Does it makes sense to create government jobs to replace private-sectore jobs and then raise the minimum wage and destroy more jobs and call it "fixing the economy, Obama-style"?

Posted by: themightyindividual

...Because that's what's happening.

  • Yes, that makes perfect sense.

  • No, that does not make sense.

42% 8 votes
58% 11 votes
  • This is a gross misrepresentation of economics.

  • i guess reading chain emails and listening to palin is a good source of news, themighty

  • The staggering ignorance of monetary policy would be funny if the GOP didn't use said ignorance to propagandize their base.

  • What makes even more sense is a federal job guarantee, where the federal government agrees to hire anyone willing to work, This also moots the minimum wage - if anyone can work at a job guarantee job, the wage paid is essentially the effective minimum wage.

  • It makes perfect sense to a communist, Marxist /Tyrant.

  • One third of all the jobs created during Obama's term in office have been created in a republican controlled state. That state is Texas. And Obama had nothing to do with that. And if Obama has created so many jobs, why are so many people looking for work? And why do we have a record number of people receiving government assistance? Something doesn't add up. Oh, That's right. Many of those new jobs Obama is taking credit for ARE PART TIME JOBS! Not exactly something to brag about. Obamanomics is a joke. Anyone who thinks that turd is doing a good job has a real shaky grasp of reality.

  • LOL I was just thinking about this the other day. It is ridiculous what believe will believe.

    Posted by: Shield
Leave a comment...
(Maximum 900 words)
YamaVonKarma says2014-07-28T19:35:38.1783570-05:00
There may be a punctuation error. That makes it hard for me to quite understand this.
SocialistAtheistNutjob says2014-07-28T19:37:33.1905213-05:00
Leave it to a republican to not know how to spell "private sector"
Haroush says2014-07-28T19:44:31.5304349-05:00
I didn't know misspelling words means that you are stupid..
MyDinosaurHands says2014-07-28T19:48:24.3281535-05:00
Does it make sense to ask a rhetorical question so steeped in bias that you clearly don't want to hear any answers besides those that are in agreement with you?
SocialistAtheistNutjob says2014-07-28T19:48:36.8854290-05:00
I never said that republicans were stupid, given the fact you jumped to that conclusion says a lot about how you think about yourself.
Haroush says2014-07-28T19:49:38.1075305-05:00
There should have been another option though... At the same time, I did just create a poll not long ago about a two state solution between the U.S. and Mexico and made it to where both answers wouldn't be suffice for the opposition. Though, I did that intentionally to piss some people off. Especially since quite a few people on here want to go around spreading antisemitism.
ben671176 says2014-07-28T19:52:37.9539204-05:00
You know, I have always heard that Democrats and Republicans can't agree on wether or not you breathe or not.
discomfiting says2014-07-28T19:55:39.6444830-05:00
I find it hard to believe this guy has a post-doctoral degree.
lifemeansevolutionisgood says2014-07-28T20:36:26.0278920-05:00
Is this a loaded question? Yes, yes it is.
SweetTea says2014-07-29T03:54:42.0644615-05:00
Create government jobs? OMG! Where are you living? Government jobs have been slashed, at every level!
Dr_Obvious says2014-07-30T11:51:15.5446640-05:00
@SweetTea If you're talking about all government employees, you'd be correct. But the number of Federal employees has grown, under Obama. In only one month of Mr. Bush’s presidency was the federal workforce larger than it was during the month of Mr. Obama’s presidency when the federal workforce was at its smallest. With the exception of that one month, Mr. Obama’s minimum is larger than Mr. Bush’s maximum.
SweetTea says2014-07-31T05:56:26.0726199-05:00
Dr_Obvious ... I'd have to see a report to believe your claim. The link below is 2 years old, but it compares government size under several presidents. It was largest under Bush 43. Why? Because Bush created the Dept. Of Homeland Security. Yet, Homeland Security still exists under Obama & the number of government jobs is less. Hmmm ... Http://www.Forbes.Com/sites/mikepatton/2013/01/24/the-growth-of-the-federal-government-1980-to-2012/
The_Immortal_Emris says2014-07-31T09:33:34.9076707-05:00
"the number of Federal employees has grown, under Obama" Nope. Http://www.Opm.Gov/policy-data-oversight/data-analysis-documentation/federal-employment-reports/historical-tables/total-government-employment-since-1962/ Not at all. Http://www.Forbes.Com/sites/mikepatton/2013/01/24/the-growth-of-the-federal-government-1980-to-2012/ "Although the size of government has declined slightly in the past four years, the debt has exploded and higher taxes are likely on the horizon." The size of government has declined under Obama, sadly, the Bush wars were mighty expensive. Thanks Bush.
Dr_Obvious says2014-07-31T13:09:49.0467947-05:00
@SweetTea & The_Immortal_Emris Here's the data. As you can clearly see, the number of FEDERAL employees has grown under Obama. This is what people normally refer to when talking about the size of Government, not the total number of people working for the Government. Http://www.Aei-ideas.Org/2012/09/has-government-employment-really-increased-under-obama/
The_Immortal_Emris says2014-07-31T13:14:46.2637103-05:00
Yeah, that article clearly articulates that the only spike is from the temporary census hiring. So. Thanks for proving my point.
Dr_Obvious says2014-07-31T13:16:59.9426810-05:00
Are you really THAT dense? Look at the graph again. The number of Federal employees are higher, under Obama, even without the spike. You do know how to read a graph, right? I wonder.
Comrade_Silly_Otter says2014-07-31T13:44:34.0112894-05:00
Whats wrong with Federal Employees?
Dr_Obvious says2014-07-31T14:22:39.6112424-05:00
Peruse this. It explains it rather well. Http://www.Fee.Org/the_freeman/detail/whats-so-bad-about-big-government-anyway
SweetTea says2014-07-31T14:33:35.9988477-05:00
Dr_Obvious ... Oh, hon, don't make me laugh. You got it right & a sound publication like Forbes is wrong!
The_Immortal_Emris says2014-07-31T14:40:29.1785272-05:00
Clearly you don't, as the forbes article (a legitimate and conservative publication) has a series of them which you appear to have ignored.
Dr_Obvious says2014-07-31T14:41:50.0811644-05:00
@SweetTea Excuse me? Those statistics are from the Department of Labor. It clearly shows that there are more federal employees under Obama. Those are the FACTS.
SweetTea says2014-07-31T14:42:47.0062942-05:00
Dr_Obvious ... Do you know how to read your own graph? That huge spike in 2010 was temp workers for the Census Bureau as T_I_E has already pointed out. The same graph shows a steady drop afterward & nothing for 2014 (which is half over). From your own article, "I think Senator Paul is overstating his case by using the word “enormous” to describe either the growth of the federal workforce under President Obama or the size of the federal workforce under President Obama relative to President Bush. (It’s unclear which the senator was arguing.) And, of course, if the senator was referring to total government employment and not just federal, then clearly he was wrong."
The_Immortal_Emris says2014-07-31T14:43:02.3880914-05:00
If you discount census workers and military, not so much.
SweetTea says2014-07-31T14:46:06.4850880-05:00
And The Freeman? Really? OMG! What are you going to give us next? "White Is Right" on the K*K website!
SweetTea says2014-07-31T14:46:29.5106880-05:00

Freebase Icon   Portions of this page are reproduced from or are modifications based on work created and shared by Google and used according to terms described in the Creative Commons 3.0 Attribution License.

By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use.