236,000 Jobs Added In February, Unemployment at 7.7%

klunderbunker

Welcome to My (And Not Sly's) House
http://www.nbcnews.com/business/economywatch/unemployment-rate-drops-lowest-four-years-1C8767810

That's the lowest in four years. This is combined with the highest Dow Jones Average ever. In other words, people are going back to work and the levels of unemployment are going down. The economy seems to be picking back up again, despite the stupidity of stuff like the sequester.

But Obama is killing business and making us all Socialists, right?

We've been Socialist for decades, so that criticism never held water with me. Good to know things are looking up. Now I've got to share this good news on Facebook and watch the conversation devolve.

I must say, though, that this economic recovery has come in fits and starts. Let's not pat ourselves on the back and start throwing away money again. Not yet.
 
http://www.nbcnews.com/business/economywatch/unemployment-rate-drops-lowest-four-years-1C8767810

That's the lowest in four years. This is combined with the highest Dow Jones Average ever. In other words, people are going back to work and the levels of unemployment are going down. The economy seems to be picking back up again, despite the stupidity of stuff like the sequester.

But Obama is killing business and making us all Socialists, right?

All I can say is thank God Republicans are finally reigning in Obama's reckless spending. Now that the federal government cut $85 billion in the sequester, we can already see how immediately private companies are really starting to hire.

I must say, though, that this economic recovery has come in fits and starts.

Only because we have one party who genuinely has tried to stall the recovery for the purposes of winning an election.
 
How many more of these threads do we need to see? We get it... Democrats do good things. I mean, you act as if all Republican views are on the same level as worshiping Satan and supporting the Democratic party is absolute purity.

Both parties do good and bad things. Anyone who views one party as being entirely positive and the other as completely negative is naive.
 
Honestly, I don't know nearly as much about politics as you guys do. I definitely know a bunch of things that I can mention but I'm not in a position (not do I have any desire) to have a heated discussion about it.

It's like the WZ Tournament... why would I get involved and set myself up to be gang-raped by everyone who disagrees with me? I said my peace and now I'll leave it alone.
 
Honestly, I don't know nearly as much about politics as you guys do. I definitely know a bunch of things that I can mention but I'm not in a position (not do I have any desire) to have a heated discussion about it.

It's like the WZ Tournament... why would I get involved and set myself up to be gang-raped by everyone who disagrees with me? I said my peace and now I'll leave it alone.

I for one wouldn't jump you. The reason I make these threads is because I do follow politics very closely and I hear the nonsense which makes absolutely no sense, primarily from the GOP. Think of it in forum terms: you're one of the smartest posters we have here. You've forgotten more about wrestling than most people we have here. When you see a post being made that is completely wrong and bashes someone you're a fan of for completely inaccurate reasons and then you have logical proof and facts that back up your stance, aren't you going to reply to them and say what you think is correct while presenting your proof?
 
I for one wouldn't jump you. The reason I make these threads is because I do follow politics very closely and I hear the nonsense which makes absolutely no sense, primarily from the GOP. Think of it in forum terms: you're one of the smartest posters we have here. You've forgotten more about wrestling than most people we have here. When you see a post being made that is completely wrong and bashes someone you're a fan of for completely inaccurate reasons and then you have logical proof and facts that back up your stance, aren't you going to reply to them and say what you think is correct while presenting your proof?

Trust me, I understand why you guys would all jump to argue against my views. I'm just choosing to take myself out of the picture.

Sometimes, I feel the need to state a point, get it out of my system, and move on without having a big to-do.

And part of me wishes I was even remotely as smart with politics as guys like you and Sly. I choose not to get into debates about it because I learned my lesson from the recent election. Politics is one of those topics that cannot be contained. When people are passionate about it, they show their passion. And most of the time, it winds up doing more bad than good. This same point is exactly what is wrong with our government. Too many roosters in the hen-house.
 
I see & agree with D-man's point for the most part these threads do tend to get a bit redundant & can be mildly annoying, however I'd much rather this stuff stay here where if I don't want to read it & can simply choose not to click on the thread, as opposed to when I see people voicing their political views on Facebook, & I get some stupid paragraph I don't want to look at.

Short version- I prefer this shit here rather than Facebook because as it's easier to ignore here.
 
I'm not a major follower of politics myself, but I know enough to see that the Republican Party have done little to nothing to contribute positively to the United States in a decade or more. That doesn't mean that being Republican makes you a bad person, nor does it mean that Republicans are automatically the sole reason for the country's decline. However, the simple fact of the matter is that things started going downhill in a huge way for the economy during a time in which the Republicans controlled both the White House and Congress.

The unemployment rate sinking significantly below 8% is a significant deal. As has been pointed out, it hasn't been that low since in quite a long time. Most of my problem with the Republican Party stems from their stance on social issues. It's a party of exclusion in my eyes. If you're not a straight, Born Again Christian anti-abortion supporter, then you get left out in the cold by Republicans. Back when I was in college, I had a gay friend who tended to vote Republican. He agreed with many of their stances except for their stance on gay issues. I laughed at him and told him that a gay right wing conservative makes about as much sense as a vegetarian working as a butcher for a living. If you're gay and want 100% equal treatment under ALL the currents as they exist, then the Republican Party as a whole will fight tooth & nail to see that it doesn't happen.
 
All I can say is thank God Republicans are finally reigning in Obama's reckless spending. Now that the federal government cut $85 billion in the sequester, we can already see how immediately private companies are really starting to hire.

No Obama is cooking the books so he can win the election.
 
The other shoe will drop when we find out that the new jobs are in the "drone piloting" and "secret police" sectors.

As for the GOP/Dem thing, I think Sideshow Bob said it best:

Sideshow Bob said:
Your guilty conscience may move you to vote Democratic, but deep down you long for a cold-hearted Republican to lower taxes, brutalize criminals, and rule you like a king.

While that was written in jest, I do believe that most Americans skew to the right when they fantasize. Batman is perhaps the easiest example, and after all that was written about the Chris Nolan trilogy I doubt I have to explain. The hip-hop culture has for most of its life been one of getting and keeping as much money as possible, while being intolerant and male-dominated. Cowboys, G.I. Joes, Barbies, and other staples of childhood play are geared toward the Republican ideal of how men and women should be.

So yeah, while our bleeding hearts take us down the road to full-blown Socialism, we're always just a 9/11 away from cheerfully going the other route.
 
I agree completely with D-Man. I'm neither Republican nor Democratic. I'm American. I vote for the person that I agree with the most. Whether it be a Republican or a Democrat. But I'm not very politically savvy like Sly and KB. I read a thread here and there but I refrain from commenting because I don't follow politics enough to really state an opinion. It's the same with Religion. I'm Christian but I try to keep from commenting because conversation always seem to devolve into redundancy. I absolutely despise Facebook during election time.

But on topic. This is extremely good news for the economy but like Dr. said, let's not go on any spending sprees yet folks.
 
I definitely know a bunch of things that I can mention
To be clear, I'm talking about the party as a whole, not individual citizens, and I'm talking exclusively on the federal level, nothing below it. I know many good people who identify as Republicans, and I know of many good things Republicans have done. But on a national scale, the Republican Party has been atrocious since Clinton was in office.

The other shoe will drop when we find out that the new jobs are in the "drone piloting" and "secret police" sectors.

As for the GOP/Dem thing, I think Sideshow Bob said it best:



While that was written in jest, I do believe that most Americans skew to the right when they fantasize. Batman is perhaps the easiest example, and after all that was written about the Chris Nolan trilogy I doubt I have to explain. The hip-hop culture has for most of its life been one of getting and keeping as much money as possible, while being intolerant and male-dominated. Cowboys, G.I. Joes, Barbies, and other staples of childhood play are geared toward the Republican ideal of how men and women should be.

So yeah, while our bleeding hearts take us down the road to full-blown Socialism, we're always just a 9/11 away from cheerfully going the other route.
I'm going to pretend you wrote that in the same tongue-in-cheek manner I wrote my post earlier about Republicans reigning in spending. Otherwise....well, I'm just going to pretend you were joking.
 
The problem with the GOP is the lack of leadership it has. Men like John Huntsman and Ron Paul will never be president. They have a diminutive voice within their party. The Republican party has been hijacked in a sense by the Tea Party, and the social extremism is costing most moderate republicans a heavy price. Today I read a report that stated that today's moderate republican is about three times as conservative as a republican from the 1970's. Another report concluded that politicians are overestimating just how conservative their constituents are. This leads to the kind of extremism, filibustering, and polarization that have become synonymous within the Republican party. When it gets to the point that Karl Rove feels the initiative to implement a program to ensure that only competent republicans will be voted into office, and not the "crazies" like Todd Aikin, you know the shit has hit the fan. But the old guard is definitely dying down (literally), so that guys like McCain and Lindsay Graham, slaves to the military industrial complex responsible for instigating most of the wars we've been involved in, wont be around for much longer. Some day, hopefully, the Republican party will go back to being the party of responsible spending and limited government interference, something this country desperately needs.
 
Well I am glad it only took four years for the stimulus to work seeing it was suppose to guarantee positive news by the Spring of '09. Its a positive sign but people have to understand the deficit is way too hogh and thats a US problem not one party or the other. If people look inside the numbers when Obama took office it was 10.7 trill and now its approaching 17 trill. I thought the sequester didn't go far enough. The government is banking on in the next few years the unemployment being around 5% and then you would see the deficit come down with all new tax revenue from new tax payers. However if that doesn't happen and the US approaches 20 trill in debt that is economic armageddon. Keep one thing in mind under Bush whether people agree with him or not under his guidance from 2003-2007 was the most tax revenue under any president with the lowest tax rates as well. I do believe once and for all the government must simplify the tax code,eliminate tax loopholes,eliminate the inheritance tax or what is known more as the death tax, and eliminate capital gains tax as well
 
Well I am glad it only took four years for the stimulus to work
It didn't. The stimulus worked years ago.

seeing it was suppose to guarantee positive news by the Spring of '09.
Source?

Actually, that's unfair, because I know why you're saying that. However, unlike you, I also know that the report to which you're referring spoke of that in a hopeful matter, and said there was absolutely no guarantee of its predictions, especially since they could not accurately (at the time) assess the severity of the economic downturn.

Its a positive sign but people have to understand the deficit is way too hogh and thats a US problem not one party or the other.
Deficits will always run high during a severe economic downturn. There's no avoiding it.

If people look inside the numbers when Obama took office it was 10.7 trill and now its approaching 17 trill.
And the deficit Bush left was $1.4 trillion and is now expected to be under $900 billion.

So as the economy has recovered, so has the amount of deficit spending.

I thought the sequester didn't go far enough.
Here's what so many people don't realize about the sequester. No one argued with the amount of money cut, they argued about HOW it should be cut.

However if that doesn't happen and the US approaches 20 trill in debt that is economic armageddon.
Absolutely false. First of all, the entire "debt" and "deficit spending" concept is sort of smoke and mirrors. The majority of the debt we owe is to ourselves. People talked in the last election about borrowing money from China, the fact is less than 8% (last I saw) of our debt is to China. Most of our debt is publicly owned debt.

Furthermore, the United States is one of the largest consumers of world goods. Why would $20 trillion be economic armageddon? So many countries need us to purchase things, otherwise their economies will stall. So it's not like we won't be able to find lenders to pay our bills.

Here's a good article on this subject: http://www.forbes.com/sites/pascale...l-not-go-into-a-debt-crisis-not-now-not-ever/

Is a high debt troubling? Yes, I'm not arguing it's not. What I am arguing is that it is sort of blown out of proportion.

Keep one thing in mind under Bush whether people agree with him or not under his guidance from 2003-2007 was the most tax revenue under any president with the lowest tax rates as well.
Only in terms of total dollars, not as a percentage of GDP.

www.heritage.org/federalbudget/current-tax-receiptsa

I do believe once and for all the government must simplify the tax code,eliminate tax loopholes
Agreed.

eliminate the inheritance tax or what is known more as the death tax, and eliminate capital gains tax as well
I don't agree.
 
The Stimulus according the POTUS and DNC said in February of '09 that the stimulus would bring the UE % under 8 and that americans would see positive growth in the spring and no latter than the end of the summer of '09. World economists have said the cliff the US needs to avoid is 20 trill. Our debt is 99.4% of the GDP which means almost every dollar the government takes in barely pays off its debt. Greece,Spain, and Italy before they had bailouts from the EU were over 100% and Greece's % was at 117. For those three countries for every dollar that they made they couldn't pay off the interest of their debt. You can't reach 100%. Also if the US Debt reaches 20 trill you could see the USD decrease and be worth between .80 and .90 cents. I am a firm believer that each program should have a cap based oof of total tax revenue brought in from the previous year. If this government was a business they would be in bankruptcy. Its also ludricious to think if we can't borrow money from China that there would be a lender. Isn't thats what got us in this mess starting with Regan. The US can't even borrow from the World Bank until they at least pay back the interest of the debt that they owe to the World Bank. You are correct about US being the biggest consumer but the problem is three times the amount of goods come in than going out. The US is nowhere in the Top 10 for distributing products seeing thats one of the reasons manufacturing companies have left this company years ago
 
The Stimulus according the POTUS and DNC said in February of '09 that the stimulus would bring the UE % under 8 and that americans would see positive growth in the spring and no latter than the end of the summer of '09.
No, they didn't. This is what you are referring to:

Link to Memo: http://otrans.3cdn.net/ee40602f9a7d8172b8_ozm6bt5oi.pdf

And this is the Politifact check on your statement, which you can verify in the memo above:

The important word here is projection. The economic analysis wasn’t a promise, it was an educated assessment of how events might unfold. And it came with heavy disclaimers.

"It should be understood that all of the estimates presented in this memo are subject to significant margins of error," the report states. "There is the more fundamental uncertainty that comes with any estimate of the effects of a program. Our estimates of economic relationships and rules of thumb are derived from historical experience and so will not apply exactly in any given episode. Furthermore, the uncertainty is surely higher than normal now because the current recession is unusual both in its fundamental causes and its severity."

There's also a footnote that goes along with the chart stating: "Forecasts of the unemployment rate without the recovery plan vary substantially. Some private forecasters anticipate unemployment rates as high as 11% in the absence of action."
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-m...-repeats-claim-obama-promised-unemployment-w/

Nobody promised anything of the sort. In fact, by the time Obama was inaugurated, unemployment had already climbed past 8%.

World economists have said the cliff the US needs to avoid is 20 trill.
And other world economists have said a variety of other things.

Our debt is 99.4% of the GDP which means almost every dollar the government takes in barely pays off its debt.
Which will decrease as the economy rights itself.

Greece,Spain, and Italy before they had bailouts from the EU were over 100% and Greece's % was at 117.
And as mentioned in the link I gave earlier, comparing the United States to those countries is a false analogy.

You can't reach 100%.
Japan is over 200% :shrug:

Also if the US Debt reaches 20 trill you could see the USD decrease and be worth between .80 and .90 cents.
Based upon what?

I am a firm believer that each program should have a cap based oof of total tax revenue brought in from the previous year.
A large governmental budget simply cannot work that way.

If this government was a business they would be in bankruptcy.
Government is not a business, never has been a business and never will be a business. Government and businesses serve two entirely separate functions.

And by the way, businesses run at a loss all the time.

Its also ludricious to think if we can't borrow money from China that there would be a lender.
Sure there would, why wouldn't there be? We're the most powerful country in the world.

You are correct about US being the biggest consumer but the problem is three times the amount of goods come in than going out.
Isn't that kind of my point? That other countries NEED us buying their stuff?

The US is nowhere in the Top 10 for distributing products seeing thats one of the reasons manufacturing companies have left this company years ago
Not really. The reason manufacturing companies have left has been because it is profitable to do so. If you have a choice between paying $7.25 an hour in the US, or paying $.25 an hour with no bathroom breaks AND receive a tax break for moving your business overseas, why wouldn't you?
 
-I suggest you go back and see the Press Conferences POTUS and VPOTUS had back in early of '09
-Obviously you can't compare US to other countries but the debt compared to GDP can be compared regardless of the size of the country
-Liberals do believe the government is a business as why they continue to borrow and borrow
-Programs are individual budgets and they must be managed and not thinking the answer is contantly going up on the rich's taxes cause thats how EU has gotten into their deficit mess
-You do realize you are losing money if you buy to bring in products over the idea of making product and sellinf to international markets based off of needs
-Also anyone that thinks the solotion to the deficit problem is raising taxes on the wealthy all of the time then CA would be the most prosperous State in the union
-I do believe anyone making over 1 mill but less than 4 mill should have a tax rate of 33%
-Also anyone making over 4 mill should pay between 38-40% tax rate
-There are many reasons why manufacturing jobs have left and one of the biggest factors are big unions having such a power grab in some instances as much as 90% of that company's profit going towards payroll expenses reflecting toward the union
-If people were to take a look at those jobs being shipped overseas in most of those countries the wages from US firms are as much as four times the amount than local companies
-What should be done are tax loopholes or tax credits going away for companies that ship jobs overseas
 
-I suggest you go back and see the Press Conferences POTUS and VPOTUS had back in early of '09
Link me then. Please provide YouTube videos where they said these things would definitely happen within 2 years.

-Obviously you can't compare US to other countries
Exactly.

-Liberals do believe the government is a business as why they continue to borrow and borrow
That doesn't make any sense, and seems like a way to criticize "liberals".

By the way, why do people like you always criticize "liberals", instead of Democrats? People like me criticize Republicans, but it's always "liberals" to you people. Why is that?

-Programs are individual budgets and they must be managed and not thinking the answer is contantly going up on the rich's taxes cause thats how EU has gotten into their deficit mess
How would you cap Social Security and Medicare, which are easily the two largest social programs causing our debt? How do you cap military spending during times of war?

I'm sorry, your idea is unrealistic in practice. There are many programs who receive a budget and have to stay within that budget. But you cannot make that mandatory across the board.

-You do realize you are losing money if you buy to bring in products over the idea of making product and sellinf to international markets based off of needs
Who is losing money though?

Our economy has evolved into different areas. Jobs like manufacturing, while jobs we certainly need more of, are occupations which are, many times, relatively low education level jobs. The technological revolution of the last 20 or 30 years has created whole other markets, which don't necessarily lead to physical objects, but are nonetheless important to the US economy.

It's not quite as simple as you've put it.

-Also anyone that thinks the solotion to the deficit problem is raising taxes on the wealthy all of the time then CA would be the most prosperous State in the union
Anyone who thinks the solution to the deficit problem DOESN'T include raising taxes is ignorant to our country's history.

Raising taxes is certainly not the only way to reduce deficit. But it has to be part of the plan. At the end of the day, our expenditures are extremely taxed due to the so-called Baby Boomers retiring. This was something which was foreseen decades ago, but our government never bothered to plan for it ahead of time. If you would remove half of the Baby Boomers, our defecits would decrease dramatically. Obviously, you cannot do that, but it is important to understand where the largest part of our problem lies.

-I do believe anyone making over 1 mill but less than 4 mill should have a tax rate of 33%
-Also anyone making over 4 mill should pay between 38-40% tax rate
I'd argue it should be much higher.

Let's say you make 5 million dollars. For the sake of easy numbers, let's say I tax you 50%. Are you really telling me you wouldn't try to make $5 million a year ($2.5 million after taxes) because of the tax rate? That you would trade in your $5 million income for a $40,000 income, just to receive a better tax rate?

That's silly, of course you would still strive to make the most money you can. The idea that tax rates are a deterrent to success is simply a lie. And when you figure in the fact that (I believe this is what I read) 80% of tax breaks are taken advantage of by only the top 20% of earners, then it's even more silly to say the so-called wealthy cannot sacrifice more.

-There are many reasons why manufacturing jobs have left and one of the biggest factors are big unions having such a power grab in some instances as much as 90% of that company's profit going towards payroll expenses reflecting toward the union
Yes, those damn unions for wanting to make sure the workers, the ones responsible for the success of the company, aren't paid poverty wages. Those damn unions. :rolleyes:

-If people were to take a look at those jobs being shipped overseas in most of those countries the wages from US firms are as much as four times the amount than local companies
Not sure I understand what you were trying to say here.

-What should be done are tax loopholes or tax credits going away for companies that ship jobs overseas
Agreed 100%. There was a bill called the Bring Jobs Home Act last summer which would have worked to do just that, as well as potentially create hundreds of thousands of American jobs.

The Republicans, of course, shot it down.
 
http://www.nbcnews.com/business/economywatch/unemployment-rate-drops-lowest-four-years-1C8767810

That's the lowest in four years. This is combined with the highest Dow Jones Average ever. In other words, people are going back to work and the levels of unemployment are going down. The economy seems to be picking back up again, despite the stupidity of stuff like the sequester.

But Obama is killing business and making us all Socialists, right?

Does that number include the number of people who have dropped out of the workforce(Stopped looking for work)?
 
Wouldn't it have been easier to simply say "No, it does not include that number"?

No, because I didn't know what number you were talking about. :shrug:

I would assume you're referring to the drop in unemployment rate, but that would then make your question rhetorical. And if you are going to waste time with a question you already know the answer to, in a sheep like attempt to dismiss good news, then I'm going to waste time with another question, to try and frame your question more accurately.

Such is the nature of political discussion.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Members online

No members online now.

Forum statistics

Threads
174,837
Messages
3,300,747
Members
21,726
Latest member
chrisxenforo
Back
Top