• 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!

Jobless rate rises to 8.3 percent, hiring picks up but still falling short

I didnt say i didnt support obama neither. You just keep jumping to random conclusions. To keep it simple, the economy has been getting slowly better since 2010. That statement is not an endorsement or and lack of one for anyone.

Ah yes, the famous Obama almost a year of success theory. Obama was not responsible for 2009, it was messed up by Bush, then came the economic miracle Obama year of 2010 when all was well (relatively speaking, of course), followed by the GOP obstructionist congressional years of 2011 and 2012 when all Obama magic plans were "shot down" by the 66 GOP house meanies of the TP.
 
Wrong, it depends on what unit you are starting from, you can convert the numbers to any unit, you could even calculate them in Yen, it would not matter. A mass does not changed if I measure it in kg or lb.

Stick with Obama, he deserves people like you
 
Ah yes, the famous Obama almost a year of success theory. Obama was not responsible for 2008 or 2009, those years were all messed up by Bush, then came the economic miracle Obama year of 2010 when all was well (relatively speaking, of course), followed by the GOP obstructionist congressional years of 2011 and 2012 when all Obama magic plans were "shot down" by the 66 GOP house meanies of the TP.

I never once blamed bush or obama nor gave either of them credit. please read my posts before jumping to that conclusion.
 
Growth is growth. It is going up and not down.

Futhermore I have cited more than just gallup. But keep only giving half truths. Integrity isnt for everyone.
No...2+2=5.......
 
You will do great in the Government re-indoctrination school. Going up and losing jobs isn't growth, it is a disaster

If that were true we would have a higher unemployment rate (we dont) or a lower percentage of people working full time (we dont). Your losing jobs arguement is weak.
 
You just rejected the St.Louis Fed using DoC numbers.

The GDP of this country is a little over 15 trillion dollars and that is the number we get revenue from and we pay debt serviceon the 16 trillion dollar debt. None of that is in chained dollars. St. Louis Fed isn't wrong but what purpose does that data serve? The growth rate is what it is as are the unemployment numbers
 
If that were true we would have a higher unemployment rate (we dont) or a lower percentage of people working full time (we dont). Your losing jobs arguement is weak.

Again, do you know what under employed means? Working full time and earning less money isn't an improvement. Obama sure has people like you brainwashed.
 
Funny, you stated earlier that the multiplier is 1.....if you are still talking about a balanced budget multiplier.

No, I sated the outcome of the stimulus was a multiplier of 1 on a 1.57x projection. Which is true. What I'm stating here is the seemingly mathematical nature of Keynesian models that are the basis for those projections are nonsense. Then I proved it, not using wiki links, but by using math.
 
Who you and other uneducated folk want to blame does not change much. Obama does not have (nor should he) complete control over economy. Consumers have far more control than he does.

It seems you have a habit of calling people an idiot and now uneducated folk. Consumers do not make policies that effect the economy. Consumers did not write the Obamacare law.

Can you show me where I did this? I bet you cant. May be a good idea for you to back off this one. You are just wrong.

Anytime you wish to pick dates to make a point is cherry picking, like from 2010 to now. The next guy will say, from the day Obama took office there are more unemployed now than when he took office. Completely changes the perspective. But hey to you and other uneducated folk don't get it.
 
Again, do you know what under employed means? Working full time and earning less money isn't an improvement. Obama sure has people like you brainwashed.

Which might make sense if the average household income wasnt going up. Another fail. Obama doesnt have me brainwashed as I dont listen to his drivel. However one of us is brainwashed.
 
So your argument is that changing the units changes the value? Is their some "exchange rate cost" that you know about......?

This is ridiculous and irrelevant, the GDP isn't 13.6 trillion dollar as your chart shows, it is over 15 trillion dollars. That has nothing to do with the thread topic but it does show that the GDP growth isn't enough to reduce unemployment nor is it growing, but rather slowing as the current annualized rate of 1.5% shows. Have you and your partner figured out what annualized means?
 
The GDP of this country is a little over 15 trillion dollars and that is the number we get revenue from and we pay debt serviceon the 16 trillion dollar debt. None of that is in chained dollars. St. Louis Fed isn't wrong but what purpose does that data serve? The growth rate is what it is as are the unemployment numbers
You are using ( I assume) 2010 un-adjusted amounts, so what? That does not change the value, you are using a different unit of measure.

FFS.
 
It seems you have a habit of calling people an idiot and now uneducated folk. Consumers do not make policies that effect the economy. Consumers did not write the Obamacare law.

Consumers control the economy far more than any president ever has.


Anytime you wish to pick dates to make a point is cherry picking, like from 2010 to now.

I am not cherry picking anything. The only way your point would make sense would be if i were arguing that the economy has improved since obama took office. Which i am not. I picked a date of about 2 years and looked at the numbers. I suppose I could have gone back 100 years too but its not really appliciable.

The next guy will say, from the day Obama took office there are more unemployed now than when he took office.

Which is 100000000% completely irrelevant to my argument.
 
This is ridiculous and irrelevant, the GDP isn't 13.6 trillion dollar as your chart shows, it is over 15 trillion dollars. That has nothing to do with the thread topic but it does show that the GDP growth isn't enough to reduce unemployment nor is it growing, but rather slowing as the current annualized rate of 1.5% shows. Have you and your partner figured out what annualized means?
I did not know that we had to help you with "annualized", i'm still trying to get you to understand the basics of "units". Slow down there cowboy, lets get first things first.
 
Which is 100000000% completely irrelevant to my argument.

But it is fact that there are more unemployed under Obama now, than from the day he took office. And I assume you agree with this.
 
But it is fact that there are more unemployed under Obama now, than from the day he took office. And I assume you agree with this.

yes. again. i am not arguing that the economy has improved since obama took over or even that it improved because of obama.
 
But it is fact that there are more unemployed under Obama now, than from the day he took office. And I assume you agree with this.
Again, this has already been discussed, of course it is since employment is a lagging indicator and the recessionary effects were still playing out. Again, you are blaming him for losses that were happening from an event that occurred before he was sworn in.
 
Again, this has already been discussed, of course it is since employment is a lagging indicator and the recessionary effects were still playing out. Again, you are blaming him for losses that were happening from an event that occurred before he was sworn in.
Actually, i take that back, there are fewer unemployed now...

unemployed 09-12.JPG
 
Anyone with a shred of honesty in them can deny that of course the unemployment rate is going to go up till the election...the corps and rich are doing everything they can to keep the misery index up for working america to influence the election...gas prices have never spiked at the end of july without barrel prices shooting up...its just another part of the plot to keep americans on their knees and blame obama...but its not obama raising gas prices for no reason and its not obama not hiring...its the richie rich pigs at the trough.
 
Anyone with a shred of honesty in them can deny that of course the unemployment rate is going to go up till the election...the corps and rich are doing everything they can to keep the misery index up for working america to influence the election...gas prices have never spiked at the end of july without barrel prices shooting up...its just another part of the plot to keep americans on their knees and blame obama...but its not obama raising gas prices for no reason and its not obama not hiring...its the richie rich pigs at the trough.

You think the rich are intentionally keeping unemployment rates and gas prices high in order to throw the election to Romney? Huh.
 
Gimmesometruth;1060759402[B said:
]Again, this has already been discussed[/B], of course it is since employment is a lagging indicator and the recessionary effects were still playing out. Again, you are blaming him for losses that were happening from an event that occurred before he was sworn in.

Of course it has, but it needs repeating as those on the left wish it never existed. To your point employment is a lagging indicator, with a current 1.5% GDP that would suggest the unemployment rate is going up not down. I look at the facts as history will show, which is what happens on a president's watch is his/hers. Period. I look at all presidents in that way as statistics will show. Such things like Obama was the first president to have our credit downgraded, Obama was the first president to increase the national debt over 1 Trillion in each yr of his first and only term. Obama is the first president to have unemployment over 8% for over 41 months and counting. You know stuff like that.
 
Pretty simple, Wall Street is expecting Bernanke to print more money to stimulate this poor economy. Thought someone as smart as you think you are would understand that. Great to see the same people who demonized Wall Street during the Bush years when it went over 14000 excited about it now.

So a higher than expected jobs number is the signal for the Fed to act? What would a lower number have done to the Dow then?
What you call the demonization of Wall Street was directed at the Wall Street Commercial Banks who were responsible for inflating the housing bubble and crashing the worlds financial system. Some thought it was pretty bad that we had to bail them out too. You obviously believe they were stellar examples of capitalism.
 
Back
Top Bottom