own expansion, hiring, buying, wealth and job creation.....in the name of big bloated out of control liberal government "creating jobs".

You see the $278,000 Temporary Job.......but fail to see the net job loss that results from the $278,000 of government theft from the Free Market.........
.

Do you see a "police state" in everything as you do the "nanny state"? Why be so paranoid?

An acknowledgement of reality isnt paranoia.......

........you pay......or the government sends men with guns to your door.
.
.
.

 

[Swizz]

I doubt that you have a clue as to what Reagan did as you probably weren't old enough to understand the economy and the conditions when he took office. Reagan isn't the issue here, Obama is and his economic policy is a failure.

Terrible logic, proving once again that your age does not mean you are smarter than the rest of us. Will you cut the holier-than-thou attitude just because you're older than a lot of the people here? It's very tired and condescending.

Anyway, the reason that's terrible logic is because most of us can read. Just because I wasn't a voter during the Reagan presidency, does not mean I know nothing about it. I know he grew deficits - fact. If you're going to level at me the assertion that I know nothing about Reagan, you're going to have to agree that you don't have a clue about the presidencies of, say, Washington, Lincoln, Roosevelt, etc...basically any president who was around before you were old enough to care. Are you going to concede that this is the case, or rather, are you going to admit that your logic is incredibly flawed?

 

[cpwill]

Norly. What can the government do to lower unemployment?

the free trade agreements the President mentioned are actually a good idea. he helped kill them when he was a senator.... but i'll take a flip flop from him on these any day if it helps us to create jobs. the kind of tax code reform that his OWN Bi-Partisan Debt Commission suggested would be Huge. Getting rid of Obamacare won't happen, but it would work as well. Reduction in the regulatory burden. Allowing companies to drill for oil off both coasts, in Alaska, and the Rockies (which would have the side benefits of somewhat lowering our energy costs as well as significantly boosting tax revenues).... there is plenty the administration could put out there that Republicans would agree too that could be jobs bonanzas.

 

[Spartacus FPV]

The Internet service you use does not belong to me. The Internet you access through your internet provider belongs to the public and was developed with taxpayer money. It is maintained with taxpayer money.

You freeloaders seem to think everything belongs to you, you've never understood the word "ours"

Freeloading? I pay for my service and my taxes. What utter tripe.

You are mistaken that it belongs to the public, it doesn't belong to anyone.

 

[sangha]

Freeloading? I pay for my service and my taxes. What utter tripe.

You are mistaken that it belongs to the public, it doesn't belong to anyone.

Yep, freeloading. You don't pay for the Internet. You pay for the connection to the Internet.

And it's not "your" tax dollars; they're OUR tax dollars now.
You freeloaders seem to think everything belongs to you, you've never understood the word "ours"

 

[cpwill]

the White House Press spokesman came out and said that what he meant to say was that Americans don't read the Wall Street Journal, or analyze numbers. or pay attention to the unemployment rate. Apparently the Administration is betting on American voters being too stupid and short-sighted to hold them accountable.

 

[Conservative]

Terrible logic, proving once again that your age does not mean you are smarter than the rest of us. Will you cut the holier-than-thou attitude just because you're older than a lot of the people here? It's very tired and condescending.

Anyway, the reason that's terrible logic is because most of us can read. Just because I wasn't a voter during the Reagan presidency, does not mean I know nothing about it. I know he grew deficits - fact. If you're going to level at me the assertion that I know nothing about Reagan, you're going to have to agree that you don't have a clue about the presidencies of, say, Washington, Lincoln, Roosevelt, etc...basically any president who was around before you were old enough to care. Are you going to concede that this is the case, or rather, are you going to admit that your logic is incredibly flawed?

You have shown no evidence that you have a clue as to what Reagan inherited. Any idea what it is like to pay over 17% for a home mortgage? How about waiting in gasoline lines for a fill up? How about having a dollar that wassn't worth a lot? You know he grew the deficits how? Have you read about the peace dividend? Do you realize that Reagan added as much debt in 8 years as Obama added in one plus? Nothing wrong with reading history but there is no evidence that you have done that since you don't know what created the debt that Reagan generated. Can you explain why Federal Income Tax Revenue doubled after the Reagan tax cuts?

 

[Conservative]

the White House Press spokesman came out and said that what he meant to say was that Americans don't read the Wall Street Journal, or analyze numbers. or pay attention to the unemployment rate. Apparently the Administration is betting on American voters being too stupid and short-sighted to hold them accountable.

I think he was speaking about Obama supporters who buy the smile, rhetoric, and public personality and ignore the results.

 

[pbrauer]

The way to grow jobs is to cut spending? So why did Reagan do they exact opposite?

Reagan tripled the national debt, he knew austerity programs hurt the economy. President Eisenhower knew this when he built the interstate highway system in 1950's. Spending programs which invest in our country are good for business and the country.

 

[Conservative]

Reagan tripled the national debt, he knew austerity programs hurt the economy. President Eisenhower knew this when he built the interstate highway system in 1950's. Spending programs which invest in our country are good for business and the country.

Reagan tripled the national Debt taking it from 900 billion to 2.6 trillion or a 1.7 trillion increase which just goes to show how bad showing percentages is because Obama cannot triple the national debt unless he takes it to 32 trillion dollars but he has added 4 trillion to the debt. Which is worse tripling the debt by adding 1.7 trillion or having a 40% increase in the debt adding 4 trillion to the debt in two plus years? Your answer should be interesting

 

[pbrauer]

Reagan tripled the national Debt taking it from 900 billion to 2.6 trillion or a 1.7 trillion increase which just goes to show how bad showing percentages is because Obama cannot triple the national debt unless he takes it to 32 trillion dollars but he has added 4 trillion to the debt. Which is worse tripling the debt by adding 1.7 trillion or having a 40% increase in the debt adding 4 trillion to the debt in two plus years? Your answer should be interesting

No matter how many time you keep saying it, Obama didn't add $4 trillion to the debt, even the right wing Cato Institute has said FY2009 belongs to President Bush, not president Obama. If you were honest, you would agree that the lost income tax revenue his first year is not his fault, that's if you were honest. Fat chance.

 

[obvious Child]

Reagan tripled the national Debt taking it from 900 billion to 2.6 trillion or a 1.7 trillion increase which just goes to show how bad showing percentages is because Obama cannot triple the national debt unless he takes it to 32 trillion dollars but he has added 4 trillion to the debt. Which is worse tripling the debt by adding 1.7 trillion or having a 40% increase in the debt adding 4 trillion to the debt in two plus years? Your answer should be interesting

Depends on the value of the dollar and interest on that debt. $5 trillion in debt with average rate of 10% is by far worse then a debt of $15 trillion paying 1%. Assuming of course you can raise debt to pay off principal.

10 year bonds hit between 8 and 9% during Reagan's era. We're issuing debt right now that is barely above 3%.

 

[Conservative]

No matter how many time you keep saying it, Obama didn't add $4 trillion to the debt, even the right wing Cato Institute has said FY2009 belongs to President Bush, not president Obama. If you were honest, you would agree that the lost income tax revenue his first year is not his fault, that's if you were honest. Fat chance.

All you have to do is tell us how much of the 2009 deficit was Obama's and we can move on. Fat chance of that ever happening. We are indeed losing revenue so when you lose revenue you cut spending not submit record budgets totally 3.7 trillion dollars. If Obama had cared about unemployment he wouldn't have wasted the 800+ billion stimulus money and actually found some shovel ready jobs. He didn't do that.

You, like, far too many, think the budget has to be spent, it doesn't thus spending causes debt not tax cuts.

As I have pointed out, those of you that believe we have a revenue problem aren't going to get enough revenue from those "evil" rich people to pay for your spending appetite so instead of going after them, how about getting something out of the 56 million Americans who aren't paying any Federal Income taxes but are working and generating income?

 

[Swizz]

The way to grow jobs is to cut spending? So why did Reagan do they exact opposite?

I doubt that you have a clue as to what Reagan did as you probably weren't old enough to understand the economy and the conditions when he took office. Reagan isn't the issue here, Obama is and his economic policy is a failure.

Terrible logic, proving once again that your age does not mean you are smarter than the rest of us. Will you cut the holier-than-thou attitude just because you're older than a lot of the people here? It's very tired and condescending.

Anyway, the reason that's terrible logic is because most of us can read. Just because I wasn't a voter during the Reagan presidency, does not mean I know nothing about it. I know he grew deficits - fact. If you're going to level at me the assertion that I know nothing about Reagan, you're going to have to agree that you don't have a clue about the presidencies of, say, Washington, Lincoln, Roosevelt, etc...basically any president who was around before you were old enough to care. Are you going to concede that this is the case, or rather, are you going to admit that your logic is incredibly flawed?

You have shown no evidence that you have a clue as to what Reagan inherited. Any idea what it is like to pay over 17% for a home mortgage? How about waiting in gasoline lines for a fill up? How about having a dollar that wassn't worth a lot? You know he grew the deficits how? Have you read about the peace dividend? Do you realize that Reagan added as much debt in 8 years as Obama added in one plus? Nothing wrong with reading history but there is no evidence that you have done that since you don't know what created the debt that Reagan generated. Can you explain why Federal Income Tax Revenue doubled after the Reagan tax cuts?

God, you have an uncanny way of trying to spin your way out of corners. I really nailed your posting style the other day - anytime anyone asks you a question that stumps you, you refuse to address it, and instead answer it with a post of multiple consecutive questions back to them (often unrelated) to distract from the fact that you're ignoring their points :lamo

I never went into how or why Reagan raised deficits...I just said that he raised them. That doesn't mean I don't understand some of the reasons the deficit grew on his watch..........it just means I didn't mention those reasons! Just because I did not write you an essay detailing the exact legislation that caused the deficit to grow under Reagan...does not mean that you can pull the "you have no clue, I'm older than you" card. Most importantly, the point in this argument is not how or why his deficits went up, because we could sit here and either rationalize or attack each and every bit of spending under Reagan and each and every bit of spending under Obama. The merits of Reagan's spending are not the debate here. The point is, you said that cutting spending grows jobs and my point is that Ronald Reagan did not cut spending. Period.

 

[Conservative]

God, you have an uncanny way of trying to spin your way out of corners. I really nailed your posting style the other day - anytime anyone asks you a question that stumps you, you refuse to address it, and instead answer it with a post of multiple consecutive questions back to them (often unrelated) to distract from the fact that you're ignoring their points :lamo

I never went into how or why Reagan raised deficits...I just said that he raised them. That doesn't mean I don't understand some of the reasons the deficit grew on his watch..........it just means I didn't mention those reasons! Just because I did not write you an essay detailing the exact legislation that caused the deficit to grow under Reagan...does not mean that you can pull the "you have no clue, I'm older than you" card. Most importantly, the point in this argument is not how or why his deficits went up, because we could sit here and either rationalize or attack each and every bit of spending under Reagan and each and every bit of spending under Obama. The merits of Reagan's spending are not the debate here. The point is, you said that cutting spending grows jobs and my point is that Ronald Reagan did not cut spending. Period.

Reagan alone and no President can raise deficits without the help of Congress. President's cannot spend a dime without Congressional approval, basic civics. As I have stated and continue to state, spending causes deficits not tax rate cuts. Reagan tripled the debt from 900 billion to 2.6 trillion or a 1.7 trillion debt. Obama increased the debt from 10.5 trillion to 14.4 trillion or 3.9 trillion which is about a 40% increase, which one is worse?

Why do you and others continue to ignore the Obama record

 

[Swizz]

Reagan alone and no President can raise deficits without the help of Congress. President's cannot spend a dime without Congressional approval, basic civics. As I have stated and continue to state, spending causes deficits not tax rate cuts. Reagan tripled the debt from 900 billion to 2.6 trillion or a 1.7 trillion debt. Obama increased the debt from 10.5 trillion to 14.4 trillion or 3.9 trillion which is about a 40% increase, which one is worse?

Why do you and others continue to ignore the Obama record

Now, to be fair, we're comparing two full terms to half of one term. So this isn't all that fair to either of the, really. But as long as we're comparing...um...tripling the debt is worse, by far. Are you kidding?

So the assertion is that Obama taking the debt from 10.5 trillion to 14.4 trillion....is worse than if Obama had tripled it, taking it from 10.5 trillion to 31.5 trillion. Is that what you're telling me?

All the while we need to keep in mind that we're talking about Ronald Reagan, the man seen as a god by many conservatives. How are those deficits acceptable to you guys?????

 

[Conservative]

Now, to be fair, we're comparing two full terms to half of one term. So this isn't all that fair to either of the, really. But as long as we're comparing...um...tripling the debt is worse, by far. Are you kidding?

So the assertion is that Obama taking the debt from 10.5 trillion to 14.4 trillion....is worse than if Obama had tripled it, taking it from 10.5 trillion to 31.5 trillion. Is that what you're telling me?

All the while we need to keep in mind that we're talking about Ronald Reagan, the man seen as a god by many conservatives. How are those deficits acceptable to you guys?????

Really so tripling the debt with a total of 1.7 trillion is worse that a 40% increase that totals almost 4 trillion dollars? Interesting, what is the debt service on 1.7 trillion vs. debt service on 4 trillion?

I think conservatives understand deficits a lot better than you do. Reagan's deficits went to rebuild the military and gave Clinton a peace dividend and he used it to cut the military. Spending during the Reagan years created an atmosphere that required less spending in later years.

 

[Swizz]

Really so tripling the debt with a total of 1.7 trillion is worse that a 40% increase that totals almost 4 trillion dollars? Interesting, what is the debt service on 1.7 trillion vs. debt service on 4 trillion?

I think conservatives understand deficits a lot better than you do. Reagan's deficits went to rebuild the military and gave Clinton a peace dividend and he used it to cut the military. Spending during the Reagan years created an atmosphere that required less spending in later years.

Well it depends how you're looking at it. I was looking at it comparatively, in which case there's no question that increasing by 300% is worse than increasing by 40%. If we're generalizing/simplifying it, what it means is that Obama is just slightly worse than Bush, but Reagan was three times as bad as Carter fiscally.

 

[SPC]

President Obama’s senior political adviser David Plouffe said Wednesday that people won’t vote in 2012 based on the unemployment rate.

...Most economists expect a report from the Bureau of Labor Statistics to show that the nation added about 100,000 jobs in June. That’s not enough to keep up with population growth, let alone lower the unemployment rate or make a dent in the 9 million jobs lost during the so called Great Recession.

It’s looking more and more like Obama will have to do something no president has done since Franklin Roosevelt: Win reelection with unemployment around 8 percent....

“The average American does not view the economy through the prism of GDP or unemployment rates or even monthly jobs numbers,” Plouffe said, according to Bloomberg. “People won’t vote based on the unemployment rate, they’re going to vote based on: ‘How do I feel about my own situation? Do I believe the president makes decisions based on me and my family?’ ”

The remarks will likely irritate Democrats who think Obama and his political team have taken their eye off jobs....​

Ya think?



January 2010: Jobs Number One Issue With Americans
February 2011: Unemployment Number One Concern for Americans

I wonder how much he'd be willing to bet on that.

 

[SPC]

Norly. What can the government do to lower unemployment?

They can cut taxes so that businesses will start hiring again.

 

[StillBallin75]

They can cut taxes so that businesses will start hiring again.

tax rates aren't the primary reason businesses aren't hiring. Especially since they are at a historically low level.

 

[Conservative]

Well it depends how you're looking at it. I was looking at it comparatively, in which case there's no question that increasing by 300% is worse than increasing by 40%. If we're generalizing/simplifying it, what it means is that Obama is just slightly worse than Bush, but Reagan was three times as bad as Carter fiscally.

LOL, typical liberal response and wrong. 1.7 trillion added to the debt vs. the 900 billion that Reagan inherited isn't worse than the Carter economy particularly when GDP Doubled, Govt. revenue from tax cuts doubled, and 18 million jobs were created after a disastrous first two years due to a 20 misery index. Debt service on the debt is much worse on the 4 trillion than the 1.7 trillion and both are funded by the taxpayers.