Employers add no net jobs in Aug.; rate unchanged

j-mac · Sep 12, 2011

Sheik Yerbuti said:
Hmm, lesee ... On one hand you say "we haven't been told the truth" in regard to those numbers; but on the other hand, you call those numbers, "factual."

Maybe it's just me but I don't see how both of your positions can be true?

Which one do you stand by?

It is a fact that No jobs have been created in the month of August. The stats that are obvious lies, are in the myriad of numbers thrown out there to confuse, twist, and confound. So just cut the crap will you?

j-mac

j-mac · Sep 12, 2011

Sheik Yerbuti said:
What does that have to do with Conservative's bogus claim (the one for which he called me ignorant)?

Conservative: "He did, March 2001 according to NBER so unless you can tell me what Bush implemented on January 21, 2001 with a Democrat Controlled Senate that created a recession that started in March it was an inherited recession?"

And you said:

The 2001 recession began in March while Republicans controlled the Senate...

So just tell me what policies that the repubs were in control of the senate for that three month period caused the recession some 8 years later. Otherwise you are just being dishonest, and trolling. And I will start reporting it.

j-mac

Sheik Yerbuti · Sep 12, 2011

j-mac said:
It is a fact that No jobs have been created in the month of August. The stats that are obvious lies, are in the myriad of numbers thrown out there to confuse, twist, and confound. So just cut the crap will you?

j-mac

How do you know no jobs were created if the stats are "obvious lies" since it's the stats which determine if jobs were created or not?

I posit the one dispensing crap is the one talking out of both sides of his mouth, saying both that the numbers are lies, but yet factual at the same time.

j-mac · Sep 12, 2011

Goldenboy219 said:
Nothing you have posted signifies "failure" by any stretch of the imagination. It is your analysis of the situation that leads you to believe such notions. Why do you believe unemployment would be lower if the government stood back and did nothing?

I wasn't aware that I had so much power....Government being less involved in trying to control the affairs of business have always lead to increased prosperity.

j-mac

Conservative · Sep 12, 2011

Sheik Yerbuti said:
How do you know no jobs were created if the stats are "obvious lies" since it's the stats which determine if jobs were created or not?

I posit the one dispensing crap is the one talking out of both sides of his mouth, saying both that the numbers are lies, but yet factual at the same time.

Do you understand the thread topic. Do you know what NET means?

Employers add no net jobs in Aug.; rate unchanged

Kushinator · Sep 12, 2011

j-mac said:
I wasn't aware that I had so much power....Government being less involved in trying to control the affairs of business have always lead to increased prosperity.

j-mac

Sounds like an heroic assumption to me. Such a policy (deregulation of the financial system) allowed businesses to conduct fraud on such a large scale, it required trillions of dollars in global bailouts to prevent a collapse. Not something to hang your hat on!

Sheik Yerbuti · Sep 12, 2011

j-mac said:
And you said:

So just tell me what policies that the repubs were in control of the senate for that three month period caused the recession some 8 years later. Otherwise you are just being dishonest, and trolling.

You need to re-read those posts. This time, read them with the understanding that Con said nothing about the recession 8 years later. It was in regard to the recession in 2001, not the one in 2008-2009.

j-mac said:
And you said:

And I will start reporting it.

j-mac

Ooooooh ... mommy!!!!!

:lamo

Donc · Sep 12, 2011

j-mac said:
I wasn't aware that I had so much power....Government being less involved in trying to control the affairs of business have always lead to increased prosperity.

j-mac

With the exception of when the gov is the only entity that has the capability to be able to pull a country out of a depression such as we were about to fall into.

Sheik Yerbuti · Sep 12, 2011

Conservative said:
Do you understand the thread topic. Do you know what NET means?

Employers add no net jobs in Aug.; rate unchanged

Yes, as in it takes a net gain of about 150,000 jobs per month just to keep the unemployment level. Exactly what part of that don't you understand?

Oh wait, you don't even know which party controlled the Senate when the 2001 recession started. :dohWhat am I thinking asking you for facts?

Sheik Yerbuti · Sep 12, 2011

So, Con? No apology for calling others ignorant for pointing out your mistakes?

pbrauer: "Aren't you the one that claims that Bush inherited a recession from Clinton?"

Conservative: "He did, March 2001 according to NBER so unless you can tell me what Bush implemented on January 21, 2001 with a Democrat Controlled Senate that created a recession that started in March it was an inherited recession?"

Sheik Yerbuti: "WTF?? Are you saying the 2001 recession began while Democrats controlled the Senate? Face reality, Con .... the 2001 recession began while Republicans controlled the Senate, the House, and the executive branch."

Conservative: "Really? So Daschle stole the title of Senate Majority Leader in 2001? Wow, your ignorance has no bounds."

j-mac · Sep 12, 2011

Sheik Yerbuti said:
You need to re-read those posts. This time, read them with the understanding that Con said nothing about the recession 8 years later. It was in regard to the recession in 2001, not the one in 2008-2009.

Ok, I got ya...So let me revise...What policies did the Senate in those three months enact that lead to that recession then?

j-mac

j-mac · Sep 12, 2011

Sheik Yerbuti said:
Yes, as in it takes a net gain of about 150,000 jobs per month just to keep the unemployment level. Exactly what part of that don't you understand?

Oh wait, you don't even know which party controlled the Senate when the 2001 recession started. :dohWhat am I thinking asking you for facts?

Which is a great example of why I have a problem accepting the numbers coming out of DC establishments today. If it takes a net of 150K jobs to hold the number even, then how did the number not go up if none were had in Aug?

j-mac

j-mac · Sep 12, 2011

donc said:
With the exception of when the gov is the only entity that has the capability to be able to pull a country out of a depression such as we were about to fall into.

I would say that they didn't pull us out of anything. I believe we are still in a recession/depression.

j-mac

AdamT · Sep 12, 2011

j-mac said:
I would say that they didn't pull us out of anything. I believe we are still in a recession/depression.

j-mac

You can believe anything you want, but we aren't in a recession by accepted definitions.

j-mac · Sep 12, 2011

AdamT said:
You can believe anything you want, but we aren't in a recession by accepted definitions.

I don't care what supposed definitions you are going by, these are different times than at any time in the past. Take a look around you, people are hurting in this country. So go tell them that things are better.

j-mac

Sheik Yerbuti · Sep 12, 2011

j-mac said:
Ok, I got ya...So let me revise...What policies did the Senate in those three months enact that lead to that recession then?

j-mac

Why are you limiting this to some arbitrary 3 month period? You do know that by March, 2001, the Senate was controlled by Republicans for 6 years and 2 months, don't you?

Conservative · Sep 12, 2011

Sheik Yerbuti said:
Yes, as in it takes a net gain of about 150,000 jobs per month just to keep the unemployment level. Exactly what part of that don't you understand?

Oh wait, you don't even know which party controlled the Senate when the 2001 recession started. :dohWhat am I thinking asking you for facts?

What I don't understand is why you divert from the Obama record and go back to Clinton and Bush? The Obama record is what it is and you just cannot accept that always blaming someone else 2 1/2 years after Obama taking office.

Sheik Yerbuti · Sep 12, 2011

j-mac said:
Which is a great example of why I have a problem accepting the numbers coming out of DC establishments today. If it takes a net of 150K jobs to hold the number even, then how did the number not go up if none were had in Aug?

j-mac

Really? You don't know the answer to that?

I know Conservative doesn't know, but et tu?

Conservative · Sep 12, 2011

Sheik Yerbuti said:
Why are you limiting this to some arbitrary 3 month period? You do know that by March, 2001, the Senate was controlled by Republicans for 6 years and 2 months, don't you?

Oh, I get it, it was the Congress that caused the recession in March 2001 but it was Bush that caused the 2007-2009 recession with the Democrat controlled Congress having zero affect? Thanks for clearing that up

AdamT · Sep 12, 2011

j-mac said:
I don't care what supposed definitions you are going by, these are different times than at any time in the past. Take a look around you, people are hurting in this country. So go tell them that things are better.

j-mac

No one disputes that the economy is doing poorly, but it's not illuminating to misuse words that have specific, technical meanings. The generally accepted definition of recession is two consecutive quarters of negative GDP growth.

Conservative · Sep 12, 2011

AdamT said:
No one disputes that the economy is doing poorly, but it's not illuminating to misuse words that have specific, technical meanings. The generally accepted definition of recession is two consecutive quarters of negative GDP growth.

And it is reported by NBER that the recession ended in June 2009 so tell me why the economy isn't creating enough jobs to get back to even when Obama took office?

Sheik Yerbuti · Sep 12, 2011

Sheik Yerbuti said:
Yes, as in it takes a net gain of about 150,000 jobs per month just to keep the unemployment level. Exactly what part of that don't you understand?

Oh wait, you don't even know which party controlled the Senate when the 2001 recession started. :dohWhat am I thinking asking you for facts?

Conservative said:

What I don't understand is why you divert from the Obama record and go back to Clinton and Bush? The Obama record is what it is and you just cannot accept that always blaming someone else 2 1/2 years after Obama taking office.

Click to expand...

Really, Con?

Really???

Even when I talk about the thread topic you whine that I'm off-topic?

:naughty

j-mac · Sep 12, 2011

Sheik Yerbuti said:
Why are you limiting this to some arbitrary 3 month period? You do know that by March, 2001, the Senate was controlled by Republicans for 6 years and 2 months, don't you?

Arghhhhhh! How frustrating...YOU laid out this three month period, so now just answer the damned question will you?

j-mac

Sheik Yerbuti · Sep 12, 2011

Conservative said:
Oh, I get it, it was the Congress that caused the recession in March 2001 but it was Bush that caused the 2007-2009 recession with the Democrat controlled Congress having zero affect? Thanks for clearing that up

Stop lying, Con. I never said the Congress caused the recession. I asked jmac why he was only looking at a 3 month window when Republicans controlled the Senate, when in fact, they had controlled it for more than 6 years by that point.

When do your lies and insults stop?

Conservative · Sep 12, 2011

Sheik Yerbuti said:
Really, Con?

Really???

Even when I talk about the thread topic you whine that I'm off-topic?

:naughty

Really, Sheik, really, the Obama record is on topic since the August jobs report is Obama's. It is what it is and you cannot seem to accept that.

Employers add no net jobs in Aug.; rate unchanged

I'm not-low all the time