• 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!

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

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

Jack Hays said:
Pointless invective. If you're out of ammunition you can just withdraw.:cool:
Click to expand...
How is agreeing with you, invective??

At any rate, depite your ridiculous claim Bush will be remembered as a POTUS with a better record on the economy than Obama ... seems not ....

Do you approve or disapprove of the way George W. Bush has handled the [see below] during the last eight years?"

  • Approve: 17%
  • Disapprove: 77%
CBS News/NYT​

Do you approve or disapprove of the way Obama is handling the economy?"

  • Approve: 44%
  • Disapprove: 53%
ABC News/WashPo​

  • Approve: 47%
  • Disapprove: 50%
NBC News/WSJ​

  • Approve: 44%
  • Disapprove: 53%
McClatchy-Marist​

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

Jack Hays said:
I only shifted to follow your shift. I'm happy to abandon the tangent.:cool:
Click to expand...
LOL...I didn't bring up GWOT...at all. Show where I did.
 
Re: U.S. Adds Only 88,000 Jobs; Jobless Rate Falls to 7.6%

Gimmesometruth said:
You don't see or understand your hypocrisy?...I'm cool with that....you don't have a move.
Click to expand...

I infer that you perceive a problem re a libertarian at ease with the idea of public employment. There is none.:cool:
 
Re: U.S. Adds Only 88,000 Jobs; Jobless Rate Falls to 7.6%

Jack Hays said:
I infer that you perceive a problem re a libertarian at ease with the idea of public employment. There is none.:cool:
Click to expand...
As I said...You don't see or understand your hypocrisy?...I'm cool with that....you don't have a move.
 
Re: U.S. Adds Only 88,000 Jobs; Jobless Rate Falls to 7.6%

DA60 said:
One - I can say it was 7.3% anytime I wish. Or 2.1% or 18.9%.

It's called free speech.



Two - I said 'official' on that day.

I did not say 'actual' - I freely acknowledge it may have actually been 7.8% on that day.

But, on the day he was inaugurated, if someone reported on the unemployment, they would have said that it was 7.2% - not 7.8%.

I am trying to determine if this guy can recognize obvious facts without spinning them out of control - not win the Nobel Prize for Economics.


And three - not that I doubt you, but where is a link to your source of the 'reference week'?

The only one I know states: 'Each month, 2,200 highly trained and experienced Census Bureau employees interview persons in the 60,000 sample households for information on the labor force activities (jobholding and jobseeking) or non-labor force status of the members of these households during the survey reference week (usually the week that includes the 12th of the month).

How the Government Measures Unemployment

'Usually' does not mean 'always' - so I am wondering how you know that it was absolutely without question during that week, during that month.

Again, not that I am doubting you.
Click to expand...
According to you, the unemployment rate went from 3.9% to 9.3% under Bush. A 138% increase.

Ain'tcha proud? :lamo
 
Re: U.S. Adds Only 88,000 Jobs; Jobless Rate Falls to 7.6%

Jack Hays said:
I infer that you perceive a problem re a libertarian at ease with the idea of public employment. There is none.:cool:
Click to expand...

You do realize that when the dollar collapses, the markets crash, inflation/interest rates start reaching for the sky and Obama comes on tv (either during or just after his Presidency ends) and admits 'maybe our thinking on the economy was flawed, but our hearts were in the right place' that these guys you are debating with will probably still not admit he was anything but a wonderful POTUS.

It's called 'closed minded'.

You will probably never change there minds no matter what you type.

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

winston53660 said:
Uhmm no that was the culmination of several administrations. And Reagan was willing to trade arms with a terrorist nation.
Click to expand...


The Russians give Reagan the credit. As for arms to a terrorist nation, regrettable, but no worse than Clinton not getting OBL when he had the chance. See how silly that type of nit picking is?:cool:
 
Re: U.S. Adds Only 88,000 Jobs; Jobless Rate Falls to 7.6%

winston53660 said:
Uhmm no that was the culmination of several administrations. And Reagan was willing to trade arms with a terrorist nation.
Click to expand...
Which administrations would those be?
 
Re: U.S. Adds Only 88,000 Jobs; Jobless Rate Falls to 7.6%

Jack Hays said:
You brought up how GWB would be remembered.:cool:
Click to expand...
Yes, on his economic collapse. I understand you are confused, believing this gives an opening to shift the topic to GWOT, but I did not change the subject.

Your argument is getting really deluded.
 
Re: U.S. Adds Only 88,000 Jobs; Jobless Rate Falls to 7.6%

Gimmesometruth said:
Yes, on his economic collapse. I understand you are confused, believing this gives an opening to shift the topic to GWOT, but I did not change the subject.

Your argument is getting really deluded.
Click to expand...

I'm more than happy to concentrate on economics, where GWB's performance was markedly superior to what BHO has achieved thus far.:cool:
 
Re: U.S. Adds Only 88,000 Jobs; Jobless Rate Falls to 7.6%

Jack Hays said:
I'm more than happy to concentrate on economics, where GWB's performance was markedly superior to what BHO has achieved thus far.:cool:
Click to expand...

umm, according to you, his performance in terms of unemployment was even superior to that of Reagan's. :screwy

Reagan: DOWN 1,389,000
Jan/1981: 8,071,000
Jan/1989: 6,682,000

Bush: UP 6,056,000
Jan/2001: 6,023,000
Jan/2009: 12,079,000

Obama: DOWN 337,000
Jan/2009: 12,079,000
Mar/2013: 11,742,000

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

Sheik Yerbuti said:
WTF?? I thought you're ignoring me? When do you keep your word?
Click to expand...
Your obviously fake 'WTF' aside...by ignoring, I mean you are on my ignore list so I do not have to read your macroeconomic opinions - which I have virtually no respect for. But, when I am bored, scan a response you give and you type something blatantly false - I like to point out your mistakes so a) you learn, b) others learn from your mistakes and c) you are an easy target. I figured all that was obvious and did not require explaining - I see I was wrong in your case.

Your troubles with commitment aside, even backdating when the president starts by a month, as you do for some reason, according to your numbers, the unemployment rate when Bush left office (actually, 3 weeks before he left office), the unemployment rate was 9.3%

3.9% to to 9.3% = a 138% increase.
Click to expand...
So where are your unbiased links that factually prove that the unemployment rate doubled during GW Bush's Presidency?

Not almost doubled - you did not say 'almost'.

You said 'doubled'.

And, assuming you cannot produce said proof, then once again your lack of exactitude will be on display so that unbiased people can be shown how inaccurate your opinions can be so that they can be taken accordingly.

Worse than any president since Herbert Hoover. :lamo
Click to expand...

Okaaaay...and you are telling me this why...?


Have a nice day.
 
Last edited:
Re: U.S. Adds Only 88,000 Jobs; Jobless Rate Falls to 7.6%

DA60 said:
Your obviously fake 'WTF' aside...by ignoring, I mean you are on my ignore list so I do not have to read your macroeconomic opinions - which I have virtually no respect for. But, when I am bored, scan a response you give and you type something blatantly false - I like to point out your mistakes so a) you learn, b) others learn from your mistakes and c) you are an easy target. I figured all that was obvious and did not require explaining - I see I was wrong in your case.
Click to expand...
:lamo :lamo :lamo

You say that as though I give a **** what you think of me. :screwy

DA60 said:
So where are your unbiased links that factually prove that the unemployment rate doubled during GW Bush's Presidency?

Not almost doubled - you did not say 'almost'.

You said 'doubled'.
Click to expand...
And I was wrong when applying your math -- it was more than double (138%) ... 3.9% to 9.3%.

DA60 said:
And, assuming you cannot produce said proof, then once again your lack of exactitude will be on display so that unbiased people can be shown how inaccurate your opinions can be so that they can be taken accordingly.
Click to expand...
Ummm, I used the same information you used when you claim the current unemployment rate is 9.3% and not 7.6% as is being reported.

Why you think YOU can inflate the unemployment by factoring in the drop in LFPR but I can't is beyond me? That must be what you mean why you don't respect my "macroeconomic opinions." :lamo


DA60 said:
Okaaaay...and you are telling me this why...?


Have a nice day.
Click to expand...
Because it's fact.
 
Re: U.S. Adds Only 88,000 Jobs; Jobless Rate Falls to 7.6%

Sheik Yerbuti said:
:lamo :lamo :lamo

You say that as though I give a **** what you think of me. :screwy
Click to expand...
Of course you do, you would not keep responding to me if you didn't.

I care what you think of me. I care to some extent what everyone thinks of me.

I said I have no respect for your macroeconomic opinions...not your opinions about everything.

Anyway...this is off topic.

BTW - your over use of emoticons just shows a lack of argumentative skills.


And I was wrong when applying your math -- it was more than double (138%) ... 3.9% to 9.3%.


Ummm, I used the same information you used when you claim the current unemployment rate is 9.3% and not 7.6% as is being reported.

Why you think YOU can inflate the unemployment by factoring in the drop in LFPR but I can't is beyond me? That must be what you mean why you don't respect my "macroeconomic opinions." :lamo
Click to expand...

So the answer is apparently 'no' - you cannot produce links to unbiased, factual statistics (either official gov't stats OR extrapolated stats and the exact equations you used to arrive at your final figures) that prove that the unemployment rate doubled during GW Bush's term in office.

Noted.



Because it's fact.
Click to expand...

And I breathe oxygen - that is a fact.

But that still does not explain why you included it in a post quoting me.

Why would I care about that?

How is it relevant to our 'discussion'?

The only thing I can come up with is that you think that mentioning that will bother me somehow because you seem to assume that I am big on Reps and Hoover was a Rep.

A rather juvenile - and erroneous - conclusion..but, that is my guess.


Have a nice day.
 
Last edited:
Re: U.S. Adds Only 88,000 Jobs; Jobless Rate Falls to 7.6%

DA60 said:
Of course you do, you would not keep responding to me if you didn't.

I care what you think of me. I care to some extent what everyone thinks of me.

I said I have no respect for your macroeconomic opinions...not your opinions about everything.

Anyway...this is off topic.

BTW - your over use of emoticons just shows a lack of argumentative skills.
Click to expand...
You confuse caring with entertainment. That's really all you are to me. Your opinion of me in any regard doesn't even come into play. I certainly hope you suffer no illusions to the contrary? :eek:

DA60 said:
So the answer is apparently 'no' - you cannot produce links to unbiased, factual statistics (either official gov't stats OR extrapolated stats and the exact equations you used to arrive at your final figures) that prove that the unemployment rate doubled during GW Bush's term in office.

Noted.
Click to expand...
I find it amusing that you find it acceptable for you to inflate the unemployment rate with the LFPR; but you bitch & moan when I do it. :roll:

At any rate, I'm doing exactly what you're doing. I'm taking the unemployment rate from before Bush left office ... 7.3% in December of 2008 ... and factoring in the 1.8% drop in the LFPR. That equals an unemployment rate of 9.3% in December of 2008.

That mean unemployment under Bush went from 3.9% to 9.3% ... more than double at a 138% increase.

DA60 said:
And I breathe oxygen - that is a fact.

But that still does not explain why you included it in a post quoting me.

Why would I care about that?

How is it relevant to our 'discussion'?

The only thing I can come up with is that you think that mentioning that will bother me somehow because you seem to assume that I am big on Reps and Hoover was a Rep.

A rather juvenile - and erroneous - conclusion..but, that is my guess.


Have a nice day.
Click to expand...
We're talking about how much unemployment rose under Bush's watch. Does it matter that you don't understand why putting that into perspective by comparing him to the only president to do worse is relevant?
 
Re: U.S. Adds Only 88,000 Jobs; Jobless Rate Falls to 7.6%

Sheik Yerbuti said:
I find it amusing that you find it acceptable for you to inflate the unemployment rate with the LFPR; but you bitch & moan when I do it. :roll:

At any rate, I'm doing exactly what you're doing. I'm taking the unemployment rate from before Bush left office ... 7.3% in December of 2008 ... and factoring in the 1.8% drop in the LFPR. That equals an unemployment rate of 9.3% in December of 2008.

That mean unemployment under Bush went from 3.9% to 9.3% ... more than double at a 138% increase.


We're talking about how much unemployment rose under Bush's watch. Does it matter that you don't understand why putting that into perspective by comparing him to the only president to do worse is relevant?
Click to expand...

So, the answer is no - once again another statement made by you that you cannot back up with links to unbiased, official stats/facts.

Instead of just admitting that you meant 'almost' double (because that is all the official government records will show) OR you thought it was double, but it turns out it is not quite - you just have to go on and on with your trolling, emoticons and spinning...anything to admit that you made a small mistake.

I could care less whether the unemployment rate under Bush was doubled or not - he was a horrible POTUS (just as - in a somewhat different way - Obama is).

But I just knew you would not admit your mistake....which explains volumes about you and the lack of clarity of your perspective and opinions on this subject.

That was my point.


I am done for now.


Have a nice day.
 
Last edited:
Re: U.S. Adds Only 88,000 Jobs; Jobless Rate Falls to 7.6%

DA60 said:
So, the answer is no - once again another statement made by you that you cannot back up with links to unbiased, official stats/facts.

Instead of just admitting that you meant 'almost' double (because that is all the official government records will show) OR you thought it was double, but it turns out it is not quite - you just have to go on and on with your trolling, emoticons and spinning...anything to admit that you made a small mistake.

I could care less whether the unemployment rate under Bush was doubled or not - he was a horrible POTUS (just as - in a somewhat different way - Obama is).

But I just knew you would not admit your mistake....which explains volumes about you and the lack of clarity of your perspective and opinions on this subject.

That was my point.


I am done for now.


Have a nice day.
Click to expand...
Ummm, if you look at my post, there are links to my sources in it. :2wave:
 
Re: U.S. Adds Only 88,000 Jobs; Jobless Rate Falls to 7.6%

DA60 said:
So the answer is apparently 'no' - you cannot produce links to unbiased, factual statistics (either official gov't stats OR extrapolated stats and the exact equations you used to arrive at your final figures) that prove that the unemployment rate doubled during GW Bush's term in office.
Click to expand...
Umm, by the way, I have yet to see you post evidence of any of the following:

a) There were no people during Obama's presidency who went on disability rather than work.

b) Thre were no people who chose to go to school rather than work.

c) That the official rate kept by the BLS factors in the LFPR.

Let's see you answer any one of those.
 
Re: U.S. Adds Only 88,000 Jobs; Jobless Rate Falls to 7.6%

Sheik Yerbuti said:
According to you, the unemployment rate went from 3.9% to 9.3% under Bush. A 138% increase.

Ain'tcha proud? :lamo
Click to expand...
Keep polishing this turd if you like, but this president's performance is anemic and feeble.
 
Re: U.S. Adds Only 88,000 Jobs; Jobless Rate Falls to 7.6%

DA60 said:
One - I can say it was 7.3% anytime I wish. Or 2.1% or 18.9%.

It's called free speech.
Click to expand...
Forgive me, I should have included an adjective such as "reasonably," or "accurately."



Two - I said 'official' on that day.

I did not say 'actual' - I freely acknowledge it may have actually been 7.8% on that day.

But, on the day he was inaugurated, if someone reported on the unemployment, they would have said that it was 7.2% - not 7.8%.
Click to expand...
Correct, but you said it was 7.3%, which is the revised number. So if you had said that at the time Obama took office, the official UE rate was at 7.2%, that would be fine. But you used the revised number (from Jan 2011 or later) and it makes no sense to use that number instead of the 7.8% which was the rate being collected that week.

And three - not that I doubt you, but where is a link to your source of the 'reference week'?
Click to expand...
Employment Situation for January 2009What's important is what is NOT there: an announcement of a different reference week. The reference week is only changed when the usual week is under unusual conditions and an announcement is made in the release. For example, in the Employment Situation for November 2006 and for November 2012 the reference weeks were the weeks that contained the 5th because otherwise the collection week (the week after the reference week) would have been the same week as Thanksgiving when it's practically impossible to do an accurate household survey.

Since the default is the week that contains the 12th, and an announcement is made if otherwise, then we can conclude that it was the week of the 12th in Jan 2009.
 
Re: U.S. Adds Only 88,000 Jobs; Jobless Rate Falls to 7.6%

Oh, for goodness sake....Does anyone really believe that our economic situation today is truly as good as it could/should be? I don't.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom