The President with the worst average unemployment rate since World War II is?

[NYcarbineer]

Obama is definitely responsible for the worst record for unemployment. His insurance mandate has stalled the economy. If you review each state, you will find that half of the 18-64 age bracket is employed and the other half is not employed.

A few of the States, there are more unemployed than their are employed. We need at least 20 to 30 million new jobs, preferably in manufacturing and production to get us back on track. That doesn't appear remotely possible at the moment or in the near future.

Whereas I agree with you as it pertains to policy and how the current administration policies are hindering economic growth, I need to offer my sentiments as it pertains to overall job creation....

The recession actually opened the eyes of many employers. They found they were overstaffed to begin with.

Example.....

In 1995 a company had 50 employees broken down this way:

2 receptionists/clericals
8 exempt employees (managers/supervisors)
5 order processors
5 Warehouse/shipping and receiving personnel
30 machinists turning lathes and making product from stock

From 1995-2007 they never adjusted their staff size. They were prosperous and ...well.....you dont fix it if it aint broken.

However, during that time, they installed a new phone systemn with direct line voice mail; they installed a new inventory program (high tech) and they installed CNC and eliminated manual lathe turning.

Then the recession hit. Orders went down, and they laid off....

Gone is one receptionist
Gone are 3 warehouse personnel
Gone are 10 machinists

So in 2009, they now had 35 employees....and that staff met the decrease in demand.

Then demand increased again.....

But....

with direct line voice mail, they realized they do not need another receptionist
with the high tech inventory system, they dont need to rehire anyone else in the warehouse
With CNC lathes, each machinists puts out twice the prodcut they used to manually

So output increases, but the need for an increase in personnel is not there.

Unless we ENCOURAGE people to start new busineeses, I believe we will see 7.5% unemployment as the new normal.

That brings me back to policies.

Obam,a is not encouraging risk taking. Thats a problem.

What do you want Obama to do to encourage 'risk taking'?

Why is that encouragement important? Isn't demand for whatever goods and services a new company plans to provide the single most important factor in determining whether or not one should risk starting a business?

 

[NYcarbineer]

I never said that. I said that its open to debate. What is not debatable is that while in office, Barack Obama has the worst average unemployment rate of any President since World War II. Thats a fact, that most people including yourself were ignorant of but for I posted it. So, its not pointless, as you have become better informed thanks to the thread.

The only people who suffer from Obama Derangement Syndrome, are those that think Obama is not responsible for anything bad that happens while he is President.

This has to be the first time in US history where supporters of a President were willing to pass off anything bad happening while their guy was in office on a former President, even into his second term!

Okay, then post some actual provable cause and effect regarding the unemployment rate and President Obama's policies.

Why don't you go ahead and prove to us that Obama has had NO impact on any of the economic figures the country has had for the past 53 months. I'm just stating the facts of what people have experienced since he has been in office compared to all the Presidents since World War II. What I presented in my first post, the topic of this thread, are irrefutable facts!

If you're only point was to remind us all of some historical statistics, why didn't you post this in the history forum?

This is the politics forum.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Money well spent and I might add, total US defense spending as a percentage of GDP for defense and the wars while Bush was President, was less than total US defense spending during the peacetime of the 1980s as a percentage of GDP!

Money well spent why? Name one vital national interest that necessitated the Iraq War.

Simply put.....

If you threaten someone with a gun, you better be prepared to use it.

Hussein was in breach of his treaty.

We told him he will suffer the consequences if he did not abide by the terms of the treaty.

He dared us.

If we did nothing?

Our word would mean squat in the international arena.

That in itself is detrimental to our national security.

By that logic you must believe that an invasion of North Korea is and has been 'necessary' for decades.

Who do you blame for not invading North Korea?

 

[NYcarbineer]

Money well spent and I might add, total US defense spending as a percentage of GDP for defense and the wars while Bush was President, was less than total US defense spending during the peacetime of the 1980s as a percentage of GDP!

Money well spent why? Name one vital national interest that necessitated the Iraq War.

1. Saddam Hussian's continued threat to the vital energy resources of the Persian Gulf region, particularly in Kuwait and northern Saudi Arabia.

What were those threats specifically and why would they threaten the vital interests of the US?

Are you implying that we are so dependent on Middle East oil for our national security that we must start wars to protect that oil,

like we did in 1991?

 

[Mr Natural]

Money well spent why? Name one vital national interest that necessitated the Iraq War.

1. Saddam Hussian's continued threat to the vital energy resources of the Persian Gulf region, particularly in Kuwait and northern Saudi Arabia.

What were those threats specifically and why would they threaten the vital interests of the US?

Are you implying that we are so dependent on Middle East oil for our national security that we must start wars to protect that oil,

like we did in 1991?

And if that's the case, why did China get first dibs on developing Iraqi oil fields?

 

[U2Edge]

Money well spent why? Name one vital national interest that necessitated the Iraq War.

1. Saddam Hussian's continued threat to the vital energy resources of the Persian Gulf region, particularly in Kuwait and northern Saudi Arabia.

What were those threats specifically and why would they threaten the vital interests of the US?

Are you implying that we are so dependent on Middle East oil for our national security that we must start wars to protect that oil,

like we did in 1991?

The United States did not start the war in 1991. Saddam started it by invading and annexing Kuwait. The Planet has been dependent on Persian Gulf Oil supply to support the growing global economy for decades. It was President Franklin Roosevelt who first declared in 1943 that it was in the national security interest of the United States to defend Saudi Arabia. Every President since that time has agreed. So much of the worlds natural gas and oil is located in Kuwait and Saudi Arabia that the loss of that oil from the market would cause a global economic depression.

The world is more dependent on Persian Gulf oil now than it was in 1991 thanks to rising demand in the third world as countries like India, China and all of Africa develop and grow larger populations. In 1991, Saudi Arabia had the ability to make up for a sudden loss of production from say a country like Kuwait. Thats why Saudi Arabia was the worlds only swing producer. Today Saudi Arabia does not have that ability anymore as the level of demand vs current supply is smaller meaning Saudia Arabia no longer as the ability to make up the difference quickly if there is a loss of production somewhere, which increases the likely hood of huge price shocks if production in certain area's is shut down for some reason.

What were those threats specifically and why would they threaten the vital interests of the US?

The United States like the rest of the world is impacted heavily by the price of energy. Saddam's potential seizure or sabotage of Persian Gulf oil supply could cause a global economic depression that would be extremely damaging to the United States, its Allies, as well as the rest of the world. Saddam's Iraq is in close proximity to much of the worlds supply of oil and natural gas which means he only needs minimal military capability to threaten it.

Here is a more detailed explanation of all the problems that Saddam posed for the United States in the Persian Gulf area. It explains how the failure of the containment policy meant that regime removal became an absolute necessity given Saddam's past actions, crimes, and survivability.

1. Saddam Hussian's continued threat to the vital energy resources of the Persian Gulf region, particularly in Kuwait and northern Saudi Arabia.

2. The errosion of the key measures of containment on Saddam Hussian, sanctions and the
weapons embargo.

3. The fact that starting in the year 2000, Saddam was getting away with selling Billions of dollars worth of oil on the black market.

4. The fact that Russia, China and France were all violating UN Security Council resolutions meant to contain Saddam. China specifically by providing fiber optic communications for Saddam's military as well as improving Saddam's air defense capabilities which meant a greater liklely hood of coalition aircraft being shot down in the no fly zones. Russia and France both restarted commercial flights to Iraq, again in violation of sanctions.

5. Syria completely disbanded all sanctions on its border with Iraq by 2001 allowing anything to pass through. Even Turkey was becoming lax in its enforcement thanks to bribes from Saddam and his growing oil wealth.

6. This erosion of sanctions and the weapons embargo meant that containment was no longer possible. Without containment, the only option was regime change.

7. Saddam still posed a threat to the large oil fields of Kuwait and Saudi Arabia. This threat would only grow with time now that the sanctions and weapons embargo were crumbling.

8. Saddam's military before he was removed was one of the largest in the middle east. Saddam had over 400,000 people in the armed forces, 2,700 tanks, over 300 combat aircraft, over 2,000 artillery pieces, over 2,000 armored personal carriers. Large stocks of various types of ammunition, rockets, artillery shells, shells for tanks, bombs, cluster bombs, mines, missiles. Total ammunition stocks after Saddam was removed were determined to be larger than any other country in the world except Russia and the United States.

9. The fact that Saddam did maintain the ability to produce Chemical Weapons and Biological Weapons in violation of the 1991 UN Ceacefire agreement.

10. The fact that Saddam failed to pay Kuwait and locate THOUSANDS of missing Kuwaiti's from his illegal invasion, occupation, and then annexation of Kuwait in 1990.

11. The fact that Saddam is the only leader since Adolf Hitler to invade and annex another country.

12. The fact that Saddam used WMD not just on his own people but upon foreign troops and upon civilians and soldiers in a foreign country.

13. The fact that Saddam was in violation of 15 UN Security Council Resolutions passed under Chapter VII rules of the United Nations which allow for the use of military force to bring about compliance.

14. The fact that Saddam was in violation of the 1991 Gulf War Ceace Fire Agreement.

15. The fact that Saddam had succeeded in surviving and staying in power despite all attempts to remove Saddam short of launching a full scale invasion. The United States bombed Iraq every year from 1991 through 2003. There were even record uses of Cruise Missiles and records for tons of bombs dropped in a matter of days, like operation Desert Fox in 1998.

16. Given all the above, it was absolutely necessary to remove Saddam from power in 2003.


But hey, don't just take my word for it, listen to Democratic President Bill Clinton on Saddam:

President Bill Clinton - December 16, 1998

"the hard fact is, that so long as Saddam remains in power, he threatens the well being of his people, the peace of his region, the security of the world. The best way to end that threat, once and for all, is with a new Iraqi government. A government ready to live in peace with its neighbors. A government that respects the rights of its people."

"other countries posses weapons of mass destruction and ballistic missiles, with Saddam there is one big difference, he has used them. Not once, but repeatedly. Unleashing chemical weapons against Iranian troops during a decade long war, not only against soldiers, but against civilians, firing scud missiles against the citizens of Israel, Saudi Arabia, Barain, and Iran. Not only against foreign enemies, but even against his own people, gassing Kurdish civilians in Northern Iraq. I have no doubt today, that left unchecked, Saddam will use these terrible weapons again"

"Heavy as they are, the cost of action must be weighed against the price of inaction. If Saddam defies the world, and we fail to respond, we will face a far greater threat in the future. Saddam will strike again at his neighbors, he will make war on his own people, and mark my words, he will develop weapons of mass destruction. He will deploy them, and he will use them"


[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ENAV_UoIfgc]President Clinton orders attack on Iraq - YouTube[/ame]

 

[Jarhead]

Obama is definitely responsible for the worst record for unemployment. His insurance mandate has stalled the economy. If you review each state, you will find that half of the 18-64 age bracket is employed and the other half is not employed.

A few of the States, there are more unemployed than their are employed. We need at least 20 to 30 million new jobs, preferably in manufacturing and production to get us back on track. That doesn't appear remotely possible at the moment or in the near future.

Whereas I agree with you as it pertains to policy and how the current administration policies are hindering economic growth, I need to offer my sentiments as it pertains to overall job creation....

The recession actually opened the eyes of many employers. They found they were overstaffed to begin with.

Example.....

In 1995 a company had 50 employees broken down this way:

2 receptionists/clericals
8 exempt employees (managers/supervisors)
5 order processors
5 Warehouse/shipping and receiving personnel
30 machinists turning lathes and making product from stock

From 1995-2007 they never adjusted their staff size. They were prosperous and ...well.....you dont fix it if it aint broken.

However, during that time, they installed a new phone systemn with direct line voice mail; they installed a new inventory program (high tech) and they installed CNC and eliminated manual lathe turning.

Then the recession hit. Orders went down, and they laid off....

Gone is one receptionist
Gone are 3 warehouse personnel
Gone are 10 machinists

So in 2009, they now had 35 employees....and that staff met the decrease in demand.

Then demand increased again.....

But....

with direct line voice mail, they realized they do not need another receptionist
with the high tech inventory system, they dont need to rehire anyone else in the warehouse
With CNC lathes, each machinists puts out twice the prodcut they used to manually

So output increases, but the need for an increase in personnel is not there.

Unless we ENCOURAGE people to start new busineeses, I believe we will see 7.5% unemployment as the new normal.

That brings me back to policies.

Obam,a is not encouraging risk taking. Thats a problem.

What do you want Obama to do to encourage 'risk taking'?

Why is that encouragement important? Isn't demand for whatever goods and services a new company plans to provide the single most important factor in determining whether or not one should risk starting a business?

No sir. You are incorrect. Demand for a product is the single most important factor in determining whether or not the concept of a business selling that product is valid.

The single most important factor in determining whether or not one should RISK starting a business selling that product is the return on investment.

How much will I risk and how much will I get in return.

 

[DiamondDave]

C'mon carby... say you're sorry for lying

 

[U2Edge]

Money well spent why? Name one vital national interest that necessitated the Iraq War.

Simply put.....

If you threaten someone with a gun, you better be prepared to use it.

Hussein was in breach of his treaty.

We told him he will suffer the consequences if he did not abide by the terms of the treaty.

He dared us.

If we did nothing?

Our word would mean squat in the international arena.

That in itself is detrimental to our national security.

By that logic you must believe that an invasion of North Korea is and has been 'necessary' for decades.

Who do you blame for not invading North Korea?

Thats a different situation, plus Saddam's violations of the Gulf War ceacefire agreement are only part of the problem. North Korea has not launched an invasion of another country in over 60 years. It did has not invaded and attacked four different neighboring countries like Saddam did. North Korea has not launched ballistic missiles at neighboring countries. North Korea has not used chemical weapons against another country on a large scale. North Korea does not sit in close proximity to much of the planets oil and natural gas supply.

In addition, military action against North Korea could very well lead to a war with China. The fact that North Korea has had a relatively conservative foreign policy compared to Saddam, holds Seoul South Korea's 10 million essentially hostage with its massive levels of artillery along the DMZ, and would likely be backed by China in any war, means that military action is largely off the table as a means of dealing with North Korea.

 

[Jarhead]

Money well spent why? Name one vital national interest that necessitated the Iraq War.

Simply put.....

If you threaten someone with a gun, you better be prepared to use it.

Hussein was in breach of his treaty.

We told him he will suffer the consequences if he did not abide by the terms of the treaty.

He dared us.

If we did nothing?

Our word would mean squat in the international arena.

That in itself is detrimental to our national security.

By that logic you must believe that an invasion of North Korea is and has been 'necessary' for decades.

Who do you blame for not invading North Korea?

if you are attmepting to equate the two situations, then you are admitting to how naive you are as to the contents AND the motivations of the two treaties.

And if such is the case, then I am wasting my time debating with you on this topic for it is futile to debate with someone who is unaware of the basic facts.

 

[Oldstyle]

Nothing bad is ever Barry's fault...

That's the progressive "rule" here at USMB. It's either W's fault...those awful Republicans in Congress...or "rogue" governmental employees acting without White House knowledge.

On the other hand...anything good is due to Barry's skillful leadership.

Raid that kills Osama bin Laden? Barry is THE MAN!!! Debacle in Benghazi? Barry didn't know a thing about it!!!

 

[NYcarbineer]

Simply put.....

If you threaten someone with a gun, you better be prepared to use it.

Hussein was in breach of his treaty.

We told him he will suffer the consequences if he did not abide by the terms of the treaty.

He dared us.

If we did nothing?

Our word would mean squat in the international arena.

That in itself is detrimental to our national security.

By that logic you must believe that an invasion of North Korea is and has been 'necessary' for decades.

Who do you blame for not invading North Korea?

if you are attmepting to equate the two situations, then you are admitting to how naive you are as to the contents AND the motivations of the two treaties.

And if such is the case, then I am wasting my time debating with you on this topic for it is futile to debate with someone who is unaware of the basic facts.

Well then it shouldn't be difficult to point out the differences.

 

[Jarhead]

By that logic you must believe that an invasion of North Korea is and has been 'necessary' for decades.

Who do you blame for not invading North Korea?

if you are attmepting to equate the two situations, then you are admitting to how naive you are as to the contents AND the motivations of the two treaties.

And if such is the case, then I am wasting my time debating with you on this topic for it is futile to debate with someone who is unaware of the basic facts.

Well then it shouldn't be difficult to point out the differences.

It already was by U2Edge.

Why did you ignore it?

 

[NYcarbineer]

Simply put.....

If you threaten someone with a gun, you better be prepared to use it.

Hussein was in breach of his treaty.

We told him he will suffer the consequences if he did not abide by the terms of the treaty.

He dared us.

If we did nothing?

Our word would mean squat in the international arena.

That in itself is detrimental to our national security.

By that logic you must believe that an invasion of North Korea is and has been 'necessary' for decades.

Who do you blame for not invading North Korea?

Thats a different situation, plus Saddam's violations of the Gulf War ceacefire agreement are only part of the problem. North Korea has not launched an invasion of another country in over 60 years. It did has not invaded and attacked four different neighboring countries like Saddam did. North Korea has not launched ballistic missiles at neighboring countries. North Korea has not used chemical weapons against another country on a large scale. North Korea does not sit in close proximity to much of the planets oil and natural gas supply.

In addition, military action against North Korea could very well lead to a war with China. The fact that North Korea has had a relatively conservative foreign policy compared to Saddam, holds Seoul South Korea's 10 million essentially hostage with its massive levels of artillery along the DMZ, and would likely be backed by China in any war, means that military action is largely off the table as a means of dealing with North Korea.

1. North Korea has violated the ceasefire agreement
2. North Korea has sought, and has, WMD's
3. North Korea has oppressed its own people
4. North Korea has given weapons to terrorists

Those were all the reasons we were told it was NECESSARY to invade Iraq. Now tell me why those same exact reasons do not equate to the necessity of invading North Korea.

 

[NYcarbineer]

That's a small fraction of what Obama is spending.

Really? Then tell us all how much per month Obama is now spending in Iraq.

Did I use the word "Iraq" in my post?

No, I did, and you responded to it with a retarded claim that Obama has spent more in Iraq than Bush did.

Either that or you were responding to something I didn't say, which would also make you retarded.

 

[NYcarbineer]

1. Saddam Hussian's continued threat to the vital energy resources of the Persian Gulf region, particularly in Kuwait and northern Saudi Arabia.

What were those threats specifically and why would they threaten the vital interests of the US?

Are you implying that we are so dependent on Middle East oil for our national security that we must start wars to protect that oil,

like we did in 1991?

And if that's the case, why did China get first dibs on developing Iraqi oil fields?

Funny how they used to howl when anyone called Iraq 'blood for oil', going back even to 1991,

but now they've latched onto it as one of the justifications for that disaster.

 

[bripat9643]

Really? Then tell us all how much per month Obama is now spending in Iraq.

Did I use the word "Iraq" in my post?

No, I did, and you responded to it with a retarded claim that Obama has spent more in Iraq than Bush did.

Either that or you were responding to something I didn't say, which would also make you retarded.

Hmmmm, no, I didn't say that. I said Obama has spent many times what Bush has spent. Obama flushed it down the welfare sewer.

Somehow you believe only spending on Iraq is bad for the economy. I'll have to add that germ to the list of dumb remarks liberals have posted in this forum.

 

[Jarhead]

By that logic you must believe that an invasion of North Korea is and has been 'necessary' for decades.

Who do you blame for not invading North Korea?

Thats a different situation, plus Saddam's violations of the Gulf War ceacefire agreement are only part of the problem. North Korea has not launched an invasion of another country in over 60 years. It did has not invaded and attacked four different neighboring countries like Saddam did. North Korea has not launched ballistic missiles at neighboring countries. North Korea has not used chemical weapons against another country on a large scale. North Korea does not sit in close proximity to much of the planets oil and natural gas supply.

In addition, military action against North Korea could very well lead to a war with China. The fact that North Korea has had a relatively conservative foreign policy compared to Saddam, holds Seoul South Korea's 10 million essentially hostage with its massive levels of artillery along the DMZ, and would likely be backed by China in any war, means that military action is largely off the table as a means of dealing with North Korea.

1. North Korea has violated the ceasefire agreement
2. North Korea has sought, and has, WMD's
3. North Korea has oppressed its own people
4. North Korea has given weapons to terrorists

Those were all the reasons we were told it was NECESSARY to invade Iraq. Now tell me why those same exact reasons do not equate to the necessity of invading North Korea.

you specifically asked what national interest was met by the war in Iraq. I answered. You then compared the answer to the N. Korean treaty...which has no similarity.

Now you are referring to the Bush administration talking points.

You are adjusting the debate so you can "win" the debate.

Stay on topic.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Thats a different situation, plus Saddam's violations of the Gulf War ceacefire agreement are only part of the problem. North Korea has not launched an invasion of another country in over 60 years. It did has not invaded and attacked four different neighboring countries like Saddam did. North Korea has not launched ballistic missiles at neighboring countries. North Korea has not used chemical weapons against another country on a large scale. North Korea does not sit in close proximity to much of the planets oil and natural gas supply.

In addition, military action against North Korea could very well lead to a war with China. The fact that North Korea has had a relatively conservative foreign policy compared to Saddam, holds Seoul South Korea's 10 million essentially hostage with its massive levels of artillery along the DMZ, and would likely be backed by China in any war, means that military action is largely off the table as a means of dealing with North Korea.

1. North Korea has violated the ceasefire agreement
2. North Korea has sought, and has, WMD's
3. North Korea has oppressed its own people
4. North Korea has given weapons to terrorists

Those were all the reasons we were told it was NECESSARY to invade Iraq. Now tell me why those same exact reasons do not equate to the necessity of invading North Korea.

you specifically asked what national interest was met by the war in Iraq. I answered. You then compared the answer to the N. Korean treaty...which has no similarity.

Now you are referring to the Bush administration talking points.

You are adjusting the debate so you can "win" the debate.

Stay on topic.

Since you cite nothing showing the lack of similarity, your post means nothing.

 

[asaratis]

-750,000 jobs to +160,000 jobs a month is a net change of close to 1 million
Stock market was at 8150 in Jan 2009 it is over 16,000 today
Your "what ifs" on the growth rate are rightwing fantasies

There are barely more employed today than what were employed the month before he took office
The stock market is trumped up after additional money printing, bailouts, etc... And gains beyond that have nothing to do with stock market.. lest we not forget the recovery that had to start after the huge drops due to the Clinton era bubble burst, 9/11, etc... but back to the fact that the President does not ultimately cause ups or downs in the market
THE GROWTH RATE IS BELOW THAT WHICH WOULD NORMALLY BE ATTRIBUTED TO NO INTERVENTION WHATSOEVER.. AND THIS HAS BEEN SHOWN NUMEROUS TIMES... as a matter of fact the 'recovery' under Obama is the slowest or second slowest since WWII (depending on which numbers you look at).. the economy remains weak... call us when there is over 3% sustained growth (and you won't be calling us with these policies in place)

Repeating your lies does not make them true

It seems to work for the liberals. They keep repeating them...year after year after year.