• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

I refuse to vote for Mitt Romney

Conservative said:
To me it means Christmas, where is the apology for questioning the 48 straight months of private sector job growth?
Click to expand...
In the same post with the apology for claiming it was 52 straight months?
 
Conservative said:
Get someone to help you as you are embarrassing yourself. Those are the private sector jobs per month and if you noticed the highlighted months you would see that each month the job total was higher than the month before which is job growth.
Click to expand...

That is not the number of jobs. that is the number of hours.
 
Politifact has an interesting stat from the BLS site:


According to the BLS website, there were 111,634,000 Americans employed in the private sector at the start of George W. Bush's first term, in January 2001. Eight years later, in January 2009, there were 110,961,000 Americans employed in the private sector. So the United States lost 673,000 private-sector jobs on Bush's watch.
linkypoo...​
 
winston53660 said:
That is not the number of jobs. that is the number of hours.
Click to expand...

You don't have a clue what you are talking about, you can get the hours from this location but not this chart, this is jobs. Why would you think this was hours, that makes absolutely no sense

Employment, Hours, and Earnings from the Current Employment Statistics survey (National)
Original Data Value

Series Id: CES0500000001
Seasonally Adjusted
Super Sector: Total private
Industry: Total private
NAICS Code: -
Data Type: ALL EMPLOYEES, THOUSANDS
Years: 1980 to 2011
Click to expand...

2003 108640 108484 108286 108252 108274 108233 108231 108266 108421 108570 108611 108724
2004 108882 108913 109213 109437 109747 109841 109883 109984 110135 110465 110493 110624
2005 110718 110949 111095 111441 111583 111847 112122 112311 112392 112492 112796 112934
2006 113247 113533 113795 113961 113965 114049 114200 114347 114432 114438 114628 114803
2007 114993 115051 115251 115308 115419 115469 115486 115391 115396 115470 115568 115606
2008 115610 115482 115395 115209 114969 114752 114487 114170 113736 113245 112458 111822
 
Conservative said:
There is no evidence that the reduction in the labor force in the numbers posted are due to retirees and not just discouraged workers leaving the labor force and you know it. "Your" President is a disaster as are his results. They don't bother you because you are a typical compassionate liberal, you have a job so the hell with everyone else.
Click to expand...
Of course there's evidence, don't be rediculous.

It's a fact that some 15 million baby boomers have hit the age of retirement since 2008. Polls indicate that roughly 1/4 retire upon hitting retirement age.
 
Conservative said:
And your point? Where does it say TARP wasn't a loan and if it were an expense why was it paid back?
Click to expand...
It's sad that you can't even figure out the point as obvious as it was. :(:(
 
Sheik Yerbuti said:
It's sad that you can't even figure out the point as obvious as it was. :(:(
Click to expand...

What is sad is that your ego is so big you cannot admit when proven wrong. What is it about the liberal ideology that creates this kind of loyalty?
 
Conservative said:
What is sad is that your ego is so big you cannot admit when proven wrong. What is it about the liberal ideology that creates this kind of loyalty?
Click to expand...

As always, you are a master of self parody.
 
Conservative said:
What is sad is that your ego is so big you cannot admit when proven wrong. What is it about the liberal ideology that creates this kind of loyalty?
Click to expand...
When you prove me wrong, I will admit it.
 
Conservative said:
What is sad is that your ego is so big you cannot admit when proven wrong. What is it about the liberal ideology that creates this kind of loyalty?
Click to expand...
Here ... wanna watch me prove you lied again ... ?

"Bye, Sheik, been fun but you aren't worth it" ~ Conservative

:lamo:lamo:lamo:lamo

Why can't you quit me, Con??
:lamo
 
poweRob said:
Politifact has an interesting stat from the BLS site:


According to the BLS website, there were 111,634,000 Americans employed in the private sector at the start of George W. Bush's first term, in January 2001. Eight years later, in January 2009, there were 110,961,000 Americans employed in the private sector. So the United States lost 673,000 private-sector jobs on Bush's watch.
linkypoo...​
Click to expand...

So I assume you wouldn't have voted for Bush with those kind of numbers therefore why would you vote for Obama with those kind of numbers?
 
Conservative said:
So I assume you wouldn't have voted for Bush with those kind of numbers therefore why would you vote for Obama with those kind of numbers?
Click to expand...

I didn't vote for Obama and I won't be voting for Obama. Nice try though. But if I were to make an argument for that, it's probably because when Bush left office his stats were heading south while after Obama's first term his stats are headed north. Yet you'd vote for a Bush 3rd term rather than Obama even knowing this. Remarkable.

Trends. They matter.
 
Last edited:
Conservative said:
So I assume you wouldn't have voted for Bush with those kind of numbers therefore why would you vote for Obama with those kind of numbers?
Click to expand...

... and now, for the part you can't understand ...

... Bush left office with fewer private sector jobs (only president to achieve that since the BLS began recording the numbers) because of the downward trend in the graph below.

... Obama also has fewer private sector jobs because of that same downward trend ...

... that downward trend which caused both to post negative numbers was directly due to the Great Bush Recession.


fredgraph.png
[/QUOTE]
 
poweRob said:
I didn't vote for Obama and I won't be voting for Obama. Nice try though. But if I were to make an argument for that, it's probably because when Bush left office his stats were heading south while after Obama's first term his stats are headed north. Yet you'd vote for a Bush 3rd term rather than Obama even knowing this. Remarkable.

Trends. They matter.
Click to expand...

Then my work here is done with you, good choice
 
Sheik Yerbuti said:
... and now, for the part you can't understand ...

... Bush left office with fewer private sector jobs (only president to achieve that since the BLS began recording the numbers) because of the downward trend in the graph below.

... Obama also has fewer private sector jobs because of that same downward trend ...

... that downward trend which caused both to post negative numbers was directly due to the Great Bush Recession.


fredgraph.png
Click to expand...
[/QUOTE]

And Obama will be the second President to do the same thing as he leaves after one term with fewer in the labor force, fewer private sector jobs, and higher unemployment than when he took office.
 
Conservative said:
And Obama will be the second President to do the same thing as he leaves after one term with fewer in the labor force, fewer private sector jobs, and higher unemployment than when he took office.
Click to expand...
Not at the rate the private sector is growing, he won't.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom