Page 18 of 23 FirstFirst ... 81617181920 ... LastLast
Results 171 to 180 of 227

Thread: US economy adds 96K jobs, rate falls to 8.1 pct. [W:123]

  1. #171
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Where I am now
    Last Seen
    09-11-17 @ 03:00 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    16,386

    Re: US economy adds 96K jobs, rate falls to 8.1 pct. [W:123]

    Quote Originally Posted by DA60 View Post
    You are correct - I mistyped.

    I meant that the jobless claims have for the last half year have always been revised higher (meaning the truth ALWAYS turns out to be worse then the initial report).

    Every week, these people make the numbers sound better then they really are...whether deliberately or not.


    And speaking of being wrong - are you going to finally admit that you got it wrong when you typed 'There is nothing about new jobs in the ARRA.'?

    From Recovery.gov - Tracking the Money

    '*THE RECOVERY ACT

    On Feb. 13, 2009, Congress passed the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 at the urging of President Obama, who signed it into law four days later. A direct response to the economic crisis, the Recovery Act has three immediate goals:

    Create new jobs and save existing ones'


    The Recovery Act

    http://www.debatepolitics.com/econom...post1060873338



    Have a nice day.
    Correction.

    The highlighted part is wrong.

    You typed the following:

    'Nothing in this latest lament of your various shortcomings actually rises to the level of deserving a reply, but here are some simple corrections to elementary facts that you still seem to be having trouble with. ARRA did what it was designed and projected to do. Everyone credible -- including of course CBO -- agrees that it did. The measure used from the outset was jobs existing in the economy that would not have been there without the effects of ARRA. There is nothing about new jobs. In fact, saving an existing job is a more valuable thing than creating a new job, but there isn't much reason to think you would understand why. Standard disclaimers are simple boilerplate language that has nothing to do with the analysis at hand. When construction projects are completed, there is no more funding for them. That's the end of them. Your command of what I presume is your native language is degraded. Oh, and the only one wandering around aimlessly here is you.'

    My apologies for the misquote.


    And i do not care about your lame attempts to weasel out of it by saying what 'context' you meant it.

    In discussing the ARRA, you stated that 'there was nothing about new jobs.'

    Yet, on the ARRA website, it states the exact opposite.

    Your statement was at the very least, poorly typed. At most, it was a fabrication/misunderstanding of the truth.

    At least have the maturity to admit it when you are shown to be wrong.

    But - unfortunately - your ego apparently will not allow it.


    And now, instead of taking responsibility for your mistake, you will undoubtedly try and twist it around with more insults, excuses and condescension...ANYTHING but show weakness.

    Sad.



    Have a nice day.
    Last edited by DA60; 09-12-12 at 11:22 PM.

  2. #172
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Last Seen
    02-15-14 @ 04:49 PM
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    5,939

    Re: US economy adds 96K jobs, rate falls to 8.1 pct. [W:123]

    Quote Originally Posted by Eighty Deuce View Post
    Put down the Kool-Ade. If Obama had to carry the same LFPR (labor force participation rate) now, as when he took office, the U-3 is 11.4%. Not the 8.1 snow-job we were fed today.
    Denial of reality. A right-wing staple. The LFPR has seen recent declines in large part because of the trainwreck that Republicans (again) made of the economy. Still haven't apologized for it either. The clowns. Then there are the longer term parts about increasing retirements and the how the lifetime wage premium paid for education has been rising while the value of real pay and benefits has been declining. Translation: more people have been going to school and staying there longer.

    Quote Originally Posted by Eighty Deuce View Post
    Do liberals even care about anything except the free-stuff gubmit teat in their mouths for another cycle ?
    Yes, that's why they have such a big knowledge advantage over some bunch of stumbling, bumbling right-wingers mindlessly loitering on the sidewalk.

    Quote Originally Posted by Eighty Deuce View Post
    Your guy is a ****ing disaster. Man-up for once Obamabots.
    Potty-mouth girly-talk is not very impressive. Where's the beef?
    (Tip of the hat to Clara Peller)

  3. #173
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Last Seen
    02-15-14 @ 04:49 PM
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    5,939

    Re: US economy adds 96K jobs, rate falls to 8.1 pct. [W:123]

    Quote Originally Posted by Das Sozialist View Post
    We need to generate at least 130,584 jobs per month to keep up with population growth.
    Talk to some qualified labor economists instead of a bunch of media airheads. The number you refer to is and has been declining for a good while. I'm sure you think that Freedom & Liberty® demand that laws be enacted to keep Americans from retiring when they want to, to keep Americans from going to or staying in school when they want to, and to keep Americans from staying home to raise their small children when they want to. But those laws thankfully don't exist, and I don't think even your unqualified Bumbler-Boy Willard intends to pass any, so your just plain stuck with the 130K number being an obviously lame and out-of-date overstatement.

    Quote Originally Posted by Das Sozialist View Post
    Overall, we haven't been growing, we've been in a decline.
    LOL!!! Overall, America was at one of its historic economic high points in January 2001, and in just eight short years, all of that was destroyed by the ignorance of greedy Republican laissez-faire free-market cowboy capitalism, leaving us to deal with the worst economic catastrophe since the Great Depression. Against all odds, we have been in an overall recovery since mid-2009 with the lagging variable of employment not surprisingly lagging. The recovery has of course been attacked and undermined by Republicans at every step along the way. Republicans openly admit that they see partisan interests as superior to national interests and are more than willing to see millions of (non-rich) Americans suffer in the hope that such a situation might buy them a few extra votes.

    Quote Originally Posted by Das Sozialist View Post
    Unless my math is completely off, 2002-2008 saw greater job creation (at 43,560 average jobs created per month), than 2009-2012, but it was still sub-par.
    "Subpar" is being a little generous. George W Bush had the worst jobs performance of any President since WWII. Eight years of miserable disgrace and failure across the board. That's all that Bush provided by any proper sort of math.

  4. #174
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Last Seen
    02-15-14 @ 04:49 PM
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    5,939

    Re: US economy adds 96K jobs, rate falls to 8.1 pct. [W:123]

    Quote Originally Posted by DA60 View Post
    Oh, is that why during the 1920/21 depression, the government massively cut spending and tax rates - but still it ended less then 30 months after it began? With both the unemployment rate and the DOW reaching near per-crash levels within 3 1/2 years of the depression's beginning...all while the national debt shrank.

    'Harding believed the federal government should be fiscally managed similar to the private sector having campaigned "Less government in business and more business in government."[116] "Harding was true to his word, carrying on budget cuts that had begun under a debilitated Woodrow Wilson. Federal spending declined from $6.3 billion in 1920 to $5 billion in 1921 and $3.3 billion in 1922.'
    Manufactured right-wing rot no matter how many times it is bot-copied and pasted. A trip through the actual history would reveal that this Depression began in January 1920, while Harding (like W, consistently ranked as one of the worst Presidents in US history) arrived in office in March 1921. This was long after the post-WWI spending cuts of the FY 1921 and FY 1922 budgets had been set by the Wilson administration. Harding did indeed cut tax RATES during his brief term, but like Reagan in 1986, he also expanded the tax base, creating a net tax INCREASE. You didn't mention that part. Nor did you mention the massive gold inflows from war-ravaged Europe that actually did play a signficant role in speeding up our conversion from war-time to peace-time production, thereby resolving the central issue of the depression. Just more facts that tend to get left in the wake of the mighty ship of phony historical revisionism as it steams through.

    Quote Originally Posted by DA60 View Post
    Whereas the Great Depression and it's massive spending under Hoover and FDR resulted in a decade long economic mess where unemployment took over ten years to reach near per-crash levels and the DOW took 25! Oh, and the national debt skyrocketed.
    LOL!!! How many times do you want to be beat up for this same old crock of crap?

  5. #175
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Last Seen
    02-15-14 @ 04:49 PM
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    5,939

    Re: US economy adds 96K jobs, rate falls to 8.1 pct. [W:123]

    Quote Originally Posted by jonny5 View Post
    What spin? I posted the facts. The economy grew by 2 trillion under Bush, EVEN with a recession. Percentages are a way to spin real numbers, by making everything relative.
    Things such as growth and change are relative concepts to start out with. Bigger THAN something. Different FROM something. See how that works? This is why the grownups often use relative terms when talking about these sorts of things.

  6. #176
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Last Seen
    02-15-14 @ 04:49 PM
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    5,939

    Re: US economy adds 96K jobs, rate falls to 8.1 pct. [W:123]

    Quote Originally Posted by Aberration View Post
    Really? Under Bush the middle class got a tax break. Under Obama we will get hit with higher health insurance premiums.
    LOL! You got PEANUTS in tax breaks, and health and health insurance costs have been completely out of control and increasing at rates two to three times the CPI for years. That's one big reason why health care reform was such a big deal. Republican contributions included ignorant whining about "death panels" and "government takeovers". When they were finally forced to send their feeble alternative off to CBO, it came back MORE expensive than the Democratic plan while leaving THE SAME percentage of Americans uninsured, even after ten years. What a bunch of losers!

    Quote Originally Posted by Aberration View Post
    The only thing that happened under Bush was at the very end, and it was due to laws signed by Clinton.
    No, actually things went in the dumper right away, then made a brief and rather half-hearted recovery, then collapsed entirely. That middle period of course was paid for by swapping out US labor content in favor of Chinese labor content and then sucking equity out of people's homes. In economic terms -- as in most others -- Bush was a total failure.

    Bush_GDP.jpg

    GLB and CFMA (each a brainchild of the right wing) did lead almost immediately to a wave of rigged IPO's that bilked ordinary American investors out of billions, leading also therefore the need for passage of Sarbanes-Oxley. But neither they nor the dreaded CRA had any direct bearing on the eventual credit crisis and Great Bush Recession. All that grew up in 2002-06, born of wanton cowboy capitalism and the horrible fiscal, monetary, and regulatory policy errors of the Bush administration.

  7. #177
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Last Seen
    02-15-14 @ 04:49 PM
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    5,939

    Re: US economy adds 96K jobs, rate falls to 8.1 pct. [W:123]

    Quote Originally Posted by Aberration View Post
    What tax cut? You mean the 'Bush' Tax cuts that got extended?
    FYI, the stimulus bill provided the largest two-year tax cut in US history. Might not have been widely reported in the disinformation media though.

  8. #178
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Where I am now
    Last Seen
    09-11-17 @ 03:00 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    16,386

    Re: US economy adds 96K jobs, rate falls to 8.1 pct. [W:123]

    Quote Originally Posted by Cardinal Fang View Post
    Denial of reality. A right-wing staple. The LFPR has seen recent declines in large part because of the trainwreck that Republicans (again) made of the economy. Still haven't apologized for it either. The clowns. Then there are the longer term parts about increasing retirements and the how the lifetime wage premium paid for education has been rising while the value of real pay and benefits has been declining. Translation: more people have been going to school and staying there longer.
    Are you saying that the majority of the drop in LFPR is not due to people simply leaving the work force due to frustration at being able to find a suitable job?

    Yes or no, please?


    Have a nice day.
    Last edited by DA60; 09-13-12 at 12:45 PM.

  9. #179
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Where I am now
    Last Seen
    09-11-17 @ 03:00 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    16,386

    Re: US economy adds 96K jobs, rate falls to 8.1 pct. [W:123]

    Quote Originally Posted by Cardinal Fang View Post
    Manufactured right-wing rot no matter how many times it is bot-copied and pasted. A trip through the actual history would reveal that this Depression began in January 1920, while Harding (like W, consistently ranked as one of the worst Presidents in US history) arrived in office in March 1921. This was long after the post-WWI spending cuts of the FY 1921 and FY 1922 budgets had been set by the Wilson administration. Harding did indeed cut tax RATES during his brief term, but like Reagan in 1986, he also expanded the tax base, creating a net tax INCREASE. You didn't mention that part. Nor did you mention the massive gold inflows from war-ravaged Europe that actually did play a signficant role in speeding up our conversion from war-time to peace-time production, thereby resolving the central issue of the depression. Just more facts that tend to get left in the wake of the mighty ship of phony historical revisionism as it steams through.
    None of which you proved AND none of which - even if you did - factually disproves anything I typed.

    Harding continued and accelerated the spending cuts under Wilson (who by the time the Depression fully started, was almost a complete invalid from a massive stroke).

    The result?

    Both the DOW and unemployment rate were at near per-Depression levels within 3 1/2 years.

    All this with a huge decline in spending.

    Of course, Keynesians HATE this fact and throw out every spin move they can possibly think of to discredit it.

    LOL!!! How many times do you want to be beat up for this same old crock of crap?
    what crap is that?

    That both Hoover and FDR posted massive deficits and increased spending giganticly from per 1929-crash levels?

    That the result was that between mid 1933 and mid 1942, the unemployment rate averaged over 17% AND the DOW actually declined AND the national debt skyrocketed?

    All those are true.

    So what did all that spending get during that period?

    High unemployment, a decline in the DOW and tons more debt.

    I'd call that a failure.


    And what did the spending cuts ubpnder Wilson and Harding of the 1920/21 depression bring?

    Both the unemployment rate and the DOW were back to near per-depression levels in 3 1/2 years...and I believe the national debt actually went down (or at least, barely rose).

    All facts.


    Prove they are not.

    Guess what...you cannot.



    Have a nice day.

    Btw - I am neither dem or lib.
    Last edited by DA60; 09-13-12 at 01:06 PM.

  10. #180
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Last Seen
    02-15-14 @ 04:49 PM
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    5,939

    Re: US economy adds 96K jobs, rate falls to 8.1 pct. [W:123]

    Quote Originally Posted by DA60 View Post
    Your link says 10,000 per day reach 65 - not retire.
    Even if it were just 6,000 per day, it would wipe out half of your supposed "headline" number, which the right-wing so much as mentions only because of its direction. In real life, the labor force is prone to moving either up or down from one month to the next, but we hear a peep about it from one bunch only in those months in which it happens to go down. And then we have to listen to the prattle and fluff of wild-eyed speculations about it. It's all pointless grade-school nonsense from start to finish.

    Quote Originally Posted by DA60 View Post
    A large number of Americans do not retire at 65. The average retirement age is now 67 - and rising.
    Correct. Many people retire long before the age of 65 which is why the actual average age at retirement is a lot closer to 60 than to 67. And it hasn't changed much lately at all.

    Quote Originally Posted by DA60 View Post
    In fact, many Americans cannot afford to retire due to loss of equity in their homes from the housing crash and record low interest rates (which hurts the amount they make off of their savings).
    By rational measures, most Americans could not have afforded to retire even before the Great Bush Recession came along. The people who could have afforded it back then still can because they had no plans to live off the equity in their homes and didn't have money they knew they would need in the near-term tied up in anything so risky as equities. Instead, they watched as those declining interest rates of yours drove up the price of their fixed-income assets. You can sell a $100K note at 4% for better than $265K if rates drop to 1.5%, you know. Good opportunity there for some profit-taking followed by a little bargain-hunting in depressed real estate and equity markets.

    Quote Originally Posted by DA60 View Post
    Actually, the most optimistic liberal think tank that I recall seeing puts the number that retired of that 368,000 figure at just under 50%...and even that does not stipulate how many of those retired because they gave up looking for work.
    We are supposed to think that you have done an actual survey of the literature??? LOLOLOLOL!!!

Page 18 of 23 FirstFirst ... 81617181920 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •