• 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!

US economy creates 243,000 jobs in January

Status
Not open for further replies.
What is the source you are getting your information from?? I'd like to see for myself so I can make a note of how unreliable they are.

Civilian labor force:

11/2007: 153,835,000
01/2012: 154,395,000

The workforce has not decreased by almost 6 million, it has increased by 560,000.

So let me see if I have this right, you believe a labor force that has grown by 500,000+ in 5 years is a good thing? You think that unemployment in January 2012 which is much higher than December 2007 is a good thing? The cost of generating those numbers is destroying this country but that doesn't matter because it is only your ideology that matters.
 
It will never, ever cease to amaze me, at how utterly hypocritical this statement is coming from a guy who's name is Conservative.

Results matter, Jet, regardless of the ideology. I have been a conservative for as long as I can remember starting out as a conservative Democrat but when the party left me, i became more aligned with the Republican Party although I have voted for a lot of conservative Democrats at the state and local levels. You seem to not really understand the conservative concept and you obviously ignore the failures of liberalism. Too many liberals continue to make excuses for the failures of Obama. Doubt seriously that they would give a conservative a pass if a conservative generated the numbers obama has generated three years after taking office.
 
The official definition of unemployment has not changed between 1982 and 2009; it is still data from the “Current Population Survey” commonly referred to as CPS. According to the “CPS“ data, in 1982, the median age of the labor force was 42,in the early 80's it was 35.

Sooo…connect the dots. Being young, not encumbered by family, they switch jobs much more frequently then the geezer set. Using common sense (something you evidently leave behind when you log on to DP) the younger populations has higher unemployment rates.


The second and the most damning stat which blows your “OPINION “out of the water, in the 8o's the CPS data covered about 93.% today it only covers about 89%. So yeah, in spite of your Bloviating and hurling of ad homs heather and yon…your“OPINION “still pretty well sucks.Go get yourself a big ole shot of Metamucil and beddey bye,gotta get prepared for anther day of slinging **** early tomorrow.:2wave

The official definition certainly hasn't changed but the method to count the numbers have which you conveniently ignore. What were the number of discouraged workers during the Reagan years and show me the chart that shows those numbers? Results aren't opinions interpretation of those results could be. You and other obama supporters want to give him a pass for the results generated three years after taking office. That is what liberals always seem to do, pass off blame and never accepting responsibility. Why is that? How is this Administration benefiting you or the country economically? What numbers have I posted that are false?
 
So let me see if I have this right, you believe a labor force that has grown by 500,000+ in 5 years is a good thing? You think that unemployment in January 2012 which is much higher than December 2007 is a good thing? The cost of generating those numbers is destroying this country but that doesn't matter because it is only your ideology that matters.
No, you have it wrong. Learn to read.
 
According to your link, the labor force grew by moire than 10,000,000 during the Bush presidency. During the Obama presidency, the labor force has gone from 154,236,000 in January 2009 to 154,395,000 in January 2012. That is a net gain of 159,000 jobs. Not bad for a $5,000,000,000,000 investment.

oh? And what $5 trillion investment would that be?
 
Sure Bush gets the blame still...Blame that on poll bias, blame that on media bias, what you are doing is spinning wildly. Look, I remember hearing somewhere that the labor increases at a rate something like 150K new people per month, so in order for the unemployment number to actually come down, the job creation would have to be a minimum some 300K new jobs per month created for an extended period, like a couple of years. I haven't seen a number like that yet. And further, it is this constant re evaluation, and re assesment of numbers put out there for the past three years that leads people to not trust that we are being told the truth in the first place concerning jobs, and employment forcasting in this country in the first place.

If you want to cling to an argument of who gets the blame for when this thing started, as opposed to what has been done to fix it since, and hang your hat on that for a second term, you can, but it has never been a winning strategy.


j-mac
Or we can blame the results of that poll on reality. That reality being that George Bush left the economy in the worst condition any president left an economy for their successor with the one exception of Herbert Hoover. Most people recognize that as the reason we are where we are.

As far as the unemployment rate, it's, not much higher than it was when Obama started and the trend is that it's dropping. If the rate drops below the 7.8% it was when he started, Obama wins the election easily.

As far as a "winning strategy," even with conditions as they are and Obama blaming Bush, he still leads every GOP rival.
 
oh? And what $5 trillion investment would that be?
The debt hit 10 trillion in October of 2008. One month before Obama was elected. It is now $15.3 trillion. Thats $5 trillion in Obama debt. Give or take.
 
The debt hit 10 trillion in October of 2008. One month before Obama was elected. It is now $15.3 trillion. Thats $5 trillion in Obama debt. Give or take.

Care to guess what was it before the Democrats became the majority in both House & Senate in '06?
 
You’re right. A more thorough analysis of the numbers reveals that GWB was doing ‘pretty’ good until the end of ’05. The nose dive COULD be blamed on Democrats taking majority of Congress.

WTF???

Do you think it's rational to blame the results from polls taken in late '05 on events which didn't occur for more than a year later until early 2007??
 
Results matter, Jet, regardless of the ideology. I have been a conservative for as long as I can remember starting out as a conservative Democrat but when the party left me, i became more aligned with the Republican Party although I have voted for a lot of conservative Democrats at the state and local levels. You seem to not really understand the conservative concept and you obviously ignore the failures of liberalism. Too many liberals continue to make excuses for the failures of Obama. Doubt seriously that they would give a conservative a pass if a conservative generated the numbers obama has generated three years after taking office.
That's very strange, the economy was losing private sector jobs at the ungodly rate of about 750K/month at the end of President Bush's term in office, but those results don't seem to bother you. Why is that, Con? It seems to me you are putting your politics before the truth.

BTW, when you were supposedly a Democrat, they were far more to the left than they are today. So I suspect, you were not into politics back them, you were a Democrat because of family. I was in the same situation only I was a Republican back then.
 
Or we can blame the results of that poll on reality.

So, everyone that doesn't see things the way you do, is just being unrealistic?

That reality being that George Bush left the economy in the worst condition any president left an economy for their successor with the one exception of Herbert Hoover.

But I thought you argued that Presidents don't control economies? Or is that just for Obama?

Most people recognize that as the reason we are where we are.

Most people? You know 'most people' do you? Or is that to say most people that think like you do? Either way it is a fallacy to use this type of argument on your part.

As far as the unemployment rate, it's, not much higher than it was when Obama started and the trend is that it's dropping.

Even the CBO doesn't believe the numbers coming out of this administration anymore. They place the real unemployment rate around 11%, and I don't even think that is correct. It is much higher. As for your 'trend' at the rate Obama is touting as a 'trend' it will take decades to just get back to where we were.

If the rate drops below the 7.8% it was when he started, Obama wins the election easily.

What you should say is that if the sheeple out there buy the MSM propaganda in this election year, and allow themselves to be enticed by administration buy off's for their vote, then Obama would win...I myself hope that we are smarter than that.

As far as a "winning strategy," even with conditions as they are and Obama blaming Bush, he still leads every GOP rival.

The only 'poll' that really matters is in November this year. Anything else is chest thumping, guessing, and mental masturbation. So spare me please.

j-mac
 
The debt hit 10 trillion in October of 2008. One month before Obama was elected. It is now $15.3 trillion. Thats $5 trillion in Obama debt. Give or take.
Ah, now I see what you're getting at. I was thrown off because the "investment" made into saving our economy was less than a trillion while the rest of the debt is attributable largely to the policies of Bush and Republicans which led to the worst economy in almost 80 years.
 
The official definition certainly hasn't changed but the method to count the numbers have which you conveniently ignore. What were the number of discouraged workers during the Reagan years and show me the chart that shows those numbers? Results aren't opinions interpretation of those results could be. You and other obama supporters want to give him a pass for the results generated three years after taking office. That is what liberals always seem to do, pass off blame and never accepting responsibility. Why is that? How is this Administration benefiting you or the country economically? What numbers have I posted that are false?


Quote conservative

"The official definition certainly hasn't changed but the method to count the numbers have which you conveniently ignore. "

While ignoring the people being counted.:roll:The method of counting doesn’t change the demographic and statistical issues, which are, an aging population; currently its 42, in 1982 it was 35.Then you ignore, that the in 80’s,the "CPS" covered 93.0 percent of the population, while currently the "CPS" covers 89.7 percent of the population. Ever hear of the term garbage in garbage out? This is a classic case of it.It seems that your following "Karl’s" playbook by the numbers…which conservatives always do,(must be genetic) and ignore facts.
 
Last edited:
So, everyone that doesn't see things the way you do, is just being unrealistic?
Except that's not what I said. I said the reality is that George Bush left Obama an economy worst economy any president left except for Hoover. That is reality. And I'm suggesting that the poll results reflect that which is why people still blame Bush for today's economy by close to a 2 to 1 margin.

But I thought you argued that Presidents don't control economies? Or is that just for Obama?
Think again. It seems you have me confused with someone else who might have said that.

Most people? You know 'most people' do you? Or is that to say most people that think like you do? Either way it is a fallacy to use this type of argument on your part.
"Most people" as in 54% of those polled blame Bush for today's economy. 54% qualifies as a mojority, or "most people." Capiche? The fallacy in your argument is that it's backwards. I'm not saying most people thnk like me .... I'm saying I'm thinking same thing most people are thinking.

Even the CBO doesn't believe the numbers coming out of this administration anymore. They place the real unemployment rate around 11%, and I don't even think that is correct. It is much higher. As for your 'trend' at the rate Obama is touting as a 'trend' it will take decades to just get back to where we were.
Hey, you can go with Gallup too, if you're not happy with the "official" numbers. Ain't no skin off of my back.

What you should say is that if the sheeple out there buy the MSM propaganda in this election year, and allow themselves to be enticed by administration buy off's for their vote, then Obama would win...I myself hope that we are smarter than that.
Translation: Please, please, please ... please forget that George Bush tanked the economy so it's still not fixed yet! We on the right don't want another 4 years of Obama if Americans still blame Bush, we might not get to elect one of the 4 clowns we are running now whom we don't even like.

The only 'poll' that really matters is in November this year. Anything else is chest thumping, guessing, and mental masturbation. So spare me please.

j-mac
This is a political debate forum. You're certainly welcome not to participate if you feel that strongly that none of this conversation matters.
 
Ah, now I see what you're getting at. I was thrown off because the "investment" made into saving our economy was less than a trillion while the rest of the debt is attributable largely to the policies of Bush and Republicans which led to the worst economy in almost 80 years.
It is a bit hard to take that statement seriously, but I will give it a go. What policies, specifically, of Bush are leading to the $100 billion in debt we will roll up this month? And what part of this years trillion dollar deficit as well as next years trillion dollar deficit, and the trillion dollar deficits Obama forecasts for the nest ten years are Bushs fault as well? And if Obama cant do anything about it, why not elect someone who will?

It strikes me that you want to give Obama credit for the good things happening in the economy while blaming everything bad on someone else. That is a bit dishonest. No?
 
Except that's not what I said. I said the reality is that George Bush left Obama an economy worst economy any president left except for Hoover. That is reality. And I'm suggesting that the poll results reflect that which is why people still blame Bush for today's economy by close to a 2 to 1 margin.


No, that is opinion. Yours, and those that pollsters collected with their weighted participation, and skewed push polls designed to run cover for Obama.

Think again. It seems you have me confused with someone else who might have said that.

That is possible, but then let me ask you, does spending originate in congress? Or the office of the Presidency?

"Most people" as in 54% of those polled blame Bush for today's economy. 54% qualifies as a mojority, or "most people." Capiche? The fallacy in your argument is that it's backwards. I'm not saying most people thnk like me .... I'm saying I'm thinking same thing most people are thinking.

Wow! A whole 54%? Why that is an entire 4% over majority...And what of the 46% that disagree? They don't matter? All I can say is thank God we don't live in a pure democracy.

Hey, you can go with Gallup too, if you're not happy with the "official" numbers. Ain't no skin off of my back.

I don't believe polls have much weight other than making partisan political arguments. Other than that they are often wrong at truly gauging final outcomes in anything other than opinion driven drivel.

Translation: Please, please, please ... please forget that George Bush tanked the economy so it's still not fixed yet! We on the right don't want another 4 years of Obama if Americans still blame Bush, we might not get to elect one of the 4 clowns we are running now whom we don't even like.

You expect to win anything other than contempt when you use such tactics?

This is a political debate forum. You're certainly welcome not to participate if you feel that strongly that none of this conversation matters.

I wasn't aware that you were the arbitor of who can participate and who can't? Nah, I think I will continue to post what ever I wish, thank you, as for your pronouncment, well, you know what weight that has....Nothing.


j-mac
 
Playing that pretty coyly aren't you?
I was just trying to understand why he thought Obama made a $5 trilllion "investment" simply because the debt has increased almost that much since Obama became president. In reality, Obama is far less responsible for that $5 trillion in debt than he deludes himself into believing...

w-Ezra01_Policies.jpg


Adding to the deficit: Bush vs. Obama - The Washington Post
 
I was just trying to understand why he thought Obama made a $5 trilllion "investment" simply because the debt has increased almost that much since Obama became president. In reality, Obama is far less responsible for that $5 trillion in debt than he deludes himself into believing...

w-Ezra01_Policies.jpg


Adding to the deficit: Bush vs. Obama - The Washington Post

Great post.

When you peal away the layers of rhetoric, we can see that conventional wisdom (Dems spend more than GOP) is crap.
 
It is a bit hard to take that statement seriously, but I will give it a go. What policies, specifically, of Bush are leading to the $100 billion in debt we will roll up this month? And what part of this years trillion dollar deficit as well as next years trillion dollar deficit, and the trillion dollar deficits Obama forecasts for the nest ten years are Bushs fault as well? And if Obama cant do anything about it, why not elect someone who will?

It strikes me that you want to give Obama credit for the good things happening in the economy while blaming everything bad on someone else. That is a bit dishonest. No?
The affects from his recession are still being felt. If not for that recession, employment would be higher than it is today as well as tax revenues would be higher; which translates into lower deficits. Also, had Bush and Republicans not wrecked our economy, there would have been no need for Obama to spend close to a trillion dollars on stimulus.
 
Your graphs have nothing to do with my post.
 
No, you have it wrong. Learn to read.

learn to read? LOL, suggest you do a better job of explaining your position. Labor force for the past few years is below showing the labor force in December was 153.9 million and in January 2012 it is 154.4 million. Looks like 500,000 increase to me in a country with a growing population and yet a labor force that isn't keeping up. Dropping out of the labor force makes the Obama numbers look better than they are

2007 153133 152966 153054 152446 152666 153038 153035 152756 153422 153209 153845 153936
2008 154060 153624 153924 153779 154322 154315 154432 154656 154613 154953 154621 154669
2009 154185 154424 154100 154453 154805 154754 154457 154362 153940 154022 153795 153172
2010 153353 153558 153895 154520 154237 153684 153628 154117 154124 153960 153950 153690
2011 153186 153246 153406 153421 153693 153421 153228 153594 154017 154198 153883 153887
Jan-12 154395
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom