It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Obama; The private sector is doing fine

page: 1
8
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 8 2012 @ 03:11 PM
link   
I've said in the past that 8+ % unemployment would be the new norm for this administration.

Record numbers on food stamps.
Downgrade on credit rating.
8.2% Unemployment.

But the private sector is doing just fine.


edit on 8-6-2012 by beezzer because: (no reason given)




posted on Jun, 8 2012 @ 03:22 PM
link   
"fine" in the sense of doing well?

I thought he meant fine in the other senses, "very thin" or "very small."

As in "being ground to a fine powder.



I was pretty sure that he did not mean they were being forced to "pay a sum as punishment for an offense."


But now I'm beginning to wonder.



posted on Jun, 8 2012 @ 03:25 PM
link   
reply to post by tovenar
 


I honstly believe he has no idea, no clue about the economy.

He is so out of touch (common phrase used about this story) that he honestly believes that we are all doing fine!




posted on Jun, 8 2012 @ 03:30 PM
link   
I don't think this is going to play well.
Government can't do much for private sector (as stated many times by the other side, government doesn't create jobs). But stating it like that is going to be spun a lot.

I am wondering though, does this mean Obama believes economic stimulus doesn't work as well as he would like it?

Also, do the numbers fit? Are the big figures losses from government jobs? Is private sector growing faster but public sector diminishing?

Time to look at graphs and stuff I guess..but ya, that is not the sentence I would use in an election season, even if true..People aren't going to pick apart the facts...they will just look at broad pictures and take out any specifics for context. This seems more like a biden gaffe than obama.



posted on Jun, 8 2012 @ 03:33 PM
link   
Well, that was quick

Seems he is right...
Still, you gotta spin this crap verses say facts bluntly..
the right will remove context real quick and demand he said everything is alright...

(see above at the local spinners)



posted on Jun, 8 2012 @ 03:35 PM
link   
reply to post by SaturnFX
 


To add.

In the president's remarks Friday morning, Obama repeatedly said hiring at private industries was "fine" and occurring at "a solid pace," arguing instead for additional funds for state and local governments to hire teachers and emergency personnel. But Republicans quickly pounced on his remarks in light of May's disappointing job numbers, and Romney said the comments could have historic implications.

thehill.com...

Coming on the heels of a dismal jobs report (69K ?) this is going to follow him.

ETA: the graph just illustrates my point.

Thanks.


edit on 8-6-2012 by beezzer because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 8 2012 @ 03:38 PM
link   
This is an interesting graphic while trying to understand the private v public growth trends


Seems the biggest socialist grow government was GWB, Obama seems like a near anarchist

Anyhow I am all for hiring a walrus if it brings jobs up..



posted on Jun, 8 2012 @ 03:39 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Jun, 8 2012 @ 03:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by SaturnFX
This is an interesting graphic while trying to understand the private v public growth trends


Seems the biggest socialist grow government was GWB, Obama seems like a near anarchist

Anyhow I am all for hiring a walrus if it brings jobs up..


Wouldn't the Bush chart record military buildup while the Obama chart shows military drawdown?



posted on Jun, 8 2012 @ 03:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by beezzer
ETA: the graph just illustrates my point.

Thanks.


edit on 8-6-2012 by beezzer because: (no reason given)


Well, it shows many points depending on what you want to point out
It shows slow growth compared to the nuclear drop that happened at the ending of GWB
It also shows that most job growth since then has been in the private industry. If there was no mega-drop before it, it would be incredibly impressive, but since this is rebuilding verses addition, then ya...sucks.

And it supports what he says, that we need to regrow public jobs if we want to help the unemployment numbers.
More people getting paychecks means more people spending money on clothes, boats, and other crap, which means a stimulated economy and a boom...and once things are booming, you can snip away public jobs.

So, question...is the idea then to do the logical steps to grow the economy..or continue to hold it underwater for purposes of election angles?
The answer is clear obviously....keep it hurting until after the elections for the lulz, to hell with the people, obama must fail sort of thing. I am just hopeful that once this election garbage is over, politicians can actually step aside and let economists control the economy..once no more points are to win.



posted on Jun, 8 2012 @ 03:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by beezzer
Wouldn't the Bush chart record military buildup while the Obama chart shows military drawdown?


You think Obama has reduced military spending and employees? heh


it -should-...but no...the military is more or less untouched so far...which is in my opinion not really a campaign promise broken, but it is an ideal from the left that is ignored.



posted on Jun, 8 2012 @ 03:48 PM
link   
Wall streets up, DOW is over 12,000 and

Corporate profits are up... It was a poor

Choice of words, it will be spun like there's

Tomorrow by the right. 57 states and all the good

Stuff...



posted on Jun, 8 2012 @ 03:48 PM
link   
reply to post by SaturnFX
 
This is the argument for Keynesian economic policy.

Instead, by reducing taxes on those that hire, he could create an environment so people could hire more, spend more on advertising etc.

But we both know THAT won't be happening.



posted on Jun, 8 2012 @ 03:48 PM
link   
reply to post by beezzer
 


I think this is the definition he was going for?
The place where a piece of music finishes
Because we are definately finished thanks to bozo the potus.



posted on Jun, 8 2012 @ 03:50 PM
link   
reply to post by SaturnFX
 


I KNOW that there are cuts in military, draconian cuts.



posted on Jun, 8 2012 @ 03:51 PM
link   
reply to post by SaturnFX
 


Hold it under water, manufacture failure by

Playing chicken. But since that notion cannot be

Summed up in a talking point, it will never be examined.



posted on Jun, 8 2012 @ 03:53 PM
link   
reply to post by beezzer
 


Taxes have been reduced on those that hire, where are the

Jobs??? Taxes are near Reagan's lowest rate, where are the

Jobs?

Reagan raised taxes 7 times, why are you opposed to it?



posted on Jun, 8 2012 @ 03:58 PM
link   
reply to post by Beanskinner
 
Corporate tax rates are through the roof!


U.S. Corporate Tax Rate To Be Highest In The Developed World

www.huffingtonpost.com...



posted on Jun, 8 2012 @ 03:59 PM
link   
so let's say 9, instead of 8.9...

So you mean to tell me, only 9 per 100 Americans are out of work?

Sounds like bull# to me.



posted on Jun, 8 2012 @ 03:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by beezzer
Instead, by reducing taxes on those that hire, he could create an environment so people could hire more, spend more on advertising etc.


Why hire unless there is more demand?
What creates demand? marketing
But with high unemployment numbers, people are being thrifty...advertise all you want, a unemployed person isn't going to buy.

No, public sector must grow first to ignite the economy...then shave it down slowly over time as the bubble grows. If you don't see the economic logic in this, then you never owned a business...no demand = no supply..and employers aren't in the habit of hiring unnecessary people just for the hell of it...cause they got a tax break and want less profit to store in a bank...




top topics



 
8
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join