Page 138 of 163 FirstFirst ... 3888128136137138139140148 ... LastLast
Results 1,371 to 1,380 of 1628

Thread: U.S. Adds Only 88,000 Jobs; Jobless Rate Falls to 7.6%[W: 831]

  1. #1371
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Last Seen
    08-25-16 @ 08:31 PM
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    11,265

    Re: U.S. Adds Only 88,000 Jobs; Jobless Rate Falls to 7.6%[W: 831]

    Quote Originally Posted by OpportunityCost View Post
    So the solution to $400 billion in deficit spending is $1 trillion in deficit spending? Recession related? Thats baseline spending. Im not sure how you push that level of spending onto Bush and ignore that Obama wanted and continue to want even more spending. Its not at all that Obama wanted to spend less. He wanted to spend much, much more, up to and including a 2nd stimulus and he took attempts to pass other larger spending bills that didnt go through.
    Ya gotta just love righties' attempts to make Bush look better than the complete incompetent he was, I tell ya.

    ...............

    Bush didn't hand Obama a $400b deficit, he handed him a $1200b deficit, 3x the size of the deficit you're pretending it was. That $400b deficit was the CBO's esitimate of expected shortfall from Bush's FY2009 budget proposal in April, 2008. However, near the end of Bush's term, the CBO revised their estimate based on the Continuing Resolution Bush signed in September, 2008 and based on the downturn in the economy and based on TARP.


    CBO projects that the deficit this year will total $1.2 trillion

    ~ The Budget and Economic Outlook: Fiscal Years 2009 to 2019

  2. #1372
    Banned
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Chicago Illinois
    Last Seen
    10-14-15 @ 09:28 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Private
    Posts
    56,981

    Re: U.S. Adds Only 88,000 Jobs; Jobless Rate Falls to 7.6%

    Quote Originally Posted by Anti-Party View Post
    You mean like the time he proposed a bill that would stop tax breaks for outsourcing and give tax breaks for people who hired IN THE USA?

    The one turned down by Congress in 2010?

    Maybe it's time you admit no matter what Obama presents, it will be turned down...
    Lets see about that.....especially if he was to offer Up his resignation. I think he can get most of the Country to side with him on that.

  3. #1373
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Last Seen
    08-25-16 @ 08:31 PM
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    11,265

    Re: U.S. Adds Only 88,000 Jobs; Jobless Rate Falls to 7.6%

    Quote Originally Posted by DA60 View Post

    Okay...first

    Notice: Data not available: U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics Not sure why the link does not work - just type in 'LFPR' in the 'Search' box.

    The month GWB (who I think was a lousy POTUS btw) took over - the LFPR was 66.7%

    For January 2007, it was 66.4%.

    5 years later it had only dropped 0.3%.

    By the time he left office - with a full blown major recession in progress - it had dropped to 65.8%. Obviously the recession affected the numbers greatly - just as the Fed suggested.

    Now - since Obama took over, the rate has fallen to 63.3% - the lowest it has been since June, 1979 (!).

    That is a drop of 2.5% in just over 4 years.

    In GWB's first 5 years it had only dropped 0.3% (and then the housing slowdown began and things started to spiral downwards).

    So, you are saying that the LFPR is primarily falling because of factors other then the lousy economy - despite the fact that it has dropped over 8 (EIGHT!!!) times faster during Obama's first four years then it did during GWB's first 5?

    That is (imo) clearly ridiculous - no offense.
    I love how you make up **** I didn't say, and then call that **** nonsense.

    Hysterical!

    I never said the recession wasn't a factor in it dropping. What I did say, but for some reason you can't understand, is that you have little idea how much of it dropping has to do with the recession. The article doesn't even consider other factors for why people left the workforce voluntarily other than retirees.

    And again, I repeat, all you can do is guess at how many people were forced out of the LFPR as opposed to how many people opted out. And again, I repeat, that the article you posted only goes up to 2011. The economy has improved since then. The stock market has improved since then. The job market has improved since then. So even factors that are discussed in that article have changed since then.

    There's simply no other way to put this other than to say you're guessing that the unemployment rate is 9%, which is a bullxit number you're making up based upon your guess.


    Quote Originally Posted by DA60 View Post

    Two) If you wish to take a different starting date to figure in the drop in the Labor Force Participation Rate (LFPR) - go ahead.

    But I chose the day Obama took over as my guide because he (and his disciples - like you seem to be) are insisting that the unemployment rate is about the same today as when he took over.

    Officially, it is.
    I'm not the one arbitrarily picking dates, you are. Who knows why you even consider Bush's first five years? The man served 8, not 5.

    What I am saying, which I don't know why you can't understand this, is that you're factoring in the LFPR to the unemployment rate for March, 2013 -- but you're not doing that for January, 2009.

    Do you understand the dishonesty of inflating the unemployment rate now, but not when Bush handed Obama a massive recession?

    What I am saying is, if you are going to inflate the UR by factoring in the LFPR in March of 2013, than you also have to inflate the UR by factoring in the LFPR in January of 2009.

    And when you inflate the unemployment rate by factoring in the LFPR in January of 2009, the 7.8% U3 rate in January, 2009, becomes 9.9%.

    So if your argument is that the U3 unemployment rate is really 9% now (because of the LFPR dropping, which began to drop around 2001), then you also have to consider that it started at 9.9% when Obama became president.

    Now stop trying to find a metric which makes it appear like unemployment is worse now than it was then because no such metrci exists. Like it or not, employment is getting better.


    Quote Originally Posted by DA60 View Post

    But the actual unemployment rate if you included those that have left the work force simply because they cannot find work should (imo) be counted as still part of the work force since they left by force/technicality - not by choice.

    And on that basis - the unemployment rate should be well over 9% (using the Fed's own report as a guidepost).


    Those are facts.

    Now if you wish to spin it so your guy's numbers look better - feel free.

    It changes nothing...facts are facts.
    I'm not the one spinning. The one spinning is the one saying the BLS doesn't know how to calulate the U3 index.

    I'm the one who's saying, if you're going to factor in the LFPR into the unemployment rate for March, 2013, then you also have to factor it in for January, 2009.

    You're trying to say the UR went from 7.8% (with no LFPR factored in) to over 9% (with LFPR factored) in.

    Can you be more dishonest??



    Quote Originally Posted by DA60 View Post

    And three) the official unemployment rate is worse today then the day Obama was inaugurated - not better as you stated above.

    The day he took office (January 20, 2009) the rate officially was 7.3% - not 7.8%.

    Notice: Data not available: U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics Type in 'Search' window - 'unemployment rate' and hit the first result.
    I have no idea what you're looking at. I did as you suggested and here's the link that came up....
    Bureau of Labor Statistics Data

    Note the unemployment rate for Jan/2009 ... 7.8%

    Quote Originally Posted by DA60 View Post

    So by either standard I have listed here - the U.S. unemployment rate is worse today then the day Obama took office.
    You may fool yourself into believing you have proved the impossible, but you haven't.

    Sure, if you convince yourself that the unemployment rate was really 7.3% and not 7.8% when Obama became president,then sure, you will more easily be able to fool yourself.

    Likewise, if you inflate the current employment rate by factoring in the LFPR but not do that for the unemployment rate when Obama became president, then again, you will more easily be able to fool yourself.

    But be clear, you're fooling no one else.


    Quote Originally Posted by DA60 View Post

    [COLOR="#0000FF"]

    So, now I have a question for you.

    Since the day Obama took office, the official unemployment rate is worse, average housing price is down, the national debt is up over 50% and food stamp usage is up over 40%.

    National Debt by Year

    On the basis of ONLY those guideposts - would you consider Obama's Presidency a success?

    Yes or no, please?
    First of all, the unemployment rate is better than it was, not worse as you falsely claim. The housing prices I blame on the housing bubble crash, which is still hurting the economy. There are still 2 houses (that I know of, could be more) which are still in foreclosure since then. I still have no idea why you think food stamp usage defines Obama's success/failure?

  4. #1374
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Last Seen
    08-25-16 @ 08:31 PM
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    11,265

    Re: U.S. Adds Only 88,000 Jobs; Jobless Rate Falls to 7.6%

    Quote Originally Posted by DA60 View Post
    And where is your link to unbiased, factual evidence that a significant number of that 1/2 left the work force voluntarily - that they did not leave primarily because they could not find work?

    Once again, until then, I will take the Fed's numbers over yours.


    Have a nice day.
    Nice spin on my words, but I didn't say half of the work force left voluntarily.

    I said the half who left for reasons other than retiring included people who left voluntarily. That includes (and is not limited to) people who chose disability over working and people who chose school over working.

  5. #1375
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Last Seen
    08-25-16 @ 08:31 PM
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    11,265

    Re: U.S. Adds Only 88,000 Jobs; Jobless Rate Falls to 7.6%

    Quote Originally Posted by Sheik Yerbuti View Post

    Oh, btw ... no, it doesn't mean that either. That article is almost 16 months old. Since then, close to 3 million people have found work in the private sector.

    Quote Originally Posted by DA60 View Post

    Either include sources for your numbers (as I generally do) or your numbers will be ignored.

    I am not going to waste my time checking your 'numbers'.

    'Close to' can mean almost anything.

    Have a nice day.
    Dec/2011: 110,548,000
    Mar/2013: 113,330,000
    Total: 2,782,000


    Bureau of Labor Statistics Data

  6. #1376
    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: U.S. Adds Only 88,000 Jobs; Jobless Rate Falls to 7.6%

    Quote Originally Posted by Sheik Yerbuti View Post
    I never said the recession wasn't a factor in it dropping.
    I thought you had - both you and another guy were yakking about the same thing. If you did not - I apologize.


    As for the middle stuff which I glanced at - the unemployment rate would be well over 9% today if you assume (as the Fed does) that roughly half of the workers that left the work force did so because they (in essence) could not find employment. Fact.

    I told you - I am not interested in your spinning, over-emotional reactions or theories.

    I am only interested in links to unbiased facts/stats that prove/disprove your point.

    Everything else will be ignored.

    Maybe you/ some others around here love endless debating of each others theories...I do not.

    Especially when it comes to economics.

    I am interested in facts/stats from unbiased sources and BRIEF theories - preferably backed up with stats/facts.

    Everything else is a waste of time, imo.


    Note the unemployment rate for Jan/2009 ...
    The BLS stats you are quoting came out after Obama took office.

    The official unemployment rate - from the BLS - the day Obama took office was 7.3%.

    True or false?

    First of all, the unemployment rate is better than it was, not worse as you falsely claim. The housing prices I blame on the housing bubble crash, which is still hurting the economy. There are still 2 houses (that I know of, could be more) which are still in foreclosure since then. I still have no idea why you think food stamp usage defines Obama's success/failure?
    Is that a 'yes' or a 'no'?



    Have a nice day.
    Last edited by DA60; 04-16-13 at 04:46 AM.

  7. #1377
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Last Seen
    08-25-16 @ 08:31 PM
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    11,265

    Re: U.S. Adds Only 88,000 Jobs; Jobless Rate Falls to 7.6%

    Quote Originally Posted by Conservative View Post
    LOL, nice spin, but this thread is about Obama and the reality that there are 3 million fewer employed today than when the recession began, 1.1 million increase in the labor force in 4 years which during the Bush years was over a million a month, 500,000 people dropped out of the labor force last month, we had .4% GDP Growth last quarter, and over 6 trillion added to the debt. That is the Obama record that has nothing to do with Clinton, Bush or anyone else other than Obama. Your Bush Derangement Syndrome is filled with misinformation and false information
    It's unbelievable how you expect Obam to completely revert the effects of the recession in such a short period of time. In just the 18 month period of Bush's Great Recssion, employment fell by 6.6 million jobs. As unemployment is a lagging indicator of the economy, another 2 million jobs were lost in the months following the recession. The job market didn't turn around until 2010. Between 2008 and 2009, a staggering 8.6 million jobs were lost.

    And that's only considering lost employment figures. If we look at the under/unemployment/discouraged figures for that period, there were 13,261,380 jobs lost.

    The guy you voted for four times gives us a mess which saw 13,261,380 jobs disappear in a 2 year period -- and here you are bitching and moaning because a member of the ideology you openly despise has not been able to fully recover from that in just the 3 years since the job market turned around from Bush's Great Recession.



  8. #1378
    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: U.S. Adds Only 88,000 Jobs; Jobless Rate Falls to 7.6%

    Quote Originally Posted by Sheik Yerbuti View Post
    Nice spin on my words, but I didn't say half of the work force left voluntarily.

    I said the half who left for reasons other than retiring included people who left voluntarily. That includes (and is not limited to) people who chose disability over working and people who chose school over working.
    Try reading comprehension, please.

    You typed 'I don't care how many times you repeat it, that half included people who voluntarily left the workforce.'

    And I said 'And where is your link to unbiased, factual evidence that a significant number of that 1/2 left the work force voluntarily - that they did not leave primarily because they could not find work?'

    I did not say you said half left the workforce. I said a 'significant number of that half'.

    How does a 'significant number of that half' equal 1/2?

    Does a 'significant number' of 10 people mean 'all ten people' to you?

    If so, that is strange math you have there.


    Anyways....where is your link to unbiased factual evidence of whatever you are claiming?
    Last edited by DA60; 04-16-13 at 04:54 AM.

  9. #1379
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Last Seen
    08-25-16 @ 08:31 PM
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    11,265

    Re: U.S. Adds Only 88,000 Jobs; Jobless Rate Falls to 7.6%

    Quote Originally Posted by DA60 View Post

    I told you - I am not interested in your spinning, over-emotional reactions or theories.

    I am only interested in links to unbiased facts/stats that prove/disprove your point.

    Everything else will be ignored.
    Which is hysterical given you're the one spinning.

    You're teh one factoring in the LFPR into the U3 rate NOW, but not when Obama started.

    Why do you refuse to factor in the LFPR for the U3 rate in January, 2009?


    Quote Originally Posted by DA60 View Post

    The BLS stats you are quoting came out after Obama took office.

    The official unemployment rate - from the BLS - the day Obama took office was 7.3%.

    True or false?
    I have not seen you produce any evidence of that. You posted a page which did NOT bring up any data and said I had to "search" for it. I was kind enough to do so, and still came up with a 7.8% unemployment rate for January, 2009.

    So where's your proof??


    Quote Originally Posted by DA60 View Post

    Is that a 'yes' or a 'no'?



    Have a nice day.
    Based on my the answer I already provided, yes.

  10. #1380
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Last Seen
    08-25-16 @ 08:31 PM
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    11,265

    Re: U.S. Adds Only 88,000 Jobs; Jobless Rate Falls to 7.6%

    Quote Originally Posted by DA60 View Post
    Try reading comprehension, please.

    You typed 'I don't care how many times you repeat it, that half included people who voluntarily left the workforce.'

    And I said 'And where is your link to unbiased, factual evidence that a significant number of that 1/2 left the work force voluntarily - that they did not leave primarily because they could not find work?'

    I did not say you said half left the workforce. I said a 'significant number of that half'.

    How does a 'significant number of that half' equal 1/2?

    Does a 'significant number' of 10 people mean 'all ten people' to you?

    If so, that is strange math you have there.


    Anyways....where is your link to unbiased factual evidence of whatever you are claiming?
    Speaking of reading comprehension, I didn't even say "a significant number" left. I said that half includes ...

    As far as a link, there is none as I've already pointed out, nobody tracks that information. So no one knows how many were forced out vs how any left because they chose to do so.

    No matter how hard you try, you're always going to be stuck "guessing" the number.

Posting Permissions

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