PDA

View Full Version : The GD debate.



Satanicus
07-18-2010, 08:13 AM
I want to debate some issues.

I want to cover some very basic debates for starters..

1. Did GWB hand Obama a finanicial crisis ?

2. Did the job market get better since Obama took office ?

3. Does the nation now have many quarters of positive GDP growth ?

Is it possible to have a debate ? ...I ask if you want to post in the thread, then address the threads topics, and not post attacks. Thanks in advance.

Sonnabend
07-18-2010, 08:21 AM
You have been over this crap a dozen times and you are getting monotonous. You have rehashed this matter over, and over, and over again, and it is getting tiresome.

What you have posted here is a rehash of your last set of tirades the last time you were here. Repetition ad nauseum.

No matter what is replied with, you dont listen anyway, so there is no point in dealing with a closed mind.

Enough already, Blarch , Go back to DU and bore them to buggery and back.

djones520
07-18-2010, 08:22 AM
1. Yes, a troubled economy was in play when the White House changed hands.

2. No the job market has not seen true positive gains. The numbers for the last couple of months have been artificially inflated by the Census. On top of that the hundreds of thousands who are no longer being counted as unemployed because they've given up the search, we are still in the hole.

3. As has been stated time and time again, the GDP is only showing gains because the government has been spending trillions of dollars it doesn't have. Until the GDP shows growth beyond that (which it hasn't) then it hasn't truly grown.

I have stated #2 and #3 many times to you already. Now respond to those assertations instead of starting a new thread asking the same damn questions, and lets have a true debate.

Satanicus
07-18-2010, 08:23 AM
You have been over this crap a dozen times and you are getting monotonous. You have rehashed this matter over, and over, and over again, and it is getting tiresome.

What you have posted here is a rehash of your last set of tirades the last time you were here. Repetition ad nauseum.

No matter what is replied with, you dont listen anyway, so there is no point in dealing with a closed mind.

Enough already, Blarch , Go back to DU and bore them to buggery and back.

Thanks for your input.

Satanicus
07-18-2010, 08:26 AM
2. No the job market has not seen true positive gains.
I simply asked if the market got better. Did it get better ? Did the massive job loses stop.



3. As has been stated time and time again, the GDP is only showing gains because the government has been spending trillions of dollars it doesn't have.

You just admitted the stimulus plan has worked. That was the entire idea behind the stimulus, you admit that without the stimulus we would be in negative growth, looks like we agree.

Thanks for your input.

Sonnabend
07-18-2010, 08:28 AM
Thanks for your input.

The plain and simple truth. I could take your last set of posts, and the current ones, and they would be, and are, identical.

Debate means both sides contribute, and both sides LISTEN to the other. You don't listen to anyone and slam in talking points one after the other, and that is all you do. No one is interested in discussing things with a petulant little DUmmie who doesnt realise he wore out his welcome after post #2

You and TominTib make a great pair...both so full of it I can smell you from here.

No one is listening to you, because you don't listen to others.

As simple as that.

Satanicus
07-18-2010, 08:30 AM
The plain and simple truth. I could take your last set of posts, and the current ones, and they would be, and are, identical.

Debate means both sides contribute, and both sides LISTEN to the other. You don't listen to anyone and slam in talking points one after the other, and that is all you do. No one is interested in discussing things with a petulant little DUmmie who doesnt realise he wore out his welcome after post #2

You and TominTib make a great pair...both so full of it I can smell you from here.

No one is listening to you, because you don't listen to others.

As simple as that.

My threads get filled up with bogus posts like yours, that NEVER address the OP topic, this is your second in this thread so far, representing half the posts.

Take a bow.

Sonnabend
07-18-2010, 08:30 AM
http://newsrealblog.files.wordpress.com/2009/09/dont-feed-the-troll.jpg

djones520
07-18-2010, 08:32 AM
I simply asked if the market got better. Did it get better ? Did the massive job loses stop.




You just admitted the stimulus plan has worked. That was the entire idea behind the stimulus, you admit that without the stimulus we would be in negative growth, looks like we agree.

Thanks for your input.

The job market is not better.

And how has the stimulus worked? It didn't create any real jobs, and it artificially infalted our GDP. It added nearly a trillion dollars to our national debt. Other factors then government spending are taken into the GDP. Just because the government is wasting trillions doesn't mean it's a mark of improvement. Quite the opposite.

But if you are happy with that, then good on you. I for one want a governmen that is not destroying my country while saying "We done good!"

BadCat
07-18-2010, 08:34 AM
I'm not interested in debating you, Satinboy. I'm interested in seeing you out of my country, you and everybody like you.

That's the end of the "debate".

Satanicus
07-18-2010, 08:39 AM
The job market is not better.

The why does the CBO say this ?

The stimulus act added at least 1 million new jobs and possibly as many as 2.1 million jobs in the final three months of last year...."The policies that were enacted in the stimulus bill are increasing GDP and employment relative to what they otherwise would be," said Douglas Elmendorf, director of the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office.....The CBO also said U.S. gross domestic product in the final quarter of 2009 was 1.5 percent to 3.5 percent higher than would have been the case without stimulus spending.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/feb/23/cbo-sees-big-job-boost-stimulus/

If all sources are good, and I always cherry pick, then you need to point out what I cherry picked.

The FACT is the job market is better, losing 700,000 a month compared to 10,000 a month is enormous.

In my world, 700,000 is larger than 10,000 ...what do you think ?

If debate happens, you can see checkmate is reached in a matter of a few posts.

djones520
07-18-2010, 08:43 AM
The why does the CBO say this ?

The stimulus act added at least 1 million new jobs and possibly as many as 2.1 million jobs in the final three months of last year...."The policies that were enacted in the stimulus bill are increasing GDP and employment relative to what they otherwise would be," said Douglas Elmendorf, director of the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office.....The CBO also said U.S. gross domestic product in the final quarter of 2009 was 1.5 percent to 3.5 percent higher than would have been the case without stimulus spending.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/feb/23/cbo-sees-big-job-boost-stimulus/

If all sources are good, and I always cherry pick, then you need to point out what I cherry picked.

The FACT is the job market is better, losing 700,000 a month compared to 10,000 a month is enormous.

In my world, 700,000 is larger than 10,000 ...what do you think ?

If debate happens, you can see checkmate is reached in a matter of a few posts.

Tell that to the 10,000 people a month still getting laid off. I'm sure it will comfort them at night. :rolleyes:

Satanicus
07-18-2010, 08:44 AM
Tell that to the 10,000 people a month still getting laid off. I'm sure it will comfort them at night. :rolleyes:

700,000 is still larger than 10,000

Can we agree ?

djones520
07-18-2010, 08:47 AM
700,000 is still larger than 10,000

Can we agree ?

We agree that the loss of jobs is not the same that it once was. But we do not agree that the job market is better. When thousands a month are still loosing jobs, and the millions of unemployed are still unemployed then there is no growth. Are jobs being saved? Maybe. But are jobs growing? No.

Sonnabend
07-18-2010, 08:50 AM
DJones: Do you have a fascination for brick walls? Your head will ache and the wall wont notice. :rolleyes:

Satanicus
07-18-2010, 08:52 AM
We agree that the loss of jobs is not the same that it once was. But we do not agree that the job market is better..

LOL

The slowing of job losss means it's getting better, by definition.

The CBO say between 1 and 2 million jobs were created from the stimulus. , I posted the article and link.

Is there something wrong with that data ? Whats wrong ?

If we agree that 700,000 is larger than 10,000 then we both agree that the job market got a lot better.

fettpett
07-18-2010, 08:53 AM
I want to debate some issues.

I want to cover some very basic debates for starters..

1. Did GWB hand Obama a finanicial crisis ?

Yes, but in the same way that Clinton handed GWB not only a rescession, but also allowed al-Qaedia to continue unchecked and plan 9/11 (Osama has come straight out and said that Mogidesiu and on were the reasons why he stepped it up and started attacking embassies and the WTC in 93.) We were in a recession when Bush took office. It wasn't till the tax cuts that the economy turned around, and we had a boom (4.3 unemployment lower than anytime under Clinton)


2. Did the job market get better since Obama took office ?
Has the job market gotten better? No. is the simple answer. The long answer, again, NO, but the numbers have been fudged the last 4 months as the Federal Government has hired several thousand Census workers Temporarily and then let them go in June. Temp jobs are not REAL jobs. Real Jobs are permanent (ones that last a year or more) and have no expected end date. Thus the reason road construction jobs aren't "real" jobs, but are used to bolster the numbers. (that in no way implies the work isn't real, or hard, just that they are Temporary and have definitive start and end dates) There have been very few Non-Government permanent jobs created.



3. Does the nation now have many quarters of positive GDP growth ?

http://www.tradingeconomics.com/Economics/GDP-Growth.aspx?Symbol=USD

what "many quarters" are you talking about? since Obama came into office only the First Quarter of this year has shown growth, and that was revised down from 5.6% to 2.7% in June. That's ONE positive quarter in the
first three paragraphs from that article:


On June 25, the United States GDP growth for the first quarter of 2010 was revised down to 2.7%, showing that the recovery in the biggest economy in the world may not be as strong as many have expected.

Indeed, even though the revision was not significant, it came from consumer consumption and business spending which are required components for growth to be called sustainable. In fact, consumer spending, which is vital in elevating production levels is weak mostly due to high unemployment rate. And although we can see some improvement in the labor market it may take a few years to revive 8.5 million jobs lost since the recession began in December 2007.

Looking further, the biggest fiscal deficit on record may sooner or later discourage investors from investing in US Treasuries. In fact, in 2010 the deficit is likely to reach 10.6% of GDP and the Obama administration is projecting that national debt will rise from 64% of national output to 77% by 2020. In addition, we can't forget that higher fiscal deficit also means higher taxes. While this and last year, tax payments were lowered to stimulate the economy, next year the brakes may be allowed to expire.(Ie. the Bush taxcuts end)



Is it possible to have a debate ? ...I ask if you want to post in the thread, then address the threads topics, and not post attacks. Thanks in advance.

You've had your questions answered in at lest 3 different posts. However you keep ignoring anyone that answers them, instead you start another thread asking the same questions. Grow a backbone dude and some thicker skin. If someone takes some shots at you, either ignore those posts and respond to the ones that address your questions/statements. or get off the damn board and go back the DUmbass or Huff and Puff or Daily puke.

SarasotaRepub
07-18-2010, 09:05 AM
I'm not interested in debating you, Satinboy. I'm interested in seeing you out of my country, you and everybody like you.

That's the end of the "debate".

He's down in Key West now BadCat so he isn't too far from Castro's Workers Paradise. :D

BadCat
07-18-2010, 09:10 AM
He's down in Key West now BadCat so he isn't too far from Castro's Workers Paradise. :D

What a surprise he's down in faggotville.

Is his wife supporting his worthless ass stripping at the Red Garter?

Satanicus
07-18-2010, 09:18 AM
Yes, but in the same way that Clinton handed GWB not only a rescession, but also allowed al-Qaedia to continue unchecked and plan 9/11 (Osama has come straight out and said that Mogidesiu and on were the reasons why he stepped it up and started attacking embassies and the WTC in 93.)

Is that why Bush did nothing about the Yeman bombing when he took office ? ...NOTHING.


. It wasn't till the tax cuts that the economy turned around, and we had a boom (4.3 unemployment lower than anytime under Clinton)

After the the recession technically ended job loses continued to crash, Bush was very worried about his jobless recovery. http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2003/sep/06/useconomy.usnews

And ...The 4.3 unemployment rate you cite is from when Bush took office, it crashed from there... Stop the spin already.

http://www.cse.unsw.edu.au/~lambert/img/unemployment.gif


Has the job market gotten better? No. is the simple answer.

Then you believe 700,000 is SMALLER than 10,000 , take a bow , you just went nuclear.



what "many quarters" are you talking about? since Obama came into office only the First Quarter of this year has shown growth, and that was revised down from 5.6% to 2.7% in June. That's ONE positive quarter in the
first three paragraphs from that article:

Again, you are lying. Tell me what you see...

http://www.tradingeconomics.com/Temp/United-States-GDP-Growth-Rate-Chart-000003.png?bf635a36-7a23-4965-8a76-766e9e83bc87







]

Sonnabend
07-18-2010, 09:20 AM
G'night folks.

Hey DJones Quixote, when you get tired of tilting at windmills, don't say you weren't warned, mmkay? :eek:

Constitutionally Speaking
07-18-2010, 09:40 AM
I simply asked if the market got better. Did it get better ? Did the massive job loses stop.




You just admitted the stimulus plan has worked. That was the entire idea behind the stimulus, you admit that without the stimulus we would be in negative growth, looks like we agree.

Thanks for your input.



So what you are saying is that the entire purpose of the Stimulus was to fool idiots like you into thinking we are actually experiencing a better economic record than we are in reality.

Hell, if that is the case, why not just increase spending by $11 trillion - that would fool idiots like you into thinking the economy is just booming!!!!

Constitutionally Speaking
07-18-2010, 09:41 AM
The internet is full of idiots. I think we just met their king.

Satanicus
07-18-2010, 09:47 AM
So what you are saying is that the entire purpose of the Stimulus was to fool idiots like you into thinking we are actually experiencing a better economic record than we are in reality.

Hell, if that is the case, why not just increase spending by $11 trillion - that would fool idiots like you into thinking the economy is just booming!!!!

So you disagree with the CBO, Bureau of Labor, Bureau of Economic Analysis ?

Is that the case ?

djones520
07-18-2010, 09:47 AM
G'night folks.

Hey DJones Quixote, when you get tired of tilting at windmills, don't say you weren't warned, mmkay? :eek:

Sonna, when ones days are filled with tedious boredom of 2 or 3 5 minute briefings a day, one has to find distraction.

Constitutionally Speaking
07-18-2010, 10:20 AM
So you disagree with the CBO, Bureau of Labor, Bureau of Economic Analysis ?

Is that the case ?


Not at all - I'm saying FUCKHEADS like you are too stupid to know what they mean.


My Labrador Retriever has better cognitive ability than you do.

Satanicus
07-18-2010, 10:27 AM
Not at all - I'm saying FUCKHEADS like you are too stupid to know what they mean.


My Labrador Retriever has better cognitive ability than you do.

Then lets debate it.

What does the data from the Bureau of Labor tell us , I am begging for debate , and being a mod you should set an example.

What does the data from the BLS tell us ?

If I am wrong .... what is the right answer ? I predict more namecalling , but who knows, maybe you will surprise me with a rational post.

djones520
07-18-2010, 10:29 AM
Then lets debate it.

What does the data from the Bureau of Labor tell us , I am begging for debate , and being a mod you should set an example.

What does the data from the BLS tell us ?

If I am wrong .... what is the right answer ? I predict more namecalling , but who knows, maybe you will surprise me with a rational post.

What is there more that he can say. I saw him type out a very lengthy, educated, and easily understandable post the other day explaining the economic situation we are in today. You ignored it. You are not interested in debate. You are interested in spouting the same talking points over and over again and no matter how often anyone shows you why those are wrong you refuse to pay attention.

Satanicus
07-18-2010, 10:34 AM
What is there more that he can say. I saw him type out a very lengthy, educated, and easily understandable post the other day explaining the economic situation we are in today. You ignored it. You are not interested in debate. You are interested in spouting the same talking points over and over again and no matter how often anyone shows you why those are wrong you refuse to pay attention.

When someone tells me that 700,000 is SMALLER than 10,000 ...then it isn't a debate. You murdered debate.

When your economic views think 700,000 is SMALLER than 10,000 , then they are rejected outright.

Is this a surprise to you ? Does 5 + 5 =15 ?

djones520
07-18-2010, 10:35 AM
When someone tells me that 700,000 is SMALLER than 10,000 ...then it isn't a debate. You murdered debate.

When your economic views think 700,000 is SMALLER than 10,000 , then they are rejected outright.

Is this a surprise to you ? Does 5 + 5 =15 ?

Really? Someone said that? Link please.

Satanicus
07-18-2010, 10:38 AM
Really? Someone said that? Link please.

You ALL said it.

If the job market didn't get better , then you believe losing 700,000 a month is better than 10,000 a month.

It's simple logic. Something you all are missing.

Satanicus
07-18-2010, 10:39 AM
If you tell me the job market got worse , then you think losing 700,000 is better than losing 10,000 a month.

Just logic.

djones520
07-18-2010, 10:39 AM
You ALL said it.

If the job market didn't get better , then you believe losing 700,000 a month is better than 10,000 a month.

It's simple logic. Something you all are missing.

Words fail me... words absolutely fail me right now.

Lager
07-18-2010, 10:42 AM
You just admitted the stimulus plan has worked. That was the entire idea behind the stimulus, you admit that without the stimulus we would be in negative growth, looks like we agree.



He admitted no such thing. Your logic is faulty. There was a stimulus. The job market improved slightly. Therefore it had to be the stimulus that improved the job market.
The simplistic thinking of you rabid libs is annoying

Tell us why you like Obama so much, in your own words. That might be a little bit more interesting. I don't want to hear about your feelings of Bush. He's gone now. Get over him and move on.

Satanicus
07-18-2010, 10:42 AM
Words fail me... words absolutely fail me right now.

I will make it easy.. this is a simple yes or no question that I KNOW YOU WILL NEVER ANSWER , because words always escape a person with an empty head.

balls in your court , will you answer the question , or will you do exactly what I predict and avoid a simple yes or no question ?

Is losing 700,000 a month better or worse than losing 10,000 a month

PoliCon
07-18-2010, 10:44 AM
1. Did GWB hand Obama a finanicial crisis ? No. Nancy and Harry handed Obama a financial crisis.




2. Did the job market get better since Obama took office ?No. We are still bleeding jobs even if it is at slower rate.


3. Does the nation now have many quarters of positive GDP growth ? nope.


Is it possible to have a debate ? ...I ask if you want to post in the thread, then address the threads topics, and not post attacks. Thanks in advance.Fuck you. It's not your forum. You do not make the rules.

djones520
07-18-2010, 10:45 AM
I will make it easy.. this is a simple yes or no question that I KNOW YOU WILL NEVER ANSWER , because words always escape a person with an empty head.

balls in your court , will you answer the question , or will you do exactly what I predict and avoid a simple yes or no question ?

Is losing 700,000 a month better or worse than losing 10,000 a month

No, I'm done with your dumb ass. You can go ahead and dance and prance around and say you won or whatever. I'm not even going to touch your stupid with a stick anymore.

Satanicus
07-18-2010, 10:47 AM
No, I'm done with your dumb ass. You can go ahead and dance and prance around and say you won or whatever. I'm not even going to touch your stupid with a stick anymore.

Checkmate.

Oh , how predictable. You couldn't even post a yes or no ...just as predicted.

PoliCon
07-18-2010, 10:50 AM
Checkmate.

Oh , how predictable. You couldn't even post a yes or no ...just as predicted.

Your question is fucking retarded. You might as well ask if it's better to be dead in Hawaii or in Florida. It doesn't matter because YOU'D STILL BE DEAD. You attempt to speak of logic and then you fail in the most basic applications of logic.

ETA: FURTHERMORE - The question is not is 10,000 lost better than 700,000 lost - you ignore the fact that these job losses are CUMULATIVE. Fucking idiot.

Lager
07-18-2010, 10:52 AM
You're boring dude. What's your DU name? Do you really believe that because certain factors of the economy might have improved slightly since Obama took office, that proves he's handling the situaion well? You know that if you hurt yourself, some swelling will go down even if you do nothing?

Hey, I just realized that it's gotten warmer since Obama took office as well! Will you admit that Obama is causing global warming? Come on, just admit it....

Molon Labe
07-18-2010, 10:56 AM
I want to debate some issues.

:rolleyes:

In my experience a debate is to try to convince someone of your side. You do that less effectively than any liberal I have ever known.


Debate or debating is a formal method of interactive and representational argument. Debate is a broader form of argument than logical argument, which only examines consistency from axiom, and factual argument, which only examines what is or isn't the case or rhetoric which is a technique of persuasion. Though logical consistency, factual accuracy and some degree of emotional appeal to the audience are important elements of the art of persuasion; in debating, one side often prevails over the other side by presenting a superior "context" and/or framework of the issue, which is far more subtle and strateg

Lager
07-18-2010, 11:06 AM
Come on now satan, do you deny that this summer is hotter than Bush's last summer in office? I bet you will deny it. Let us just hear you admit it. Obama is causing summers to get hotter. Do national weather statistics lie?

Lager
07-18-2010, 11:16 AM
Here's the site of the NOAA. Surely a credible source:

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/?report=global

June 2010

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration


National Climatic Data Center


.
May 2010
Global Analysis Report (http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/?report=global&year=2010&month=5)

Report: ----- National ----- National Overview Drought U.S. Wildfire Hurricanes & Tropical Storms Snow & Ice Tornadoes ----- Global ----- Global Analysis Global Hazards El Nio/Southern Oscillation Analysis ----- Entire Report -----



Global Highlights


The combined global land and ocean average surface temperature for June 2010 was the warmest on record at 16.2C (61.1F), which is 0.68C (1.22F) above the 20th century average of 15.5C (59.9F). The previous record for June was set in 2005.


That's proof that Obama's policies are causing summer temperatures to increase. This is a serious issue. Why do you ignore this Satanicus? Is the NOAA not a credible source? Do you consider them biased?

hampshirebrit
07-18-2010, 11:22 AM
I simply asked if the market got better. Did it get better ? Did the massive job loses stop.

How is the job market getting better? It's not getting better ... it's getting worse, just at a slower rate.

This is so obvious a fact that no-one should need it spelt out to them.

A lot of the "jobs" being created are government positions, and therefore, almost by definition, contribute little if any value to the economy. They're also adding to the public sector pension time-bomb that will inevitably blow up in your face, soon.

Contrast this to the UK. The coalition (Con/Lib) government will cut government expenditure by up to 40pc in some departments. We finally have a government in place that is willing and able to undo the massive damage caused by the socialists over the past 12 years. We've been forced into the realisation that the party is OVER.

I think the US public is coming to the same conclusion, and will show so in November.

NJCardFan
07-18-2010, 12:14 PM
OK, I've had enough. How about this one you troll, look at the unemployment numbers from 1993(when Clinton took over) until now http://www.bls.gov/cps/prev_yrs.htm:

1993 6.9
1994 6.1
1995 5.6
1996 5.4
1997 4.9
1998 4.5
1999 4.2
2000 4.0
2001 4.7
2002 5.8
2003 6.0
2004 5.5
2005 5.1
2006 4.6
2007 4.6
2008 5.8
2009 9.3

What is the correlation? C'mon. Tell me? I'll tell you. Notice how the unemployment began to drop after the Republican revolution in 1994. Hmmm. You keep giving all the credit and blame to the president but it's congress who makes the policy. Then we had the dot com bubble when the numbers began to rise. That is the result of the always cyclical economy. It happens. Coupled with 9/11, the fact that the unemployment rate only jumped a couple of points goes to prove that the tax cuts made those disasters less painful than they could have been. The unemployment under Bush and a Republican controlled congress held pretty steady until the Democratically created housing bubble bursting in 2008. Yes, it was Democratic policy that created that monster in the first place. This is unmitigated fact. Began under Carter. Also, the numbers began to rise after the Democrats took back control starting in 2007. Then we get a Democrat in the white house to boot and it jumps nearly 4 full points in the first year? And the unemployment rate, (http://www.bls.gov/news.release/pdf/empsit.pdf) as of June, is still 9.5%. I'm getting my numbers straight from the gubment, not some British news source like you.

Also, from the same report I linked, 225K thousand census jobs came to an end. Temporary jobs that you are fellating Obama over have now gone bye-bye. Yet private sector jobs only grew by 83K. Not something to write home about is it? These are facts you little turd. If you bother to read the entire report, you'd see that the job growth you seem to be wetting yourself all over consists of government and temporary jobs. This is not real growth. It's putting a band-aid on a bullet wound.

Constitutionally Speaking
07-18-2010, 12:26 PM
Then lets debate it.

What does the data from the Bureau of Labor tell us , I am begging for debate , and being a mod you should set an example.

What does the data from the BLS tell us ?

If I am wrong .... what is the right answer ? I predict more namecalling , but who knows, maybe you will surprise me with a rational post.


Are you actually going to debate or just spout crap?? The only time I name call is when YOU are being irrational. Now. If you really want to discuss, here you go.


The BLS indeed does show a slowing of the rate of the growth in jobs lost - at first glance. If all you are interested in is a number for political purposes, these will fool most people. But when you look at the whole study, you see that most of those are temporary jobs - or worse temporary government jobs. So I guess if you want to do a happy dance over them and scream SEE SEE, you are within your rights. That would mean you are ignorant of the consequences of such things, but that is why you are a liberal.

When Reagan had his growth in jobs, it was because SELF SUSTAINING businesses were started and divisions of existing companies were expanded - and produced revenues for future taxation and jobs that were a net positive to the economy.

What we are experiencing now is the government passing out money to unsustainable "businesses" that CANNOT exist without those government subsidies. Liberals would argue BUT THEY HAVE JOBS!!!!
But those jobs come at the expense of SELF SUSTAINING jobs. With the types of jobs that are being created now, when the government subsidies run out, the jobs go away. They are not viable. All the country gets out of them in the long term, is a bigger bill to pay off. It is sort of like taking out a higher interest loan to pay off a lower interest loan - and I HOPE that even you can see that is not a good thing to do.

Satanicus
07-18-2010, 12:53 PM
Are you actually going to debate or just spout crap?? The only time I name call is when YOU are being irrational. Now. If you really want to discuss, here you go.


The BLS indeed does show a slowing of the rate of the growth in jobs lost - at first glance. If all you are interested in is a number for political purposes, these will fool most people. But when you look at the whole study, you see that most of those are temporary jobs - or worse temporary government jobs..

TOTAL FAIL.

Why did the job loses start to ease far before the census hiring ?

Can you answer the magic question ? ...

"Is losing 700,000 jobs a month better or worse than losing 1000 jobs a month ?"

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_KbM65J3LCik/S7aXIECYTeI/AAAAAAAAAU0/QVpwRYHIyzI/s1600/bikinigraph.jpg

Constitutionally Speaking
07-18-2010, 01:28 PM
I thought you said you wanted to debate??

The jobs losses started lessening because of other temporary government jobs.

Of course losing 700,000 jobs is worse, but those jobs lost are due to LIBERAL policies.


AS ROCK SOLID PROOF: (not really but it is actually far more valid that satan's graph)


http://blog.heritage.org/wp-content/uploads/obamajobsgraph2.jpg

Can YOU answer the magic question?

Is 8 million jobs actually GAINED better than 8 million jobs actually lost???

NJCardFan
07-18-2010, 01:36 PM
TOTAL FAIL.

Why did the job loses start to ease far before the census hiring ?

Can you answer the magic question ? ...

"Is losing 700,000 jobs a month better or worse than losing 1000 jobs a month ?"

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_KbM65J3LCik/S7aXIECYTeI/AAAAAAAAAU0/QVpwRYHIyzI/s1600/bikinigraph.jpg

I notice how you completely ignore my post. Talk about total fail. :rolleyes:

Articulate_Ape
07-18-2010, 01:49 PM
1. Did GWB hand Obama a financial crisis ? Yes, along with every president since Woodrow Wilson (Clinton's "surplus" was a myth comprised of the "cold war dividend" and the Internet bubble).


2. Did the job market get better since Obama took office ? No, it got significantly worse and will get even worse still.


3. Does the nation now have many quarters of positive GDP growth ? Many? Try a few. As I stated in an earlier reply to you (which you never countered) GDP is only one metric by which the overall economic health of a nation is measured. While GDP growth is a positive, it must be weighed against a baseline of where it has been. In other words, if you make a modest profit in a few quarters after having suffered substantial losses in multiple previous quarters, it is a good sign, but it is merely a sign that you have begun crawling out of a very deep hole. When shackled to vast debt, modest growth in GDP is an illusion since that debt has now raised the bar by which the GDP metric is gauged.

http://www.tradingeconomics.com/Temp/United-States-GDP-Growth-Rate-Chart-000003.png


Is it possible to have a debate ? Yes. Is it possible for you to respond to rebuttals with any specificity or are you tone-deaf to any facts that are counter to your preconceived notions?

asdf2231
07-18-2010, 02:09 PM
I will make it easy.. this is a simple yes or no question that I KNOW YOU WILL NEVER ANSWER , because words always escape a person with an empty head.

balls in your court , will you answer the question , or will you do exactly what I predict and avoid a simple yes or no question ?



Better watch it guys. This man knows balls.

He's probably had more balls in his court then any of you will ever see in your lifetime!

He's not afraid to take his balls and jam em right in your face to make a point when his suave eloquent master-debating techniques can't move them across the court on their own wobbly under inflated pharmaceutical driven power either!

Sonnabend
07-18-2010, 03:38 PM
You're boring dude. What's your DU name?

His DU name is Blarch.

fettpett
07-18-2010, 05:31 PM
Is that why Bush did nothing about the Yeman bombing when he took office ? ...NOTHING.
hey, dumbfuck, CLINTON was in office when the USS Cole was bombed. why the FUCK didn't he do something about it? oh wait it was to put it on the head of the incoming Republican President. He was too damn busy granting pardons to his little donation buddies.



After the the recession technically ended job loses continued to crash, Bush was very worried about his jobless recovery. http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2003/sep/06/useconomy.usnews


And ...The 4.3 unemployment rate you cite is from when Bush took office, it crashed from there... Stop the spin already.

http://www.cse.unsw.edu.au/~lambert/img/unemployment.gif
http://www.miseryindex.us/urbymonth.asp?StartYear=2001-01&EndYear=2010-05&submit1=Create+Report
there is the Month by Month Unemployment rate. it went from 4.2 when Bush took office in Jan of 2001 to a HIGH of 6.3 in 2004 before dipping down to the mid 4's (going between 4.4, 5% form 2005 to May 2008) ANYTHING below 5% is considered full unemployment mostly people in between jobs. After the Dems took office in Jan of 2008 is when the unemployment rate went through the roof to the current rate of 9.7-9.9 range. wherever you got that chart, it's wrong.



Then you believe 700,000 is SMALLER than 10,000 , take a bow , you just went nuclear.


did I ever say that 700,000 job losses was smaller than 10,000? your a dipshit. all your little graph showed was that the job loss SLOWED down. there is ONE month of job growth on that entire chart and it's when the Census workers were hired. which you didn't address at all.

TEMPORARY JOBS ARE NOT REAL JOBS. they should NOT be counted for job growth, especially ones that are Government and known from the start are temporary. Road Construction jobs are NOT permanent jobs either and shouldn't be counted either. these are the ONLY jobs "created" by the so called stimulus last year.



Again, you are lying. Tell me what you see...

http://www.tradingeconomics.com/Temp/United-States-GDP-Growth-Rate-Chart-000003.png?bf635a36-7a23-4965-8a76-766e9e83bc87
First off, look who's calling someone a lair. FUCK YOU. you're lucky that i've even replyed to your bullshit "debate" to begin with.

you didn't read what I posted. there was no real growth. how many fucking BILLIONS of dollars did the Obama Administration spend in the last year and half? you talked about the National Debt being doubled in the 8 years under Bush, how about the TRIPLING of it in just over a year of the Obassiah's administration, huh? of course the GDP is going to grow when you try and spend your way out of a recession, but it's unsustainable. Nearly every single economist is talking about a double dip Depression. guess why? Bush's tax cuts go away Jan 1, 2011. Tax hike after Tax hike by this "Administration" is going to do the exact same thing that FDR's bullshit "recovery" plan in the 30's did, prolong the down turn.

Why don't you go take a LOOONNNGGGG walk off a short pier down their in Key West and head for your Commie paradise Cuba

Satanicus
07-18-2010, 05:49 PM
Can you answer this question...

"Is losing 700,000 jobs a month better or worse than losing 5000 a month"

It's a yes or no question, why can't anybody answer it ?

Constitutionally Speaking
07-18-2010, 05:52 PM
Can you answer this question...

"Is losing 700,000 jobs a month better or worse than losing 5000 a month"

It's a yes or no question, why can't anybody answer it ?


I already have. WHy can't YOU answer a simple yes or no question - is 8 million jobs GAINED better than 8 million jobs lost???

You never seem to be able to answer that.



http://blog.heritage.org/wp-content/uploads/obamajobsgraph2.jpg

Articulate_Ape
07-18-2010, 11:09 PM
I'll waste no more time with this jackanapes. He only responds with stock Liberal talking points, outdated charts, and no original points. One cannot debate someone who is entirely incapable of effectively debating.

That is all.

lacarnut
07-18-2010, 11:39 PM
Can you answer this question...

"Is losing 700,000 jobs a month better or worse than losing 5000 a month"

It's a yes or no question, why can't anybody answer it ?

It has already been answered.

Can you answer questions? No

Are you ssttooppiidd? Yes

PoliCon
07-18-2010, 11:45 PM
Are you ssttooppiidd? Yes

He IS very:
http://chzderp.files.wordpress.com/2010/06/b0a9697d-2ad0-49af-8094-f2d1357cd931.jpg?w=500&h=511

fettpett
07-19-2010, 12:27 AM
Can you answer this question...

"Is losing 700,000 jobs a month better or worse than losing 5000 a month"

It's a yes or no question, why can't anybody answer it ?

hey fucktard, I did answer you bullshit question:

did I ever say that 700,000 job losses was smaller than 10,000? your a dipshit. all your little graph showed was that the job loss SLOWED down. there is ONE month of job growth on that entire chart and it's when the Census workers were hired. which you didn't address at all.

TEMPORARY JOBS ARE NOT REAL JOBS. they should NOT be counted for job growth, especially ones that are Government and known from the start are temporary. Road Construction jobs are NOT permanent jobs either and shouldn't be counted either. these are the ONLY jobs "created" by the so called stimulus last year.

answer this: besides the temporary Census and Road Construction jobs, what other jobs were created???? some IRS jobs...big fucking deal. I want tangible jobs. R&D, Manufacturing, Service, etc. THOSE are the jobs that drive the economy. where are they??

fettpett
07-19-2010, 12:36 AM
http://blog.heritage.org/2010/07/16/morning-bell-the-lawyers-and-lobbyists-full-employment-act/
Without spending a single dime, the Obama administration did more yesterday to create jobs for the U.S. economy than it has throughout its entire existence. With the single stroke of a pen, President Barack Obama signed the Dodd-Frank financial regulation bill that set in motion 243 new formal rule-makings by 11 different federal agencies. Each of the 243 rule-makings will employ hundreds of banking lobbyists as they try to shape what the final actual laws will look like. And when the rules are finally written, thousands of lawyers will bill millions of hours as the richest incumbent financial firms that caused the last crisis figure out how to game the new system. Yesterday, the Washington law firm Jones Day snapped up the Securities and Exchange Commission head enforcement division lawyer, and J.P. Morgan Chase, one of the biggest U.S. banks by assets, assigned more than 100 teams to examine the legislation. University of Massachusetts political science professor Thomas Ferguson tells The Christian Science Monitor:


There you go, shit for brains "New" Jobs....Lawyers and Lobbyist...guess I chose the wrong field....

oh...and so much for that pledge of creating "transparency" and not working with lobbyist

Zeus
07-19-2010, 03:50 AM
Economists say recovery continues, but pace slows (http://apnews.myway.com/article/20100719/D9H1UOF02.html)

Jul 19, 2:10 AM (ET)

By MARLEY SEAMAN


NEW YORK (AP) - Economists say the U.S. recovery continued during the second quarter of this year with more businesses hiring workers and fewer cutting jobs, but the pace of growth has slowed, a new survey shows.

The National Association for Business Economics said its latest survey, released Monday, found 31 percent of businesses added workers between April and June, the highest level in three years. And 39 percent of those surveyed say they expect to hire more workers over the next six months - the most since January 2008. Manufacturers reported the strongest increase in demand and profitability. Finance, insurance and real estate sectors saw the slowest growth.