Total Posts:35|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Obama Jobs Record

Ameriman
Posts: 622
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/19/2012 1:41:04 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
People talk about jobs created and unemployment rate.

However, the real measure that should be looked at is the employment to population ratio.

In April of 2012, the employment to population ratio is 58.4%. This is down from 60.6% in January of 2009 when Barack Obama took office.

Also, it is completely unchanged from one year ago in April of 2011 when it was also 58.4%. In other words, we have not really seen much recovery at all under Obama.

For comparison, look at Ronald Reagan. He also inherited an awful economy.

When he took office, the employment to population ratio was 59.1%, even lower than it was when Obama took office. The recession worsened in Reagan's first couple years.

However, by April of 1984, the same time in Reagan's presidency as April of 2012 is for Obama's, the employment to population ratio was back up to 59.3%, higher than when he took office.

Reagan went on to win reelection in a landslide.

So, all in all, the Obama jobs record has been very weak. There has really been no recovery. Yes, some jobs have been created.

However, recovery means that an economy grows faster than trend after a deep fall to catch up to its previous trend. Right now, we aren't making up ground.

Due to Obama's policies, it appears that we are due to accept permanently lower employment and output.
We spend too much our time measuring compassion for those in needs by measuring inputs. How much money are we spending? How many programs are we creating? But we are not focusing on outcomes. Are these programs working? Are people getting out of poverty?
-Paul Ryan
Thaddeus
Posts: 6,985
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/19/2012 1:43:09 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Don't fuckking care about his record. Obama will screw the economy. Romney will screw the economy.

Doesn't make the slightest difference.
cbrhawk1
Posts: 588
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/19/2012 2:11:20 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/19/2012 1:43:09 PM, Thaddeus wrote:
Don't fuckking care about his record. Obama will screw the economy. Romney will screw the economy.

Doesn't make the slightest difference.

I sincerely doubt that Romney will screw the economy. Since being in politics, he's always campaigned against needless spending. He's a fiscal conservative, and despite some things said about is history, I think he is going to put debt certainly higher on the agenda than Obama is with his absolutely scary spending.

Obama has no case for jobs. The recession under Obama has not gotten better when, by now, jobs should be exploding. But, because Obama decides taxes should be higher, people don't want to spend. This is corporations and consumers alike ho are afraid of the economy.
"All science is 'wrong.'" ~ drafterman
Apollo.11
Posts: 3,478
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/19/2012 5:11:05 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
You've got to be kidding me.

Reagan pulled a play right out of the liberal handbook and INCREASED public sector employment. Obama proposed doing the same thing. The right-wing obstructionists refused to allow it, something Reagan did. So Obama then tried to at the very least stop mass layoffs in the public sector buying a recession. The right didn't care. Because laying off people in a recession is GOOD for the economy somehow.

If the right-wing hypocrites had let Obama increase public sector employment by the same percentage Reagan did, unemployment would be at 6.5%.

And then, in the same breath, the fascists tout Reagan's economic record, claiming their policy will grow jobs like their messiah Reagan did.
Sapere Aude!
Contra
Posts: 3,941
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/19/2012 5:38:30 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/19/2012 5:11:05 PM, Apollo.11 wrote:
You've got to be kidding me.

Reagan pulled a play right out of the liberal handbook and INCREASED public sector employment. Obama proposed doing the same thing. The right-wing obstructionists refused to allow it, something Reagan did. So Obama then tried to at the very least stop mass layoffs in the public sector buying a recession. The right didn't care. Because laying off people in a recession is GOOD for the economy somehow.

If the right-wing hypocrites had let Obama increase public sector employment by the same percentage Reagan did, unemployment would be at 6.5%.

And then, in the same breath, the fascists tout Reagan's economic record, claiming their policy will grow jobs like their messiah Reagan did.

Apollo, I applaud your defense of the miniscule shred of Progressive thought on DDO.
"The solution [for Republicans] is to admit that Bush was a bad president, stop this racist homophobic stuff, stop trying to give most of the tax cuts to the rich, propose a real alternative to Obamacare that actually works, and propose smart free market solutions to our economic problems." - Distraff

"Americans are better off in a dynamic, free-enterprise-based economy that fosters economic growth, opportunity and upward mobility." - Paul Ryan
Contra
Posts: 3,941
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/19/2012 5:44:49 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
So, at first you say Obama's policies have cost millions of jobs. Even though when he took office the nation was already shredding hundreds of thousands of jobs every week.

Then you guys say Obama's policies have made the economy worse. You said this before AND after the nation stopped losing jobs and entered 2 straight years of private sector job growth and a drop in unemployment.

The economy then you say isn't improving as fast as it can. While there yes are improvements, they are not because of Obama. Obama's efforts have hurt us. Without Obama, the economy would've jumped back faster. The GOP starts saying this paragraph after economic reports start becoming the best in 3-4 or more years.

Later you say the economy is improving because of the GOP efforts and their actions in Congress. So you take credit for the records on the economy, some not seen since the Clinton years, but blame Obama for anything negative.

Crazy. To say it mildly.
"The solution [for Republicans] is to admit that Bush was a bad president, stop this racist homophobic stuff, stop trying to give most of the tax cuts to the rich, propose a real alternative to Obamacare that actually works, and propose smart free market solutions to our economic problems." - Distraff

"Americans are better off in a dynamic, free-enterprise-based economy that fosters economic growth, opportunity and upward mobility." - Paul Ryan
Ameriman
Posts: 622
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/19/2012 8:56:51 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/19/2012 5:44:49 PM, Contra wrote:
So, at first you say Obama's policies have cost millions of jobs. Even though when he took office the nation was already shredding hundreds of thousands of jobs every week.

Then you guys say Obama's policies have made the economy worse. You said this before AND after the nation stopped losing jobs and entered 2 straight years of private sector job growth and a drop in unemployment.

The economy then you say isn't improving as fast as it can. While there yes are improvements, they are not because of Obama. Obama's efforts have hurt us. Without Obama, the economy would've jumped back faster. The GOP starts saying this paragraph after economic reports start becoming the best in 3-4 or more years.

Later you say the economy is improving because of the GOP efforts and their actions in Congress. So you take credit for the records on the economy, some not seen since the Clinton years, but blame Obama for anything negative.

Crazy. To say it mildly.

Do you honestly think that the economy would never have recovered at all if Obama hadn't taken action?
We spend too much our time measuring compassion for those in needs by measuring inputs. How much money are we spending? How many programs are we creating? But we are not focusing on outcomes. Are these programs working? Are people getting out of poverty?
-Paul Ryan
Contra
Posts: 3,941
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/19/2012 9:16:45 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/19/2012 8:56:51 PM, Ameriman wrote:
At 5/19/2012 5:44:49 PM, Contra wrote:
So, at first you say Obama's policies have cost millions of jobs. Even though when he took office the nation was already shredding hundreds of thousands of jobs every week.

Then you guys say Obama's policies have made the economy worse. You said this before AND after the nation stopped losing jobs and entered 2 straight years of private sector job growth and a drop in unemployment.

The economy then you say isn't improving as fast as it can. While there yes are improvements, they are not because of Obama. Obama's efforts have hurt us. Without Obama, the economy would've jumped back faster. The GOP starts saying this paragraph after economic reports start becoming the best in 3-4 or more years.

Later you say the economy is improving because of the GOP efforts and their actions in Congress. So you take credit for the records on the economy, some not seen since the Clinton years, but blame Obama for anything negative.

Crazy. To say it mildly.

Do you honestly think that the economy would never have recovered at all if Obama hadn't taken action?

It would've. But not as soon.
"The solution [for Republicans] is to admit that Bush was a bad president, stop this racist homophobic stuff, stop trying to give most of the tax cuts to the rich, propose a real alternative to Obamacare that actually works, and propose smart free market solutions to our economic problems." - Distraff

"Americans are better off in a dynamic, free-enterprise-based economy that fosters economic growth, opportunity and upward mobility." - Paul Ryan
Contra
Posts: 3,941
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/19/2012 9:17:20 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/19/2012 9:16:45 PM, Contra wrote:
At 5/19/2012 8:56:51 PM, Ameriman wrote:
At 5/19/2012 5:44:49 PM, Contra wrote:
So, at first you say Obama's policies have cost millions of jobs. Even though when he took office the nation was already shredding hundreds of thousands of jobs every week.

Then you guys say Obama's policies have made the economy worse. You said this before AND after the nation stopped losing jobs and entered 2 straight years of private sector job growth and a drop in unemployment.

The economy then you say isn't improving as fast as it can. While there yes are improvements, they are not because of Obama. Obama's efforts have hurt us. Without Obama, the economy would've jumped back faster. The GOP starts saying this paragraph after economic reports start becoming the best in 3-4 or more years.

Later you say the economy is improving because of the GOP efforts and their actions in Congress. So you take credit for the records on the economy, some not seen since the Clinton years, but blame Obama for anything negative.

Crazy. To say it mildly.

Do you honestly think that the economy would never have recovered at all if Obama hadn't taken action?

It would've. But not as soon.

I will admit though that where I live (Michigan) the economic growth is 3 times the speed of the national average.
"The solution [for Republicans] is to admit that Bush was a bad president, stop this racist homophobic stuff, stop trying to give most of the tax cuts to the rich, propose a real alternative to Obamacare that actually works, and propose smart free market solutions to our economic problems." - Distraff

"Americans are better off in a dynamic, free-enterprise-based economy that fosters economic growth, opportunity and upward mobility." - Paul Ryan
Ameriman
Posts: 622
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/19/2012 10:01:39 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/19/2012 9:16:45 PM, Contra wrote:
At 5/19/2012 8:56:51 PM, Ameriman wrote:
At 5/19/2012 5:44:49 PM, Contra wrote:
So, at first you say Obama's policies have cost millions of jobs. Even though when he took office the nation was already shredding hundreds of thousands of jobs every week.

Then you guys say Obama's policies have made the economy worse. You said this before AND after the nation stopped losing jobs and entered 2 straight years of private sector job growth and a drop in unemployment.

The economy then you say isn't improving as fast as it can. While there yes are improvements, they are not because of Obama. Obama's efforts have hurt us. Without Obama, the economy would've jumped back faster. The GOP starts saying this paragraph after economic reports start becoming the best in 3-4 or more years.

Later you say the economy is improving because of the GOP efforts and their actions in Congress. So you take credit for the records on the economy, some not seen since the Clinton years, but blame Obama for anything negative.

Crazy. To say it mildly.

Do you honestly think that the economy would never have recovered at all if Obama hadn't taken action?

It would've. But not as soon.

This recovery is extremely slow.

Obama's policies have held back the recovery, not enhanced it.
We spend too much our time measuring compassion for those in needs by measuring inputs. How much money are we spending? How many programs are we creating? But we are not focusing on outcomes. Are these programs working? Are people getting out of poverty?
-Paul Ryan
Contra
Posts: 3,941
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/19/2012 10:07:10 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/19/2012 10:01:39 PM, Ameriman wrote:
At 5/19/2012 9:16:45 PM, Contra wrote:
At 5/19/2012 8:56:51 PM, Ameriman wrote:
At 5/19/2012 5:44:49 PM, Contra wrote:
So, at first you say Obama's policies have cost millions of jobs. Even though when he took office the nation was already shredding hundreds of thousands of jobs every week.

Then you guys say Obama's policies have made the economy worse. You said this before AND after the nation stopped losing jobs and entered 2 straight years of private sector job growth and a drop in unemployment.

The economy then you say isn't improving as fast as it can. While there yes are improvements, they are not because of Obama. Obama's efforts have hurt us. Without Obama, the economy would've jumped back faster. The GOP starts saying this paragraph after economic reports start becoming the best in 3-4 or more years.

Later you say the economy is improving because of the GOP efforts and their actions in Congress. So you take credit for the records on the economy, some not seen since the Clinton years, but blame Obama for anything negative.

Crazy. To say it mildly.

Do you honestly think that the economy would never have recovered at all if Obama hadn't taken action?

It would've. But not as soon.


This recovery is extremely slow.

Obama's policies have held back the recovery, not enhanced it.

I predicted you would say that (see above).
"The solution [for Republicans] is to admit that Bush was a bad president, stop this racist homophobic stuff, stop trying to give most of the tax cuts to the rich, propose a real alternative to Obamacare that actually works, and propose smart free market solutions to our economic problems." - Distraff

"Americans are better off in a dynamic, free-enterprise-based economy that fosters economic growth, opportunity and upward mobility." - Paul Ryan
jimtimmy
Posts: 3,953
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/19/2012 10:17:43 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/19/2012 10:07:10 PM, Contra wrote:
At 5/19/2012 10:01:39 PM, Ameriman wrote:
At 5/19/2012 9:16:45 PM, Contra wrote:
At 5/19/2012 8:56:51 PM, Ameriman wrote:
At 5/19/2012 5:44:49 PM, Contra wrote:
So, at first you say Obama's policies have cost millions of jobs. Even though when he took office the nation was already shredding hundreds of thousands of jobs every week.

Then you guys say Obama's policies have made the economy worse. You said this before AND after the nation stopped losing jobs and entered 2 straight years of private sector job growth and a drop in unemployment.

The economy then you say isn't improving as fast as it can. While there yes are improvements, they are not because of Obama. Obama's efforts have hurt us. Without Obama, the economy would've jumped back faster. The GOP starts saying this paragraph after economic reports start becoming the best in 3-4 or more years.

Later you say the economy is improving because of the GOP efforts and their actions in Congress. So you take credit for the records on the economy, some not seen since the Clinton years, but blame Obama for anything negative.

Crazy. To say it mildly.

Do you honestly think that the economy would never have recovered at all if Obama hadn't taken action?

It would've. But not as soon.


This recovery is extremely slow.

Obama's policies have held back the recovery, not enhanced it.

I predicted you would say that (see above).

You're clearly better at predicting my responses to you than Obama is at predicting the unemployment rate in response to his policies.
President of DDO
jimtimmy
Posts: 3,953
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/19/2012 10:19:48 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/19/2012 10:17:43 PM, jimtimmy wrote:
At 5/19/2012 10:07:10 PM, Contra wrote:
At 5/19/2012 10:01:39 PM, Ameriman wrote:
At 5/19/2012 9:16:45 PM, Contra wrote:
At 5/19/2012 8:56:51 PM, Ameriman wrote:
At 5/19/2012 5:44:49 PM, Contra wrote:
So, at first you say Obama's policies have cost millions of jobs. Even though when he took office the nation was already shredding hundreds of thousands of jobs every week.

Then you guys say Obama's policies have made the economy worse. You said this before AND after the nation stopped losing jobs and entered 2 straight years of private sector job growth and a drop in unemployment.

The economy then you say isn't improving as fast as it can. While there yes are improvements, they are not because of Obama. Obama's efforts have hurt us. Without Obama, the economy would've jumped back faster. The GOP starts saying this paragraph after economic reports start becoming the best in 3-4 or more years.

Later you say the economy is improving because of the GOP efforts and their actions in Congress. So you take credit for the records on the economy, some not seen since the Clinton years, but blame Obama for anything negative.

Crazy. To say it mildly.

Do you honestly think that the economy would never have recovered at all if Obama hadn't taken action?

It would've. But not as soon.


This recovery is extremely slow.

Obama's policies have held back the recovery, not enhanced it.

I predicted you would say that (see above).


You're clearly better at predicting my responses to you than Obama is at predicting the unemployment rate in response to his policies.

My point is that Obama has been a total failure in terms of jobs.

As a former ancap, I now recognize that the government has a roll... but Obama has done a lot more harm.
President of DDO
Ameriman
Posts: 622
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/19/2012 10:20:54 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/19/2012 10:07:10 PM, Contra wrote:
At 5/19/2012 10:01:39 PM, Ameriman wrote:
At 5/19/2012 9:16:45 PM, Contra wrote:
At 5/19/2012 8:56:51 PM, Ameriman wrote:
At 5/19/2012 5:44:49 PM, Contra wrote:
So, at first you say Obama's policies have cost millions of jobs. Even though when he took office the nation was already shredding hundreds of thousands of jobs every week.

Then you guys say Obama's policies have made the economy worse. You said this before AND after the nation stopped losing jobs and entered 2 straight years of private sector job growth and a drop in unemployment.

The economy then you say isn't improving as fast as it can. While there yes are improvements, they are not because of Obama. Obama's efforts have hurt us. Without Obama, the economy would've jumped back faster. The GOP starts saying this paragraph after economic reports start becoming the best in 3-4 or more years.

Later you say the economy is improving because of the GOP efforts and their actions in Congress. So you take credit for the records on the economy, some not seen since the Clinton years, but blame Obama for anything negative.

Crazy. To say it mildly.

Do you honestly think that the economy would never have recovered at all if Obama hadn't taken action?

It would've. But not as soon.


This recovery is extremely slow.

Obama's policies have held back the recovery, not enhanced it.

I predicted you would say that (see above).

Nice. But, that doesn't change the point.

Obama's policies have increased uncertainty which has held back job growth.
We spend too much our time measuring compassion for those in needs by measuring inputs. How much money are we spending? How many programs are we creating? But we are not focusing on outcomes. Are these programs working? Are people getting out of poverty?
-Paul Ryan
Contra
Posts: 3,941
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/19/2012 10:24:25 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/19/2012 10:19:48 PM, jimtimmy wrote:
At 5/19/2012 10:17:43 PM, jimtimmy wrote:
At 5/19/2012 10:07:10 PM, Contra wrote:
At 5/19/2012 10:01:39 PM, Ameriman wrote:
At 5/19/2012 9:16:45 PM, Contra wrote:
At 5/19/2012 8:56:51 PM, Ameriman wrote:
At 5/19/2012 5:44:49 PM, Contra wrote:
So, at first you say Obama's policies have cost millions of jobs. Even though when he took office the nation was already shredding hundreds of thousands of jobs every week.

Then you guys say Obama's policies have made the economy worse. You said this before AND after the nation stopped losing jobs and entered 2 straight years of private sector job growth and a drop in unemployment.

The economy then you say isn't improving as fast as it can. While there yes are improvements, they are not because of Obama. Obama's efforts have hurt us. Without Obama, the economy would've jumped back faster. The GOP starts saying this paragraph after economic reports start becoming the best in 3-4 or more years.

Later you say the economy is improving because of the GOP efforts and their actions in Congress. So you take credit for the records on the economy, some not seen since the Clinton years, but blame Obama for anything negative.

Crazy. To say it mildly.

Do you honestly think that the economy would never have recovered at all if Obama hadn't taken action?

It would've. But not as soon.


This recovery is extremely slow.

Obama's policies have held back the recovery, not enhanced it.

I predicted you would say that (see above).


You're clearly better at predicting my responses to you than Obama is at predicting the unemployment rate in response to his policies.


My point is that Obama has been a total failure in terms of jobs.

As a former ancap, I now recognize that the government has a roll... but Obama has done a lot more harm.

So... if Obama has been harmful to the economy, why do you support President Bush over Obama, even though more jobs were produced in 2010 alone than during Bush's full 8 years?

http://newsjunkiepost.com...
"The solution [for Republicans] is to admit that Bush was a bad president, stop this racist homophobic stuff, stop trying to give most of the tax cuts to the rich, propose a real alternative to Obamacare that actually works, and propose smart free market solutions to our economic problems." - Distraff

"Americans are better off in a dynamic, free-enterprise-based economy that fosters economic growth, opportunity and upward mobility." - Paul Ryan
jimtimmy
Posts: 3,953
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/19/2012 10:25:44 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/19/2012 10:24:25 PM, Contra wrote:
At 5/19/2012 10:19:48 PM, jimtimmy wrote:
At 5/19/2012 10:17:43 PM, jimtimmy wrote:
At 5/19/2012 10:07:10 PM, Contra wrote:
At 5/19/2012 10:01:39 PM, Ameriman wrote:
At 5/19/2012 9:16:45 PM, Contra wrote:
At 5/19/2012 8:56:51 PM, Ameriman wrote:
At 5/19/2012 5:44:49 PM, Contra wrote:
So, at first you say Obama's policies have cost millions of jobs. Even though when he took office the nation was already shredding hundreds of thousands of jobs every week.

Then you guys say Obama's policies have made the economy worse. You said this before AND after the nation stopped losing jobs and entered 2 straight years of private sector job growth and a drop in unemployment.

The economy then you say isn't improving as fast as it can. While there yes are improvements, they are not because of Obama. Obama's efforts have hurt us. Without Obama, the economy would've jumped back faster. The GOP starts saying this paragraph after economic reports start becoming the best in 3-4 or more years.

Later you say the economy is improving because of the GOP efforts and their actions in Congress. So you take credit for the records on the economy, some not seen since the Clinton years, but blame Obama for anything negative.

Crazy. To say it mildly.

Do you honestly think that the economy would never have recovered at all if Obama hadn't taken action?

It would've. But not as soon.


This recovery is extremely slow.

Obama's policies have held back the recovery, not enhanced it.

I predicted you would say that (see above).


You're clearly better at predicting my responses to you than Obama is at predicting the unemployment rate in response to his policies.


My point is that Obama has been a total failure in terms of jobs.

As a former ancap, I now recognize that the government has a roll... but Obama has done a lot more harm.

So... if Obama has been harmful to the economy, why do you support President Bush over Obama, even though more jobs were produced in 2010 alone than during Bush's full 8 years?

http://newsjunkiepost.com...

Um, Obama has had a net job loss. Bush had a net job gain.

And, I dont support Bush.
President of DDO
jimtimmy
Posts: 3,953
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/19/2012 10:32:37 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/19/2012 10:32:12 PM, jimtimmy wrote:
Obama is the first president since Hoover to have a net job loss.

How "job creating" is that?
President of DDO
Contra
Posts: 3,941
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/19/2012 10:34:14 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/19/2012 10:25:44 PM, jimtimmy wrote:
At 5/19/2012 10:24:25 PM, Contra wrote:
At 5/19/2012 10:19:48 PM, jimtimmy wrote:
At 5/19/2012 10:17:43 PM, jimtimmy wrote:
At 5/19/2012 10:07:10 PM, Contra wrote:
At 5/19/2012 10:01:39 PM, Ameriman wrote:
At 5/19/2012 9:16:45 PM, Contra wrote:
At 5/19/2012 8:56:51 PM, Ameriman wrote:
At 5/19/2012 5:44:49 PM, Contra wrote:
So, at first you say Obama's policies have cost millions of jobs. Even though when he took office the nation was already shredding hundreds of thousands of jobs every week.

Then you guys say Obama's policies have made the economy worse. You said this before AND after the nation stopped losing jobs and entered 2 straight years of private sector job growth and a drop in unemployment.

The economy then you say isn't improving as fast as it can. While there yes are improvements, they are not because of Obama. Obama's efforts have hurt us. Without Obama, the economy would've jumped back faster. The GOP starts saying this paragraph after economic reports start becoming the best in 3-4 or more years.

Later you say the economy is improving because of the GOP efforts and their actions in Congress. So you take credit for the records on the economy, some not seen since the Clinton years, but blame Obama for anything negative.

Crazy. To say it mildly.

Do you honestly think that the economy would never have recovered at all if Obama hadn't taken action?

It would've. But not as soon.


This recovery is extremely slow.

Obama's policies have held back the recovery, not enhanced it.

I predicted you would say that (see above).


You're clearly better at predicting my responses to you than Obama is at predicting the unemployment rate in response to his policies.


My point is that Obama has been a total failure in terms of jobs.

As a former ancap, I now recognize that the government has a roll... but Obama has done a lot more harm.

So... if Obama has been harmful to the economy, why do you support President Bush over Obama, even though more jobs were produced in 2010 alone than during Bush's full 8 years?

http://newsjunkiepost.com...


Um, Obama has had a net job loss. Bush had a net job gain.

So far, private job creation has a net gain under Obama.

http://blogs.wsj.com...

Bush had a net job loss:

http://reflectionsofarationalrepublican.com...

And, I dont support Bush.

Your profile suggests otherwise.
"The solution [for Republicans] is to admit that Bush was a bad president, stop this racist homophobic stuff, stop trying to give most of the tax cuts to the rich, propose a real alternative to Obamacare that actually works, and propose smart free market solutions to our economic problems." - Distraff

"Americans are better off in a dynamic, free-enterprise-based economy that fosters economic growth, opportunity and upward mobility." - Paul Ryan
jimtimmy
Posts: 3,953
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/19/2012 10:39:15 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/19/2012 10:34:14 PM, Contra wrote:
At 5/19/2012 10:25:44 PM, jimtimmy wrote:
At 5/19/2012 10:24:25 PM, Contra wrote:
At 5/19/2012 10:19:48 PM, jimtimmy wrote:
At 5/19/2012 10:17:43 PM, jimtimmy wrote:
At 5/19/2012 10:07:10 PM, Contra wrote:
At 5/19/2012 10:01:39 PM, Ameriman wrote:
At 5/19/2012 9:16:45 PM, Contra wrote:
At 5/19/2012 8:56:51 PM, Ameriman wrote:
At 5/19/2012 5:44:49 PM, Contra wrote:
So, at first you say Obama's policies have cost millions of jobs. Even though when he took office the nation was already shredding hundreds of thousands of jobs every week.

Then you guys say Obama's policies have made the economy worse. You said this before AND after the nation stopped losing jobs and entered 2 straight years of private sector job growth and a drop in unemployment.

The economy then you say isn't improving as fast as it can. While there yes are improvements, they are not because of Obama. Obama's efforts have hurt us. Without Obama, the economy would've jumped back faster. The GOP starts saying this paragraph after economic reports start becoming the best in 3-4 or more years.

Later you say the economy is improving because of the GOP efforts and their actions in Congress. So you take credit for the records on the economy, some not seen since the Clinton years, but blame Obama for anything negative.

Crazy. To say it mildly.

Do you honestly think that the economy would never have recovered at all if Obama hadn't taken action?

It would've. But not as soon.


This recovery is extremely slow.

Obama's policies have held back the recovery, not enhanced it.

I predicted you would say that (see above).


You're clearly better at predicting my responses to you than Obama is at predicting the unemployment rate in response to his policies.


My point is that Obama has been a total failure in terms of jobs.

As a former ancap, I now recognize that the government has a roll... but Obama has done a lot more harm.

So... if Obama has been harmful to the economy, why do you support President Bush over Obama, even though more jobs were produced in 2010 alone than during Bush's full 8 years?

http://newsjunkiepost.com...


Um, Obama has had a net job loss. Bush had a net job gain.

So far, private job creation has a net gain under Obama.

http://blogs.wsj.com...

Bush had a net job loss:

http://reflectionsofarationalrepublican.com...

And, I dont support Bush.

Your profile suggests otherwise.

Overall jobs... bush gained obama lost

I ll look them up later and link
President of DDO
Contra
Posts: 3,941
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/19/2012 10:40:01 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/19/2012 10:39:15 PM, jimtimmy wrote:
At 5/19/2012 10:34:14 PM, Contra wrote:
At 5/19/2012 10:25:44 PM, jimtimmy wrote:
At 5/19/2012 10:24:25 PM, Contra wrote:
At 5/19/2012 10:19:48 PM, jimtimmy wrote:
At 5/19/2012 10:17:43 PM, jimtimmy wrote:
At 5/19/2012 10:07:10 PM, Contra wrote:
At 5/19/2012 10:01:39 PM, Ameriman wrote:
At 5/19/2012 9:16:45 PM, Contra wrote:
At 5/19/2012 8:56:51 PM, Ameriman wrote:
At 5/19/2012 5:44:49 PM, Contra wrote:
So, at first you say Obama's policies have cost millions of jobs. Even though when he took office the nation was already shredding hundreds of thousands of jobs every week.

Then you guys say Obama's policies have made the economy worse. You said this before AND after the nation stopped losing jobs and entered 2 straight years of private sector job growth and a drop in unemployment.

The economy then you say isn't improving as fast as it can. While there yes are improvements, they are not because of Obama. Obama's efforts have hurt us. Without Obama, the economy would've jumped back faster. The GOP starts saying this paragraph after economic reports start becoming the best in 3-4 or more years.

Later you say the economy is improving because of the GOP efforts and their actions in Congress. So you take credit for the records on the economy, some not seen since the Clinton years, but blame Obama for anything negative.

Crazy. To say it mildly.

Do you honestly think that the economy would never have recovered at all if Obama hadn't taken action?

It would've. But not as soon.


This recovery is extremely slow.

Obama's policies have held back the recovery, not enhanced it.

I predicted you would say that (see above).


You're clearly better at predicting my responses to you than Obama is at predicting the unemployment rate in response to his policies.


My point is that Obama has been a total failure in terms of jobs.

As a former ancap, I now recognize that the government has a roll... but Obama has done a lot more harm.

So... if Obama has been harmful to the economy, why do you support President Bush over Obama, even though more jobs were produced in 2010 alone than during Bush's full 8 years?

http://newsjunkiepost.com...


Um, Obama has had a net job loss. Bush had a net job gain.

So far, private job creation has a net gain under Obama.

http://blogs.wsj.com...

Bush had a net job loss:

http://reflectionsofarationalrepublican.com...

And, I dont support Bush.

Your profile suggests otherwise.


Overall jobs... bush gained obama lost

I ll look them up later and link

Ok, because if you count the Presidency starting on January 20th, my side stands.
"The solution [for Republicans] is to admit that Bush was a bad president, stop this racist homophobic stuff, stop trying to give most of the tax cuts to the rich, propose a real alternative to Obamacare that actually works, and propose smart free market solutions to our economic problems." - Distraff

"Americans are better off in a dynamic, free-enterprise-based economy that fosters economic growth, opportunity and upward mobility." - Paul Ryan
16kadams
Posts: 10,497
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/19/2012 11:21:36 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/19/2012 10:40:01 PM, Contra wrote:
At 5/19/2012 10:39:15 PM, jimtimmy wrote:
At 5/19/2012 10:34:14 PM, Contra wrote:
At 5/19/2012 10:25:44 PM, jimtimmy wrote:
At 5/19/2012 10:24:25 PM, Contra wrote:
At 5/19/2012 10:19:48 PM, jimtimmy wrote:
At 5/19/2012 10:17:43 PM, jimtimmy wrote:
At 5/19/2012 10:07:10 PM, Contra wrote:
At 5/19/2012 10:01:39 PM, Ameriman wrote:
At 5/19/2012 9:16:45 PM, Contra wrote:
At 5/19/2012 8:56:51 PM, Ameriman wrote:
At 5/19/2012 5:44:49 PM, Contra wrote:
So, at first you say Obama's policies have cost millions of jobs. Even though when he took office the nation was already shredding hundreds of thousands of jobs every week.

Then you guys say Obama's policies have made the economy worse. You said this before AND after the nation stopped losing jobs and entered 2 straight years of private sector job growth and a drop in unemployment.

The economy then you say isn't improving as fast as it can. While there yes are improvements, they are not because of Obama. Obama's efforts have hurt us. Without Obama, the economy would've jumped back faster. The GOP starts saying this paragraph after economic reports start becoming the best in 3-4 or more years.

Later you say the economy is improving because of the GOP efforts and their actions in Congress. So you take credit for the records on the economy, some not seen since the Clinton years, but blame Obama for anything negative.

Crazy. To say it mildly.

Do you honestly think that the economy would never have recovered at all if Obama hadn't taken action?

It would've. But not as soon.


This recovery is extremely slow.

Obama's policies have held back the recovery, not enhanced it.

I predicted you would say that (see above).


You're clearly better at predicting my responses to you than Obama is at predicting the unemployment rate in response to his policies.


My point is that Obama has been a total failure in terms of jobs.

As a former ancap, I now recognize that the government has a roll... but Obama has done a lot more harm.

So... if Obama has been harmful to the economy, why do you support President Bush over Obama, even though more jobs were produced in 2010 alone than during Bush's full 8 years?

http://newsjunkiepost.com...


Um, Obama has had a net job loss. Bush had a net job gain.

So far, private job creation has a net gain under Obama.

http://blogs.wsj.com...

Bush had a net job loss:

http://reflectionsofarationalrepublican.com...

And, I dont support Bush.

Your profile suggests otherwise.


Overall jobs... bush gained obama lost

I ll look them up later and link

Ok, because if you count the Presidency starting on January 20th, my side stands.

Even using the graph you always cite in your debates there is job loss....
http://reflectionsofarationalrepublican.com...
https://www.youtube.com...
https://rekonomics.wordpress.com...
"A trend is a trend, but the question is, will it bend? Will it alter its course through some unforeseen force and come to a premature end?" -- Alec Cairncross
Apollo.11
Posts: 3,478
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/19/2012 11:30:14 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
The entire "Obama has hurt employment" argument is inherently contingent upon 2 premises:

1) Obama has significant control over the employment situation.
2) The job loss between January of 2009 to October of 2009 is a result of Obama's economic policy, not the bottoming out of the economy as inherited from the Bush years.

Neither have been substantiated. Until both are, all arguments against Obama's jobs record are absurd, and all arguments citing his jobs record as positive evidence must substantiate premise 1.
Sapere Aude!
cbrhawk1
Posts: 588
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/20/2012 3:19:27 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/19/2012 11:30:14 PM, Apollo.11 wrote:
The entire "Obama has hurt employment" argument is inherently contingent upon 2 premises:

1) Obama has significant control over the employment situation.
2) The job loss between January of 2009 to October of 2009 is a result of Obama's economic policy, not the bottoming out of the economy as inherited from the Bush years.


Neither have been substantiated. Until both are, all arguments against Obama's jobs record are absurd, and all arguments citing his jobs record as positive evidence must substantiate premise 1.

Don't get me wrong, but wasn't the harp on McCain that he would continue Bush's economic policies that led to this? Wasn't the harp on Bush toward the end that the deregulation during his presidency hastened the residential bubble burst? When it's a republican, there's a ton of control.

That's the problem. Usurpma has no control. He can get control by putting emphasis on more important things than Afghanistan, putting it higher on the congressional agenda, lowering taxes, taking pressure off of corporations.

But, he chooses not to grab congress by the throat as Bush did, as Clinton did. I won't say that Obama has absolute control, but he does have a say in policy, and policy, as we've seen, affects economy.

IF you don't believe me, ask Obama. He even says that he can have an impact on the economy and jobs. He does it every time he blames Bush for his problems.

So, yeah, Obama has no control over the jobs market. That's why he doesn't get my vote.
"All science is 'wrong.'" ~ drafterman
Stephen_Hawkins
Posts: 5,316
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/20/2012 4:10:28 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
Obama's policies will eventually create jobs, but the recession means that it's staying bad and his policies won't make a large difference and he needs to just ride it out. Like every leader of a modern country. However, like every leader of a modern country, they'll be pushed out of office at the end of their term, a new leader will be appointed, and finally the economy will fix itself. Then the new party will claim it saved the economy and every single speech will involve "we saved the economy, and the other party doomed it".
Give a man a fish, he'll eat for a day. Teach him how to be Gay, he'll positively influence the GDP.

Social Contract Theory debate: http://www.debate.org...
cbrhawk1
Posts: 588
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/20/2012 4:17:11 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/20/2012 4:10:28 AM, Stephen_Hawkins wrote:
Obama's policies will eventually create jobs, but the recession means that it's staying bad and his policies won't make a large difference and he needs to just ride it out. Like every leader of a modern country. However, like every leader of a modern country, they'll be pushed out of office at the end of their term, a new leader will be appointed, and finally the economy will fix itself. Then the new party will claim it saved the economy and every single speech will involve "we saved the economy, and the other party doomed it".

From both sides, this is ridiculous. No one has ultimate control over the economy. But, that doesn't mean people don't have a say in how smoothly it goes, how far it falls, and how fast it rises. This is why it is very valid to put blame on Obama for not doing all that he needs to to fix the debt and the economy.
"All science is 'wrong.'" ~ drafterman
Apollo.11
Posts: 3,478
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/20/2012 1:46:08 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/20/2012 3:19:27 AM, cbrhawk1 wrote:
At 5/19/2012 11:30:14 PM, Apollo.11 wrote:
The entire "Obama has hurt employment" argument is inherently contingent upon 2 premises:

1) Obama has significant control over the employment situation.
2) The job loss between January of 2009 to October of 2009 is a result of Obama's economic policy, not the bottoming out of the economy as inherited from the Bush years.


Neither have been substantiated. Until both are, all arguments against Obama's jobs record are absurd, and all arguments citing his jobs record as positive evidence must substantiate premise 1.

Don't get me wrong, but wasn't the harp on McCain that he would continue Bush's economic policies that led to this?
Oh so McCain was going to implement liberal economic policy? Ha!
Wasn't the harp on Bush toward the end that the deregulation during his presidency hastened the residential bubble burst? When it's a republican, there's a ton of control.
Government policy has a large amount of control on the economy. Whether it is right-wing or liberal.

That's the problem. Usurpma has no control.
I think "Usurpma" was suppose to be clever, and it might have been in your head, but just no...
He can get control by putting emphasis on more important things than Afghanistan, putting it higher on the congressional agenda,
Which he did. First with Iraq. Then with the troop withdrawal form Afghanistan (and now we are scheduled to be out by 2013).
lowering taxes
Which Obama has done on so many occasions.
taking pressure off of corporations.
Which Obama has done when necessary.

But, he chooses not to grab congress by the throat as Bush did
Like Bush did? You mean force through detrimental legislation, run up massive amounts of debt, send thousands of soldiers to die for oil money, endorse torture, trash the economy? If Obama is weak for not doing that, so be it. But I would hate to live in your right-wing "utopia" where strength is measured by how many soldier you kill and how much debt you run up.
, as Clinton did. I won't say that Obama has absolute control, but he does have a say in policy, and policy, as we've seen, affects economy.
Which of Obama's policies has hurt the economy? This seems to be the question that no right-winger wants to answer.

IF you don't believe me, ask Obama. He even says that he can have an impact on the economy and jobs.
His policy can. Sadly, he has been forced to deal with the most obstructionist congress in the history of the United States of America. Never before has one party done so much to stonewall all attempts at helping the American people. McConnell said it best when he admitted their single most important priority is to make sure Obama loses his job. It wasn't the growth of the economy, it wasn't helping the American people, it is kicking Obama out of office. But let's not pretend Republicans actually care about the economy.

He does it every time he blames Bush for his problems.
I actually rarely see him do that. The majority are problems the Bush years created.

So, yeah, Obama has no control over the jobs market. That's why he doesn't get my vote.
Sapere Aude!
Double_R
Posts: 4,886
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/21/2012 1:22:06 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/19/2012 10:32:12 PM, jimtimmy wrote:
Obama is the first president since Hoover to have a net job loss.

Why are you so dishonest?

You know damn well that the first few months of Obama's presidency was riddled with job losses that were the results of what he inherited, not his policies. Please make real arguments.
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/21/2012 2:02:50 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/19/2012 11:30:14 PM, Apollo.11 wrote:
The entire "Obama has hurt employment" argument is inherently contingent upon 2 premises:

1) Obama has significant control over the employment situation.
2) The job loss between January of 2009 to October of 2009 is a result of Obama's economic policy, not the bottoming out of the economy as inherited from the Bush years.


Neither have been substantiated. Until both are, all arguments against Obama's jobs record are absurd, and all arguments citing his jobs record as positive evidence must substantiate premise 1.

That's interesting. Because I thought the stimulus spending was designed to lower unemployment.

So either:
1) Obama has control of the employment situation
or
2) Obama just wasted trillions of dollars for no reason

It's also interesting that you state that Obama doesn't have control of the employment situation, while simultaneously blaming Bush.
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
Double_R
Posts: 4,886
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/22/2012 2:29:09 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/21/2012 2:02:50 PM, darkkermit wrote:
At 5/19/2012 11:30:14 PM, Apollo.11 wrote:
The entire "Obama has hurt employment" argument is inherently contingent upon 2 premises:

1) Obama has significant control over the employment situation.
2) The job loss between January of 2009 to October of 2009 is a result of Obama's economic policy, not the bottoming out of the economy as inherited from the Bush years.


Neither have been substantiated. Until both are, all arguments against Obama's jobs record are absurd, and all arguments citing his jobs record as positive evidence must substantiate premise 1.

That's interesting. Because I thought the stimulus spending was designed to lower unemployment.

So either:
1) Obama has control of the employment situation
or
2) Obama just wasted trillions of dollars for no reason

It's also interesting that you state that Obama doesn't have control of the employment situation, while simultaneously blaming Bush.

I would love to know how you define wasted. Let me guess... the turn around in job losses as soon as the stimulus passed was just coincidence because it would have happened anyway. Injecting a trillion dollars into the economy had nothing to do with that.