• 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!

U.S. Adds 195,000 Jobs; Unemployment Remains 7.6%

are you going to deny that 30plus months of consecutive job growth is a good thing? again, as for the rest, intended to take the conversation off track , best be careful con.....just sayin'
 
randel said:
are you going to deny that 30plus months of consecutive job growth is a good thing? again, as for the rest, intended to take the conversation off track , best be careful con.....just sayin'
Click to expand...

Sorry but it is a waste of time discussing economic issues with someone who doesn't have a clue how our economy works and has no problem four years after the end of the recession with the economic numbers we have today. Such low expectations must be an example of a liberal's personal success.
 

Well that is what Texas does and boosts it has a wonderful record of job creation. eace
 
randel said:
are you going to deny that 30plus months of consecutive job growth is a good thing? again, as for the rest, intended to take the conversation off track , best be careful con.....just sayin'
Click to expand...
is it better to have one person working a 40 hour week with benefits like insurance or two persons working 20 hours a week with no benefits? only democrats would want two at 20 with no benefits so more will be dependent on the government
 
Last edited:
randel said:
are you going to deny that 30plus months of consecutive job growth is a good thing? again, as for the rest, intended to take the conversation off track , best be careful con.....just sayin'
Click to expand...
Of course he is. Do think he would admit to something like that?
 

That was a sly little personal attack there. Well...you actually used the word "personal" in the sentence...so maybe it wasn't so "sly". Stop being a crybaby. Point, Counter Point. Use Facts. State some basic or complex political/economic opinion. Stay on Topic.

Simple enough rules to follow one would think.
 
pbrauer said:
Of course he is. Do think he would admit to something like that?
Click to expand...

Now how about context, 6 trillion added to the debt and these are the numbers you are proud of? You think someone in the private sector would still have a job generating these kind of numbers at a cost of over 6 trillion added to the debt? Leadership and accountability aren't something you understand?

 

Facts have been provided, charts posted and all ignored.
 
Gimmesometruth said:
Nope, you are missing the point, you have constantly said that Bush had no effect upon the economy of his day, ie 2001-2009, yet Obama does have an effect in his day, 2009 through to today.

You don't get to play both side of the same argument.
Click to expand...
Conservative said:
Again, show me where I said that Bush didn't have anything to do with the economy during his term?
Click to expand...
Right here, in this thread:

Conservative said:
The economy didn't crash because of Bush
Click to expand...
According to you, he had no effect upon the recession, he had no responsibility for the recession.
 
At some point, reality will sink in. Complete, "full time" employment is over. Just as Americans once worked 10-12 hours per day 6-7 days per week as a norm, so to will the norm of the 5 day, 35-45 hour per week norm die.

30 hours is the target set by the health care law. 30 hours per week is the new full time. Increases to minimum wage will be made to accommodate for the lack of hours.
 
Look, the government does have numbers that take into account who has full time jobs, and counts part timers as unemployed. It is called U6 Unemployment. It also counts as unemployed the people who have stopped looking for work and thus are not counted in the normally used U3 numbers.

That number, while obviously much higher than the standard number used, HAS GOTTEN BETTER. It is now below what it was in 2009, from around 17 percent down to around 14 percent.

Here is link : Portal Seven | U6 Unemployment Rate

It will be interesting though to see where this number goes once the employer mandate kicks in...
 
Are they non-farm paying jobs?
 
trfjr said:
QE is the reason it is safer and have a better return investing in bonds commodities and futures because QE devalued the dollar
Click to expand...
Not only is this totally confused jabber, it is contradictory. If QE "devalued", it made nothing "safer".

Please, stop posting already.
 
Gimmesometruth said:
Right here, in this thread:

According to you, he had no effect upon the recession, he had no responsibility for the recession.
Click to expand...

The economy didn't crash because of Bush doesn't mean that Bush didn't have anything to do with the economy. The point is and always has been he had a lot of help just like Obama had a Democrat Controlled Congress his first two years and the numbers speak for themselves, numbers you want to ignore. You really are desperate here and I don't blame you, You voted for an empty suit whose economic policies have been a disaster.
 
Conservative said:
Facts have been provided, charts posted and all ignored.
Click to expand...

The problems with jumping into what is already 11 pages of debate....I'd have to go back and look at how it all went down...but still, no need to go saying your political opposites have low personal success.
 
pbrauer said:
Are they non-farm paying jobs?
Click to expand...

The only person that would keep a job with those kind of numbers is a Democrat President of the United States who happens to be black.
 
Crossroads said:
The problems with jumping into what is already 11 pages of debate....I'd have to go back and look at how it all went down...but still, no need to go saying your political opposites have low personal success.
Click to expand...



I have a long history with those here and my insinuation is based upon months and months of interactions as well as their responses to actual data posted. Seems that liberals have very low expectations when the President is of their Political persuasion.
 
Conservative said:
The economy didn't crash because of Bush doesn't mean that Bush didn't have anything to do with the economy.
Click to expand...
LOL....wanna rephrase without the double talk? You cannot seriously argue that he had only positive effect upon the economy.

This is absolutism and partisanism to the extreme.
 
Conservative said:
The only person that would keep a job with those kind of numbers is a Democrat President of the United States who happens to be black.
Click to expand...
Thank you for your non-answer.
 
Conservative said:
The only person that would keep a job with those kind of numbers is a Democrat President of the United States who happens to be black.
Click to expand...
Wow, playing the race card!

That is signature worthy.
 
People hanging on every report of 100,000 to 200,000 jobs is a joke. This isn't Sweden or Denmark or some other much less populated country. We have a workforce of what 150,000,000? What is 195,000 jobs, when you're losing jobs as well? And what KIND of jobs? That's the key, are they flipping hamburgers or designing computers? I don't give a **** about a report that just talks about jobs, without qualifying it with the type of jobs. Look what they did with Obamacare, they postponed it because it's a jobs killer and would kill the Democrats trying to get reelected.
 

I can give you the benefit of the doubt on that then, I think. Sorry.
 

You mean like bringing to the senate floor for a vote every time (37 times) the loons in the house voted to repeal BOcare?:shock: That shows responsibility on Harry’s part for not bringing it up to me.

Why waste senate time on something that is not going to be signed into law? Now if bohner would put the senate bill to a vote there’s a pretty good chance of it being passed don’t you think?:2wave:
 
is it too much to ask of you to quit going personal, and stick to the topic at hand? just asking
 
Gimmesometruth said:
Not only is this totally confused jabber, it is contradictory. If QE "devalued", it made nothing "safer".

Please, stop posting already.
Click to expand...

i knew i would prove your ignorance
QT is what made them safer Bonds have a guarantee return commodities have their own inherent value that is not tied to the dollar it is the reason gold sky rockets when currency takes a dive gold has its own value, and futures are traded on future returns on commodities
 
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…