• 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.
If Obama's results on unemployment are as bad as you say, what does that say about every other Republican president going back to Hoover since they all performed worse than Obama up until this point, except for Reagan, who has performed the same as the unemployment rate increased by ½ a point during his first 36 months in office...

Here's a list of presidents, along with the percentage of increase, or decrease, of the U3 unemployment rate after 36 months in office...



Nixon +2.4 +71%
Ford* +2.0 +36%
GHW Bush +1.9 +35%
Bush +1.5 +36%
Eisenhower +1.1 +38%
Reagan +0.5 +7%
Obama +0.5 +6%
Kennedy** -1.2 -14%
Carter -1.2 -16%
Clinton -1.7 -23%
Johnson -2.1 -37%

* = Ford was in office 29 months

** = Kennedy was in office 34 months


Bureau of Labor Statistics Data

Because Obama promised to bring Unemployment down quickly with all the tax money he was spending---IE his programs and monetary policy did not work as advertised and now we have a mountain of debt with the same economic conditions in terms of unemployment. Thats the problem. Obama isnt going to run on his record :p Hes going to run on a narrative about Romney. Its all going to be about framing and narratives.
 
Yes, that was my point but obviously I wasn't clear. Let me try to explain more clearly. Since I don’t know what the specific rates were relevant to your table I can only presume, which should be sufficient to clarify the point. If the UE rate was 4.16% under GWB and had a 1.5% increase (to 5.6%) that would be a 35% increase in unemployment but both 4.16% and 5.6% would be outstanding. Conversely if under BHO the UE IS 7.5% a change of .5% up (to 8.0%) would be an increase of 6.6% but both 7.5 and 8.0 would be crappy.

See?

Good luck getting Sheik to understand your point which is absolutely correct
 
Let's face reality, U3 stats don't apply to these times. Bush and the Republicans toasted this economy and left it in free fall, when Obama took over. We're lucky we didn't get Great Depression II. Our economy is limping back, because Republican obstructionism is stopping the opportunities to fix it quickly. The Republicans know they screwed the economy up and how they did it, but that doesn't stop them from trying to blame others and telling others to learn how to take responsiblity. When you're totally dedicated to hypocisy, what choice do you have?

Very constructive...thank you for that.
 
Let's face reality, U3 stats don't apply to these times. Bush and the Republicans toasted this economy and left it in free fall, when Obama took over. We're lucky we didn't get Great Depression II. Our economy is limping back, because Republican obstructionism is stopping the opportunities to fix it quickly. The Republicans know they screwed the economy up and how they did it, but that doesn't stop them from trying to blame others and telling others to learn how to take responsiblity. When you're totally dedicated to hypocisy, what choice do you have?

Didn't recall the Republicans being in charge of the economy in December 2007 when the economy went in recession but do recall them holding control of Congress from January 2007 to January 2011. Also don't recall the legislation that obama implemented that brought us back from the brink of depression so please enlighten us all. It would also be very helpful to explain why the recovery from that recession was so poor and the worst in U.S. History.

you keep saying the Republicans are placing blame so tell me how the Republicans with no control of Congress from 2007-2011 were in position to implement anything thus blame anyone else. Thanks in advance.
 
Didn't recall the Republicans being in charge of the economy in December 2007 when the economy went in recession but do recall them holding control of Congress from January 2007 to January 2011. Also don't recall the legislation that obama implemented that brought us back from the brink of depression so please enlighten us all. It would also be very helpful to explain why the recovery from that recession was so poor and the worst in U.S. History.

you keep saying the Republicans are placing blame so tell me how the Republicans with no control of Congress from 2007-2011 were in position to implement anything thus blame anyone else. Thanks in advance.

The housing boom was the result of changes in the law and it was Republican legislation. The CFMA and GLBA have Phil Gramm written all over them. Without those acts, the banks couldn't do what they did. The majority in Congress had nothing to do with it. It takes a super majority to do anything. Bush was responsible and so are all the idiots who voted for him or any Republican. If you want to be conservative, be it and peddle your wares without dealing with the most corrupt organization America has ever known, which is the Republican Party.
 
I will be running away as I have no interest in discussing anything with you.

Wow, he admitted it!

You know you're wrong, and you know you've met your match. Usually you don't come out and admit it though. I admire your honesty.
 
The Obama results which obviously you have no interest in seeing show that indeed the economic numbers are mostly worse but let's face it Obama is a better singer and campaigner than anyone running against him. He sure has you fooled.

Deny deny deny.
 
Not at all, I know Obama didn't cause the downturn and isn't totally responsible for the recession but we do know that he is responsible for the dismal recovery and lack of leadership. Really is quite shocking how little liberals on this thread know about leadership and the responsibilities of a leader.


fourth quarter growth of 2.8 % compared to 1.8 % the previous quarter, 243000 new jobs created. Kinda looks to me that were on the verge of breaking into the 7,s(unemployment rate) before next Nov.then you have the clown parade the republicans put forth…Looks to me like another four for Obama.:thumbs:

It must be sad to be a republican and see the 2012 election slipping away because no one would step up but the clown show.it shoulda been a shoo in for them this time.

Now excuse me, i have a super bowl to watch and a couple of bottles of Kendall Jackson chilling...Go Giants.:2wave:
 
Didn't recall the Republicans being in charge of the economy in December 2007 when the economy went in recession but do recall them holding control of Congress from January 2007 to January 2011. [...]
Okay. Then 9/11 was the Republican's fault. I think most people would rather have a recession on their conscience than the deaths of thousands, so the Dems win. Thanks for playing, better luck next time :mrgreen:
 
fourth quarter growth of 2.8 % compared to 1.8 % the previous quarter, 243000 new jobs created. Kinda looks to me that were on the verge of breaking into the 7,s(unemployment rate) before next Nov.then you have the clown parade the republicans put forth…Looks to me like another four for Obama.:thumbs:

It must be sad to be a republican and see the 2012 election slipping away because no one would step up but the clown show.it shoulda been a shoo in for them this time.

Now excuse me, i have a super bowl to watch and a couple of bottles of Kendall Jackson chilling...Go Giants.:2wave:

If you're right; we're screwed.
 
fourth quarter growth of 2.8 % compared to 1.8 % the previous quarter, 243000 new jobs created. Kinda looks to me that were on the verge of breaking into the 7,s(unemployment rate) before next Nov.then you have the clown parade the republicans put forth…Looks to me like another four for Obama.:thumbs:

It must be sad to be a republican and see the 2012 election slipping away because no one would step up but the clown show.it shoulda been a shoo in for them this time.

Now excuse me, i have a super bowl to watch and a couple of bottles of Kendall Jackson chilling...Go Giants.:2wave:

You’re screwm. And the Giants won…all is good with the universe.:mrgreen:
 
fourth quarter growth of 2.8 % compared to 1.8 % the previous quarter, 243000 new jobs created. Kinda looks to me that were on the verge of breaking into the 7,s(unemployment rate) before next Nov.then you have the clown parade the republicans put forth…Looks to me like another four for Obama.:thumbs:

It must be sad to be a republican and see the 2012 election slipping away because no one would step up but the clown show.it shoulda been a shoo in for them this time.

Now excuse me, i have a super bowl to watch and a couple of bottles of Kendall Jackson chilling...Go Giants.:2wave:

It sure doesn't take a lot to impress you and to claim we are recovering. Check out the GDP growth 36 months after we came out of any other recession in history. What economic policy did the do nothing Congress and Obama implement that led to those numbers? 1.8% growth was the average for the year and that is half of what it was in 2010. Doubt that you care about the facts. Obama loves having people like you supporting him
 
Okay. Then 9/11 was the Republican's fault. I think most people would rather have a recession on their conscience than the deaths of thousands, so the Dems win. Thanks for playing, better luck next time :mrgreen:

Progressives have a way of spending everyone else's money. What are you going to do when you run out of someone else's money to spend?
 
It sure doesn't take a lot to impress you and to claim we are recovering. Check out the GDP growth 36 months after we came out of any other recession in history. What economic policy did the do nothing Congress and Obama implement that led to those numbers? 1.8% growth was the average for the year and that is half of what it was in 2010. Doubt that you care about the facts. Obama loves having people like you supporting him


What other recession in history was left to a President with an economy In as bad a shape as this one was? The only thing that comes close is when Hoover left FDR the great Depression.
 
You’re screwm. And the Giants won…all is good with the universe.:mrgreen:

I was just about to say something about this.

In threads like this I feel like I'm trying to think about the long-term direction of the Pats' and Giants' programs while people are watching slow-motion instant replays of irrelevant downs throughout the game trying to prove that their political party is da best. And it makes me want to kill something.
 
Progressives have a way of spending everyone else's money. What are you going to do when you run out of someone else's money to spend?

It's unfortunate for America that Obama is not a spendthrift like Bush.
 
What other recession in history was left to a President with an economy In as bad a shape as this one was? The only thing that comes close is when Hoover left FDR the great Depression.

Kinda weird you phrase it thusly.

Roosevelt attacked Hoover for "reckless and extravagant" spending, of thinking "that we ought to center control of everything in Washington as rapidly as possible." Roosevelt's running mate, John Nance Garner, accused the Republican of "leading the country down the path of socialism".

Even so, New Dealer Rexford Tugwell later remarked that although no one would say so at the time, "practically the whole New Deal was extrapolated from programs that Hoover started."


Herbert Hoover - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Sounds vaguely similar to the same things being said and happening today…déjà vu?
 
Yes, that was my point but obviously I wasn't clear. Let me try to explain more clearly. Since I don’t know what the specific rates were relevant to your table I can only presume, which should be sufficient to clarify the point. If the UE rate was 4.16% under GWB and had a 1.5% increase (to 5.6%) that would be a 35% increase in unemployment but both 4.16% and 5.6% would be outstanding. Conversely if under BHO the UE IS 7.5% a change of .5% up (to 8.0%) would be an increase of 6.6% but both 7.5 and 8.0 would be crappy.

See?
Again, forget the percentages. The rates were relative from when each respective president took office up until their 36th month in office -- same as Obama. And regardless of what the rate was when each one took office, it increased more under every single Republican president than Obama with the lone exception of Reagan, who saw the same0.5 point increase as Obama. I also note that Obama was the only Democrat president to even have the unemployment rate increase after 36 months in office, but then again, no other president except for FDR was handed an economy which lost 8 million jobs in 18 months.

Here's a list of presidents, along with the increase, or decrease, of the U3 unemployment rate after 36 months in office...

Nixon
+2.4
+71%
Ford*
+2.0
+36%
GHW Bush
+1.9
+35%
Bush
+1.5
+36%
Eisenhower
+1.1
+38%
Reagan
+0.5
+7%
Obama
+0.5
+6%
Kennedy**
-1.2
-14%
Carter
-1.2
-16%
Clinton
-1.7
-23%
Johnson
-2.1
-37%
* = Ford was in office 29 months
** = Kennedy was in office 34 months

Bureau of Labor Statistics Data
 
Because Obama promised to bring Unemployment down quickly with all the tax money he was spending---IE his programs and monetary policy did not work as advertised and now we have a mountain of debt with the same economic conditions in terms of unemployment. Thats the problem. Obama isnt going to run on his record :p Hes going to run on a narrative about Romney. Its all going to be about framing and narratives.
What does that have to do with the unemployment rate rising more under all of the Republican presidents except for Reagan? I understand the right wants to elect a Republican over Obama but the record shows that unemployment is worse when they are elected president.
 
Didn't recall the Republicans being in charge of the economy in December 2007 when the economy went in recession but do recall them holding control of Congress from January 2007 to January 2011.
Republicans were in charge while the housing market was ballooning out of control which led to the financial collapse while Democrats were in charge.

But of course, you know this already. You just can't help yourself from lying about it.
 
If you're right; we're screwed.
Just to clarify, that would be "we" as in "Conservatives."

What's good for America is bad for Conservatives.
 
It sure doesn't take a lot to impress you and to claim we are recovering. Check out the GDP growth 36 months after we came out of any other recession in history. What economic policy did the do nothing Congress and Obama implement that led to those numbers? 1.8% growth was the average for the year and that is half of what it was in 2010. Doubt that you care about the facts. Obama loves having people like you supporting him
Since we've never had a recession which lost 8 million to unemployment, 12 million to underemployment, 5.1% of GDP, and 50% of stock market valuation, comparing to other recessions couldn't be more meaningless. The closest economy you can compare that too would be the Great Depression, which of course, was worse. But then, that's why it's called the Great Recession.
 
Kinda weird you phrase it thusly.

Roosevelt attacked Hoover for "reckless and extravagant" spending, of thinking "that we ought to center control of everything in Washington as rapidly as possible." Roosevelt's running mate, John Nance Garner, accused the Republican of "leading the country down the path of socialism".

Even so, New Dealer Rexford Tugwell later remarked that although no one would say so at the time, "practically the whole New Deal was extrapolated from programs that Hoover started."


Herbert Hoover - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Sounds vaguely similar to the same things being said and happening today…déjà vu?

'like' a hundred times. I have been saying precisely this for years.
 
Again, forget the percentages. The rates were relative from when each respective president took office up until their 36th month in office -- same as Obama. And regardless of what the rate was when each one took office, it increased more under every single Republican president than Obama with the lone exception of Reagan, who saw the same0.5 point increase as Obama. I also note that Obama was the only Democrat president to even have the unemployment rate increase after 36 months in office, but then again, no other president except for FDR was handed an economy which lost 8 million jobs in 18 months.

Here's a list of presidents, along with the increase, or decrease, of the U3 unemployment rate after 36 months in office...

Nixon
+2.4
+71%
Ford*
+2.0
+36%
GHW Bush
+1.9
+35%
Bush
+1.5
+36%
Eisenhower
+1.1
+38%
Reagan
+0.5
+7%
Obama
+0.5
+6%
Kennedy**
-1.2
-14%
Carter
-1.2
-16%
Clinton
-1.7
-23%
Johnson
-2.1
-37%
* = Ford was in office 29 months
** = Kennedy was in office 34 months

Bureau of Labor Statistics Data

BLS data sucks!

http://www.bls.gov/web/empsit/cpseea01.pdf

Look at the Civilian noninstitutional population in 2011 and compare it to Jan. 2012! The population for 2011 is listed as 239,618,000 and you can see it's an average of the monthly figures. The population for Jan 2012 is 242,269,000. That's an increase of 3,565,000 in a year, if you subtract Jan 2011 from Jan 2012. If you subtract 2010 from 2011, it's an increase of 1,788,000. I find it very odd that the population of people 16 and older increased at twice the rate.

If you subtract the civilian labor force for Dec 2011 which was 153,887,000 from the Jan 2012 which was 154,395,000, it shows an increase of 508,000 in a month. The Jan 2012 civilian labor force is higher than it's ever been.

When I want an accurate measure of unemployment I adjust the Not in labor force numbers by using the 2000 data adjusted to census data of the 65 and over population. Even that gives data that isn't that good. You have to ask why did the population of Not in labor force increase by 1,609,000 between 1999 and 2000, but only increase by 367,000 between 1995 and 1996?

If these latest figures on the Civilian noninstitutional population hold up and continue to increase by a couple hundred thousand a month, then we are getting somewhere. That's just a little better than the population increase for the whole work force age 16 and above.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom