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

Forums - Politics Discussion - Now that I did not vote for Romney, I already wish that I did?

dsgrue3 on 09 November 2012
bluesinG said:
dsgrue3 said:
Soundwave said:

The economy has been gaining jobs for the last 25 straight months.

The stock market has regained most of the levels it was at prior to the 2008 housing crash.

It's happening slowly, but the country is bouncing back economically and will continue to do so in the next 4 years. The critics of Obama know it, that's why they're so pissed off, because they know he's going to get credit for it.

You do not just snap your finger at the biggest recession and banking crisis of the modern age and just "fix" it in 2 years. Even my Romney's own plan he'd need until 2020 to get the economy back on track.

Jobs haven't been created at a great enough rate to even support the number of people entering the workforce. Estimaes are that 150k-200k jobs per month need be created to keep up. Very few months have even 150k jobs been created. This chart is very telling:

Stock market has little to do with the economy and even less to do with Obama. Is there a point here?

Bouncing back? Unemployment is higher than when Obama took office and with Obamacare  - greater taxes, workers reduced to part-time to avoid benefits, and mass layoffs. Not to mention the fiscal cliff.

You'd do well to research your points instead of blindly believing them, because they are completely unfounded and inaccurate.

Wow, what an absurd graph. Obama's bar is so small because the US was *losing* more than 500,000 jobs *per month* when he took office, and it took time to dig out of that hole--the hole that Bush dug. Since March 2010, the US has added an average of 141,000 jobs per month--which would rank sixth in that chart, ahead of every Rebuplican president except Reagan.

See for yourself:

http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/CES0000000001?output_view=net_1mth

The chart is what it is, Bush's bar also includes the jobs hemorrhaging as do all the other's listed...not sure how that's "absurd". Opposed to facts?
I really do not want to go into the whole Bush thing. See factcheck.org on the matter of whom is reponsible for the economic downturn.

YearJanFebMarAprMayJunJulAugSepOctNovDecAnnual
2002 -129 -146 -24 -84 -9 47 -100 -11 -55 121 8 -163  
2003 95 -159 -213 -49 -9 0 25 -45 109 197 14 119  
2004 162 44 337 249 310 81 46 122 161 348 63 134  
2005 137 240 141 360 170 243 374 193 66 80 334 160  
2006 283 316 283 181 14 76 209 183 157 -9 204 171  
2007 236 93 190 72 139 75 -40 -18 73 79 112 89  
2008 41 -84 -95 -208 -190 -198 -210 -274 -432 -489 -803 -661  
2009 -818 -724 -799 -692 -361 -482 -339 -231 -199 -202 -42 -171  
2010 -40 -35 189 239 516 -167 -58 -51 -27 220 121 120  
2011 110 220 246 251 54 84 96 85 202 112 157 223  
2012 275 259 143 68 87 45 181 192 148(P) 171(P)      
P : preliminary

Using the chart from the source you provided (from March 2010 onward):

17 months where the job creation has failed to exceed 150,000 (minimum estimate to offset increased workers)

15 months where job creation has exceeded 150,000.

4,511,000 NET

(150,000 per month off new workers) * 32 months = 4,800,000

4,511,000 - 4,800,000 = -289,000 jobs

In order to break even and keep up with new workers, we would have required 289,000 more jobs (remember this is a minimum estimate).

Include the 11 million missing from the workforce and there is a stark contrast to the "things are looking up" mentality.



Around the Network
Ail on 09 November 2012
dsgrue3 said:
Ail said:
mrstickball said:
Ail said:
 

Taxes won't raise on the poor and middle class, congress and Obama will come to some kind of agreement...Worse case they will add 6 months to the Bush tax cuts to give themselves time to work on it... All sides agree on this, the issue is that the republicans want to keep Bush tax cuts for the rich too ( people making over 250k/year) and Obama doesn't and the republicans are saying we want to handle all the tax issues at the same time . Basically they are taking the middle class tax hostage to solve the tax for the rich, although you have to understand them, there doesn't need a vote to raise taxes on the rich, it will happen automatically on January 1st so if they don't tie what they want as part of a deal on taxes for poor/middle class ( which would need a vote and that's where Obama needs them) they will get screwed in the end...

I do agree with Obama though, there is no historic evidence that cutting taxes on rich boost heavilly the economy. Cutting taxes on poor/middle class does however as it boosts consumers purchases...

 

96% of business with more than 50 employees currently offer healthcare so the impact of Obamacare on business will not be that huge...


"The president will note that the CBO report states that most of the impact of the tax cuts relates to those wage-earners who make less than $200,000 a year. Extending all the Bush-initiated lower rates would boost GDP by 1.4% and help create 1.8 million jobs, the CBO report states, while allowing their expiration for those higher wage earners while maintaining the lower rates for those making $200,000 a year and less would boost GDP by 1.3% and generate 1.6 million jobs."

If you continue the cuts on the rich as well, it helps. That's the bottom line, really. I do agree that in comparison to a middle/lower class tax cut, it pales in comparison to the boost.

Yeah it has to help some but lets face it 0.1% GDP and 200 000 jobs isn't what Romney was selling us, he was selling us 12 000 000 jobs, kind of a huge difference...

And we do have to close to deficit and no matter how you put it that will negatively impact GDP and jobs..( which means we have to cut spending too and no matter how you do that it will negatively affect jobs and GDP too...)

The thing we have to do so is do it in a way that will minimize those losses. 



PS3-Xbox360 gap : 1.5 millions and going up in PS3 favor !

PS3-Wii gap : 20 millions and going down !

bluesinG on 09 November 2012
dsgrue3 said:
bluesinG said:
dsgrue3 said:
Soundwave said:

 

Wow, what an absurd graph. Obama's bar is so small because the US was *losing* more than 500,000 jobs *per month* when he took office, and it took time to dig out of that hole--the hole that Bush dug. Since March 2010, the US has added an average of 141,000 jobs per month--which would rank sixth in that chart, ahead of every Rebuplican president except Reagan.

See for yourself:

http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/CES0000000001?output_view=net_1mth

The chart is what it is, Bush's bar also includes the jobs hemorrhaging as do all the other's listed...not sure how that's "absurd". Opposed to facts?
I really do not want to go into the whole Bush thing. See factcheck.org on the matter of whom is reponsible for the economic downturn.

Using the chart from the source you provided (from March 2010 onward):

17 months where the job creation has failed to exceed 150,000 (minimum estimate to offset increased workers)

15 months where job creation has exceeded 150,000.

4,511,000 NET

(150,000 per month off new workers) * 32 months = 4,800,000

4,511,000 - 4,800,000 = -289,000 jobs

In order to break even and keep up with new workers, we would have required 289,000 more jobs (remember this is a minimum estimate).

Include the 11 million missing from the workforce and there is a stark contrast to the "things are looking up" mentality.

I think that things are looking up because last month the US economy added 171,000 jobs. The month before Obama took office (December 2008), the economy lost 661,000 jobs. That's an improvement of 832,000 jobs per month in 4 years.

I'm not saying that the US economy is as strong as I'd like it to be. Obama hasn't said that, either. But the economy has improved a whole lot over the past 4 years, and I'm confident that it will continue to improve over the next four years (unless, of course, congress royally messes it up).

I mean, do you remember how bad the economy was in 2008/2009? It was terrible. I mean truly God-awful. They didn't call it the Great Recession for nothing.



WarmachineX on 09 November 2012
bluesinG said:
dsgrue3 said:
bluesinG said:
dsgrue3 said:
Soundwave said:

 

Wow, what an absurd graph. Obama's bar is so small because the US was *losing* more than 500,000 jobs *per month* when he took office, and it took time to dig out of that hole--the hole that Bush dug. Since March 2010, the US has added an average of 141,000 jobs per month--which would rank sixth in that chart, ahead of every Rebuplican president except Reagan.

See for yourself:

http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/CES0000000001?output_view=net_1mth

The chart is what it is, Bush's bar also includes the jobs hemorrhaging as do all the other's listed...not sure how that's "absurd". Opposed to facts?
I really do not want to go into the whole Bush thing. See factcheck.org on the matter of whom is reponsible for the economic downturn.

Using the chart from the source you provided (from March 2010 onward):

17 months where the job creation has failed to exceed 150,000 (minimum estimate to offset increased workers)

15 months where job creation has exceeded 150,000.

4,511,000 NET

(150,000 per month off new workers) * 32 months = 4,800,000

4,511,000 - 4,800,000 = -289,000 jobs

In order to break even and keep up with new workers, we would have required 289,000 more jobs (remember this is a minimum estimate).

Include the 11 million missing from the workforce and there is a stark contrast to the "things are looking up" mentality.

I think that things are looking up because last month the US economy added 171,000 jobs. The month before Obama took office (December 2008), the economy lost 661,000 jobs. That's an improvement of 832,000 jobs per month in 4 years.

I'm not saying that the US economy is as strong as I'd like it to be. Obama hasn't said that, either. But the economy has improved a whole lot over the past 4 years, and I'm confident that it will continue to improve over the next four years (unless, of course, congress royally messes it up).

I mean, do you remember how bad the economy was in 2008/2009? It was terrible. I mean truly God-awful. They didn't call it the Great Recession for nothing.

^this

until Repugs stop being so self centered and caring only about their paychecks, I'm not voting for any of them. Ronmey was raised with a silver spoon in his mouth and knows nothing about what the poor and middle class have to go through to make ends meet.





Official member of the Xbox 360 Squad

mrstickball on 11 November 2012
bluesinG said:

Wow, what an absurd graph. Obama's bar is so small because the US was *losing* more than 700,000 jobs per month when he took office, and it took time to dig out of that hole--the hole that Bush dug. Since March 2010, the US has added an average of 141,000 jobs per month--which would rank sixth in that chart, ahead of every Rebuplican president except Reagan.

See for yourself:

http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/CES0000000001?output_view=net_1mth


That chart is pretty funny.

You know why? The part marked "Republican policies" weren't Republican policies....Both houses were controlled by Democrats.

 

 



Back from the dead, I'm afraid.

Around the Network
Kasz216 on 12 November 2012
mrstickball said:
bluesinG said:

Wow, what an absurd graph. Obama's bar is so small because the US was *losing* more than 700,000 jobs per month when he took office, and it took time to dig out of that hole--the hole that Bush dug. Since March 2010, the US has added an average of 141,000 jobs per month--which would rank sixth in that chart, ahead of every Rebuplican president except Reagan.

See for yourself:

 

http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/CES0000000001?output_view=net_1mth


That chart is pretty funny.

You know why? The part marked "Republican policies" weren't Republican policies....Both houses were controlled by Democrats.

 

Well if you want to get into graphwarz there is always this...

Which more or less shows democrats building off republican steam a bit then jobs dying off.

 

Really though, i'd say it's kinda silly in general, if ony because despite the bluster there really wasn't THAT much difference in republican and democratic economic policy until the Obama administration... espiecally during financial crisises.   The Rank and File republicans wanted to reject the bailouts but party leadership pulled them in line.

 

It's still the thing I find most ironic... that Republicans are seen as the big Wallstreet party... yet the banks would of went bankrupt... thanks to the republicans.  If the first bailout vote was the last one.



thranx on 12 November 2012
bluesinG said:
dsgrue3 said:
bluesinG said:
dsgrue3 said:
Soundwave said:

 

Wow, what an absurd graph. Obama's bar is so small because the US was *losing* more than 500,000 jobs *per month* when he took office, and it took time to dig out of that hole--the hole that Bush dug. Since March 2010, the US has added an average of 141,000 jobs per month--which would rank sixth in that chart, ahead of every Rebuplican president except Reagan.

See for yourself:

http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/CES0000000001?output_view=net_1mth

The chart is what it is, Bush's bar also includes the jobs hemorrhaging as do all the other's listed...not sure how that's "absurd". Opposed to facts?
I really do not want to go into the whole Bush thing. See factcheck.org on the matter of whom is reponsible for the economic downturn.

Using the chart from the source you provided (from March 2010 onward):

17 months where the job creation has failed to exceed 150,000 (minimum estimate to offset increased workers)

15 months where job creation has exceeded 150,000.

4,511,000 NET

(150,000 per month off new workers) * 32 months = 4,800,000

4,511,000 - 4,800,000 = -289,000 jobs

In order to break even and keep up with new workers, we would have required 289,000 more jobs (remember this is a minimum estimate).

Include the 11 million missing from the workforce and there is a stark contrast to the "things are looking up" mentality.

I think that things are looking up because last month the US economy added 171,000 jobs. The month before Obama took office (December 2008), the economy lost 661,000 jobs. That's an improvement of 832,000 jobs per month in 4 years.

I'm not saying that the US economy is as strong as I'd like it to be. Obama hasn't said that, either. But the economy has improved a whole lot over the past 4 years, and I'm confident that it will continue to improve over the next four years (unless, of course, congress royally messes it up).

I mean, do you remember how bad the economy was in 2008/2009? It was terrible. I mean truly God-awful. They didn't call it the Great Recession for nothing.

Perhaps without Obamas policies we would would be adding even more jobs per month, and the low would have happened quicker and our recovery would be more stable now. As it is aren't we looking to enter another recession when Obama care hits?



mrstickball on 12 November 2012
Kasz216 said:
mrstickball said:
bluesinG said:

Wow, what an absurd graph. Obama's bar is so small because the US was *losing* more than 700,000 jobs per month when he took office, and it took time to dig out of that hole--the hole that Bush dug. Since March 2010, the US has added an average of 141,000 jobs per month--which would rank sixth in that chart, ahead of every Rebuplican president except Reagan.

See for yourself:

 

http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/CES0000000001?output_view=net_1mth


That chart is pretty funny.

You know why? The part marked "Republican policies" weren't Republican policies....Both houses were controlled by Democrats.

 

Well if you want to get into graphwarz there is always this...

Which more or less shows democrats building off republican steam a bit then jobs dying off.

 

Really though, i'd say it's kinda silly in general, if ony because despite the bluster there really wasn't THAT much difference in republican and democratic economic policy until the Obama administration... espiecally during financial crisises.   The Rank and File republicans wanted to reject the bailouts but party leadership pulled them in line.

 

It's still the thing I find most ironic... that Republicans are seen as the big Wallstreet party... yet the banks would of went bankrupt... thanks to the republicans.  If the first bailout vote was the last one.


Oh, I don't disagree. I just think its funny when people try to throw out various graphs as "proof" that their party is right, when there is usually another similar chart with data that says the opposite. Sadly, few people can even read a chart in context to know weather or not the data is valid and useful in the argument.



Back from the dead, I'm afraid.

Mr Khan on 12 November 2012
Max King of the Wild said:
I went into bankruptcy 7 years ago from a collapsed lung while I was uinsured... I work at 10.28 dollars an hour... I don't have insurance because I can't afford it.

I dont make little enough not to worry about the penalty. Obama care will force me to obtain coverage that I can't afford or be penalized which I can not afford...

But you went into bankruptcy. That's the whole point of this whole thing, so people don't have to go bankrupt over stuff like that.



Monster Hunter: pissing me off since 2010.

thranx on 12 November 2012
Mr Khan said:
Max King of the Wild said:
I went into bankruptcy 7 years ago from a collapsed lung while I was uinsured... I work at 10.28 dollars an hour... I don't have insurance because I can't afford it.

I dont make little enough not to worry about the penalty. Obama care will force me to obtain coverage that I can't afford or be penalized which I can not afford...

But you went into bankruptcy. That's the whole point of this whole thing, so people don't have to go bankrupt over stuff like that.


instead they go broke before they get hurt trying to pay for insurance or paying penalty fees?