Employers add no net jobs in Aug.; rate unchanged

Conservative · Sep 11, 2011

Sheik Yerbuti said:
Hypothetical (you won't understand anyway, but still)...

You have a job making $100,000/year. You get a measly $1,040 raise. 1.0%.

Your neighbor's son works at McDonald's for $7.25/hour and gets a 0.50¢/hour raise, a 6.9% increase which equals $1,040/year ...

Between the two of you, who got a better raise?

I competed against McDonalds and the market forced us to pay over $10 per hour. How is taking money from SS going to benefit these workers long term. What does your hypothetical have to do with anything, it was their money that has been taken in taxes. Anytime you reward taxpayers it is a good thing. Why would you reward politicians that created the 14.6 trillion debt?

Sheik Yerbuti · Sep 11, 2011

Conservative said:
I have seen no evidence of how smart you are but sure wish I was half as smart as you think you are. You claimed I made a mistake in 2004 so you would duplicate that mistake. If I made a mistake and you make the same mistake that doesn't make you very smart at all.

I've already explained why it's not the same mistake. I guess you couldn't understand what I said. Would you like me to explain it to you again?

Conservative · Sep 11, 2011

Sheik Yerbuti said:
Nobody could have.

Economists claim that TARP did

Sheik Yerbuti · Sep 11, 2011

The Barbarian said:
Maybe, but if that is the best answer you can come up with, it just proves you don't have anything. There was no Bush policy changes that lead to the housing crisis.

Bull****.

Bush Minority Homeownership Plan Rests Heavily on Fannie and Freddie

When President Bush announced his Minority Homeownership plans last week in Atlanta, his top priorities were new federal programs: a $2.4 billion tax credit to facilitate home purchases by lower-income first-time buyers, and a $200 million national downpayment grant fund.

But none of the new federal programs--if passed by Congress--will come even close to achieving the 5.5 million-household increase in minority homeownership the President set as his target.

Instead, most of the heavy lifting was assigned to two mortgage market players that have sometimes come under fire from Bush administration officials and Congressional Republicans: Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

Fannie's and Freddie's commitments are the bedrock core of the President's ambitious plans--but didn't get the headlines. Fannie Mae agreed to increase its already substantial lending efforts to minority families by targeting another $260 billion of mortgage purchases to them during the next nine years. Freddie Mac agreed to buy an additional $180 billion in minority-household home loans during the same period.

Besides its $180 billion mortgage purchase commitment, Freddie Mac gave President Bush a promise to implement a 25-point program aimed at increasing minority homeownership. Some of the points were cutting-edge. For example, as part of an effort to remove the fear of financial loss from first-time minority home buyers, Freddie committed itself to "explor(e) the viability of equity assurance products to protect home values in economically distressed areas."

Pressed for details on "equity assurance" by RealtyTimes, Freddie Mac vice president Craig S. Nickerson said the idea is still at an embryonic stage, but might involve limited guarantees or insurance coverage to protect buyers from the possibility of loss of their initial equity stakes should property values in their neighborhoods decline.

"Thanks to our policies, home ownership in America is at an all-time high." ~ George Bush, 9.2.2004, RNC acceptance speech

Sheik Yerbuti · Sep 11, 2011

The Barbarian said:
can you imagine the headlines if Bush had of acted to slow things, moving banks back to higher lending standards ? The press and most liberals would have screamed bloody murder.

Ok, so Bush doesn't lift a finger to raise airport security upon reading a PDB informing him that the FBI has detected "suspicious activity in this country consistent with preparations for hijackings," and you claim Liberals would have screamed bloody murder if he had raised airport security even though doing so might have prevented 9.11.

Now you're saying how Liberals would have screamed bloddy murder had Bush increased regulations on banks even though doing so might have prevented the financial meltdown.

... when do Republicans lead? When do they do what's right for the nation instead of cowering to Democrats?

Conservative · Sep 11, 2011

Sheik Yerbuti said:
Bull****.

Bush Minority Homeownership Plan Rests Heavily on Fannie and Freddie

When President Bush announced his Minority Homeownership plans last week in Atlanta, his top priorities were new federal programs: a $2.4 billion tax credit to facilitate home purchases by lower-income first-time buyers, and a $200 million national downpayment grant fund.

But none of the new federal programs--if passed by Congress--will come even close to achieving the 5.5 million-household increase in minority homeownership the President set as his target.

Instead, most of the heavy lifting was assigned to two mortgage market players that have sometimes come under fire from Bush administration officials and Congressional Republicans: Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

Fannie's and Freddie's commitments are the bedrock core of the President's ambitious plans--but didn't get the headlines. Fannie Mae agreed to increase its already substantial lending efforts to minority families by targeting another $260 billion of mortgage purchases to them during the next nine years. Freddie Mac agreed to buy an additional $180 billion in minority-household home loans during the same period.

Besides its $180 billion mortgage purchase commitment, Freddie Mac gave President Bush a promise to implement a 25-point program aimed at increasing minority homeownership. Some of the points were cutting-edge. For example, as part of an effort to remove the fear of financial loss from first-time minority home buyers, Freddie committed itself to "explor(e) the viability of equity assurance products to protect home values in economically distressed areas."

Pressed for details on "equity assurance" by RealtyTimes, Freddie Mac vice president Craig S. Nickerson said the idea is still at an embryonic stage, but might involve limited guarantees or insurance coverage to protect buyers from the possibility of loss of their initial equity stakes should property values in their neighborhoods decline.

"Thanks to our policies, home ownership in America is at an all-time high." ~ George Bush, 9.2.2004, RNC acceptance speech

It has been 2 1/2 years and 4 trillion added to the debt, a 842 billion stimulus, extension of the Bush tax cuts, now another stimulus program. When will you realize the problem is Obama and liberalism which drives consumer confidence which is at record lows? The best stimulus plan would be for Obama to get fired

Sheik Yerbuti · Sep 11, 2011

Conservative said:
Amazing how Bush remains the problem 2 1/2 years into the Obama Administration.

For how many years has the right blamed FDR for not fixing the mess he inherited fast enough?

Answer: 78 years and counting.

Conservative · Sep 11, 2011

Sheik Yerbuti said:
Ok, so Bush doesn't lift a finger to raise airport security upon reading a PDB informing him that the FBI has detected "suspicious activity in this country consistent with preparations for hijackings," and you claim Liberals would have screamed bloody murder if he had raised airport security even though doing so might have prevented 9.11.

Now you're saying how Liberals would have screamed bloddy murder had Bush increased regulations on banks even though doing so might have prevented the financial meltdown.

... when do Republicans lead? When do they do what's right for the nation instead of cowering to Democrats?

This is the thread topic: Employers add no net jobs in Aug.; rate unchanged

You really need to get over your BDS, it really is a sickness that makes you look very bad.

Conservative · Sep 11, 2011

Sheik Yerbuti said:
For how many years has the right blamed FDR for not fixing the mess he inherited fast enough?

Answer: 78 years and counting.

If that is right two wrongs don't make a right and what good does that do right now? Obama has no plan to fix this mess, just more of the same, tax the rich, redistribute wealth, steal from SS. The problem is consumer confidence and he does nothing to improve that which is at record lows.

Sheik Yerbuti · Sep 11, 2011

Conservative said:
I competed against McDonalds and the market forced us to pay over $10 per hour. How is taking money from SS going to benefit these workers long term. What does your hypothetical have to do with anything, it was their money that has been taken in taxes. Anytime you reward taxpayers it is a good thing. Why would you reward politicians that created the 14.6 trillion debt?

Why did you avoid answering my question? Was I right, you didn't understand it? Here, I'll ask it again, maybe this time, you'll answer it ...

Hypothetical (you won't understand anyway, but still)...

You have a job making $100,000/year. You get a measly $1,040 raise. 1.0%.

Your neighbor's son works at McDonald's for $7.25/hour and gets a 0.50¢/hour raise, a 6.9% increase which equals $1,040/year ...

Between the two of you, who got a better raise?

Conservative · Sep 11, 2011

Sheik Yerbuti said:
Why did you avoid answering my question? Here, I'll ask it again, maybe this time, you'll answer it ...

Hypothetical (you won't understand anyway, but still)...

You have a job making $100,000/year. You get a measly $1,040 raise. 1.0%.

Your neighbor's son works at McDonald's for $7.25/hour and gets a 0.50¢/hour raise, a 6.9% increase which equals $1,040/year ...

Between the two of you, who got a better raise?

Irrelevant hypothetical question that has nothing to do with the thread topic. Any tax cut benefits the tax pay and any raise benefits them as well.

Read this article and try to comprehend what is going on here

Barack Obama’s Wings of Wax « Commentary Magazine

Sheik Yerbuti · Sep 11, 2011

Conservative said:
It has been 2 1/2 years and 4 trillion added to the debt, a 842 billion stimulus, extension of the Bush tax cuts, now another stimulus program. When will you realize the problem is Obama and liberalism which drives consumer confidence which is at record lows? The best stimulus plan would be for Obama to get fired

You're still lying. Obama did not increase the debt by $4 trillion. Bush's budget ran through most of 2009. And how can keeping the Bush tax cuts in place be "liberalism which drives consumer confidence which is at record lows?" YAre you claiming Bush's tax cuts are an aspect of Liberalism?

And you're lying about consumer confidence being at record lows. The current index is at 44.5, 7 points higher than thw 37.4 when Bush left office.

http://www.conference-board.org/data/consumerconfidence.cfm

Sheik Yerbuti · Sep 11, 2011

Conservative said:
This is the thread topic: Employers add no net jobs in Aug.; rate unchanged

You really need to get over your BDS, it really is a sickness that makes you look very bad.

Umm, this entire thread is a testament to your hypocrisy.

You insist that BLS's payroll data is not the data to be used to determine employment/unemployment, yet you now cling to it desperately in order to claim that "employers add no net jobs in Aug." even though the data you do swear by, household survey data, indicates a net gain of 331,000 jobs.

Conservative · Sep 11, 2011

Sheik Yerbuti said:
You're still lying. Obama did not increase the debt by $4 trillion. Bush's budget ran through most of 2009. And how can keeping the Bush tax cuts in place be "liberalism which drives consumer confidence which is at record lows?" YAre you claiming Bush's tax cuts are an aspect of Liberalism?

And you're lying about consumer confidence being at record lows. The current index is at 44.5, 7 points higher than thw 37.4 when Bush left office.

Consumer Confidence Index® | The Conference Board

The 2009 budget and spending was approved by the Democrat controlled Congress and Obama put the Department heads in place after he took office to spend the money. Name calling is all that you can do. I don't pay a lot of attention to the name calling but do enjoy seeing your liberal arrogance. I would like to know what GW Bush did to hurt you and your family so much that here we are 2 1/2 years after he left office and you have such hatred for the man. He did a lot of good things and showed the class that liberals always hate. Too bad that all you can do is trash a good man.

President G. W. Bush Speech at National Cathedral after 9/11 - YouTube

Sheik Yerbuti · Sep 11, 2011

Conservative said:
Irrelevant hypothetical question that has nothing to do with the thread topic. Any tax cut benefits the tax pay and any raise benefits them as well.

Read this article and try to comprehend what is going on here

Barack Obama’s Wings of Wax « Commentary Magazine

No, it's not irrelevant. In fact it's extremely relevant as it highlights why relativity matters. But I have to give you credit. I didn't think you would understand it and I was wrong. Clearly you understand it which is why you ran away from it as fast as your walker would allow.

Conservative · Sep 11, 2011

Sheik Yerbuti said:
Umm, this entire thread is a testament to your hypocrisy.

You insist that BLS's payroll data is not the data to be used to determine employment/unemployment, yet you now cling to it desperately in order to claim that "employers add no net jobs in Aug." even though the data you do swear by, household survey data, indicates a net gain of 331,000 jobs.

The official numbers come from BLS.gov and the real numbers show a net job loss, declining labor force, an average of over 1 million discouraged workers since Obama took office, 25 million unemployed and under Employed Americans. I know this is hard for you to understand but it doesn't do any good gaining 331,000 jobs and still have over 2 million more unemployed than when he took office. this is the Obama economy and record that will be on the ballot in 2012, not GW Bush's nor what you perceive to be the problem because what you perceive ignores reality.

Sheik Yerbuti · Sep 11, 2011

Conservative said:
The 2009 budget and spending was approved by the Democrat controlled Congress and Obama put the Department heads in place after he took office to spend the money. Name calling is all that you can do. I don't pay a lot of attention to the name calling but do enjoy seeing your liberal arrogance. I would like to know what GW Bush did to hurt you and your family so much that here we are 2 1/2 years after he left office and you have such hatred for the man. He did a lot of good things and showed the class that liberals always hate. Too bad that all you can do is trash a good man.

President G. W. Bush Speech at National Cathedral after 9/11 - YouTube

It's Bush's budget. He owns it just like Obama owns the budgets he signs.

Conservative · Sep 11, 2011

Sheik Yerbuti said:
It's Bush's budget. He owns it just like Obama owns the budgets he signs.

It was approved by the Congress which owns all budgets. Maybe a civics class would help you. Democrats controlled that Congress and it passed with almost total Democrat support including Obama's. Then Obama had his selections manage those budgets. Again civics isn't one of your strong suits.

Sheik Yerbuti · Sep 11, 2011

Conservative said:
The official numbers come from BLS.gov and the real numbers show a net job loss, declining labor force, an average of over 1 million discouraged workers since Obama took office, 25 million unemployed and under Employed Americans.

That doesn't even begin to explain why you're now touting BLS payroll data after all the times you insisted household survey data is the data which matters.

Conservative said:
I know this is hard for you to understand but it doesn't do any good gaining 331,000 jobs and still have over 2 million more unemployed than when he took office. this is the Obama economy and record that will be on the ballot in 2012, not GW Bush's nor what you perceive to be the problem because what you perceive ignores reality.

WTF?? Gaining 331,000 jobs doesn't do any good?? How on Earth do you think we'll get to positive job growth without gains like that? You think all 2 million jobs are going to be gained in a single month?

AdamT · Sep 11, 2011

Conservative said:
It was approved by the Congress which owns all budgets. Maybe a civics class would help you. Democrats controlled that Congress and it passed with almost total Democrat support including Obama's. Then Obama had his selections manage those budgets. Again civics isn't one of your strong suits.

I think I understand now: Bush was president for eight years, and republicans controlled congress for six years, but they are responsible for absolutely nothing. The buck stops either at Obama's desk or the Democratic Congress' desk. Obama is responsible for everything -- even things that happened before he was even in the Senate. How about that Republican belief in personal responsibility? :2rofll:

EarlzP · Sep 11, 2011

Conservative said:
This is the thread topic: Employers add no net jobs in Aug.; rate unchanged

You really need to get over your BDS, it really is a sickness that makes you look very bad.

Lets cut all the BS it does not matter who is President or what party they represent, our work now belongs to China and India. Neither party is going to fight globalization both partes have embraced it as the way of the future. American workers are on thier way to the bottom of the food chain. How can an american worker compete with the wages paid to workers in China, India,Viet Nam? The answer is simple they can't. Even if Americans are willing to work for 50 cents an hour that still won't bring work home, they have to be willing to pollute the air to where they can't breathe it and the water to where they can't bathe in it let alone drink it.

The middle class and poor are being sold a crock of pickled pig bellies. While the rich cry like babies thier paid henchmen/women go after SS, medicare, medicaid, education and any other program that might benefit the middle class and poor. What is it going to take before people realize that the transfer of wealth in this country was no accident and it ain't over yet. 80% of the American population still controls 7% of the nations wealth and that 20% that controls 93% of this countries wealth won't rest until they control 100%.

Conservative · Sep 11, 2011

Sheik Yerbuti said:
That doesn't even begin to explain why you're now touting BLS payroll data after all the times you insisted household survey data is the data which matters.

WTF?? Gaining 331,000 jobs doesn't do any good?? How on Earth do you think we'll get to positive job growth without gains like that? You think all 2 million jobs are going to be gained in a single month?

Not when the net is a 2 million job loss and a declining employment base. Official numbers come from the news release from BLS, you ought to read it. There are two sources that contribute to that number. You don't have a clue how BLS works

Conservative · Sep 11, 2011

EarlzP said:
Lets cut all the BS it does not matter who is President or what party they represent, our work now belongs to China and India. Neither party is going to fight globalization both partes have embraced it as the way of the future. American workers are on thier way to the bottom of the food chain. How can an american worker compete with the wages paid to workers in China, India,Viet Nam? The answer is simple they can't. Even if Americans are willing to work for 50 cents an hour that still won't bring work home, they have to be willing to pollute the air to where they can't breathe it and the water to where they can't bathe in it let alone drink it.

The middle class and poor are being sold a crock of pickled pig bellies. While the rich cry like babies thier paid henchmen/women go after SS, medicare, medicaid, education and any other program that might benefit the middle class and poor. What is it going to take before people realize that the transfer of wealth in this country was no accident and it ain't over yet. 80% of the American population still controls 7% of the nations wealth and that 20% that controls 93% of this countries wealth won't rest until they control 100%.

Obama was going to change the tone in Washington so tell me how that "Hope and Change" is working out for you? So let's cut the bs as you say, you don't give a damn about the poor and middle class for if you did you would be doing something about it.

Conservative · Sep 11, 2011

AdamT said:
I think I understand now: Bush was president for eight years, and republicans controlled congress for six years, but they are responsible for absolutely nothing. The buck stops either at Obama's desk or the Democratic Congress' desk. Obama is responsible for everything -- even things that happened before he was even in the Senate. How about that Republican belief in personal responsibility? :2rofll:

Been there before but apparently you weren't around in 2001-2002 when Democrats controlled the Senate or did you forget Senate Majority Leader Daschle

107th Congress (2001-2003)

Majority Leader: Thomas A. Daschle (D-SD)

Minority Leader: Trent Lott (R-MS)

Sheik Yerbuti · Sep 11, 2011

Conservative said:
It was approved by the Congress which owns all budgets. Maybe a civics class would help you. Democrats controlled that Congress and it passed with almost total Democrat support including Obama's. Then Obama had his selections manage those budgets. Again civics isn't one of your strong suits.

Here's a lesson for you in how our government operates ... no budget gets passed without the final approval by the president.

It's Bush's budget. He owns it. Deal with it. I've never seen anyone so desperate to pawn off a budget onto someone else as you are. Why on Earth did Bush approve such a budget if it was that horrible? Why did he pass the one a year earlier which also led to a trillion dollar deficit? Why did he approve the other six, 5 of which were over half a trillion and the sixth one was close to half a trillion?

Does Bush own any of those budgets?

Here are the deficits during Bush's 8 budgets ...

09/30/2002: 420,772,553,397
09/30/2003: 554,995,097,146
09/30/2004: 595,821,633,587
09/30/2005 :553,656,965,393
09/29/2006: 574,264,237,492
09/28/2007: 500,679,473,047
09/30/2008: 1,017,071,524,650
09/30/2009: 1,885,104,106,599

Please tell me which of those you think Bush owns?