• 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%

Sheik Yerbuti said:
False.

The unemployment rate continues to change throughout the month, even though the BLS reports on it only once a month.

Again, you're trying to put 3 weeks ot of 4.5 worth of 793 thousand job loses on Obama. I still haven't seen your explanation of how Obama even had anything to do with the job loses which occurred in that final 1½ week? You avoided that one completely.

And btw, even going from Dec/2001 - Dec/2009, even though it's adding 2/3rds of one of the worst months in recorded history in terms of job loses on Obama and not the person who was still president, adjusting the unemployment rate with the LFPR still leaves the unemployment rate at 9.3% for December, 2008.
Click to expand...

And btw - you do realize that since I have virtually no respect for your macroeconomic views OR your level of bias that I do not read most of your posts.

The above is a good example.

I saw the 'False', and basically ignored the rest.

I suggest if you do make posts to me in the future that you do not make them long-winded - unless you like typing posts that the person you are typing them for does not even read 90% of it.

Now include a link or interesting looking stats - that I might read.

Just sayin'...


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

Sheik Yerbuti said:
It's sad to see you denigrate to name calling, but whatever. It is somewhat bizarre how you say you are done, but then continue: :shrug:
Click to expand...

I changed that post - I am not calling you a name.

But if I could pass a judgement on your emotional state based on our interactions over the last couple of days - I would.

But I cannot, so I will not.


As for the rest?

So these stats you do recognize.

But others you do not.

:rolleyes:

If you are not even going to acknowledge official government statistics as official government statistics - then you must be nuts if you think I am going to waste one second talking with you about official government statistics.



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

DA60 said:
And btw - you do realize that since I have virtually no respect for your macroeconomic views OR your level of bias that I do not read most of your posts.

The above is a good example.

I saw the 'False', and basically ignored the rest.

I suggest if you do make posts to me in the future that you do not make them long-winded - unless you like typing posts that the person you are typing them for does not even read 90% of it.

Now include a link or interesting looking stats - that I might read.

Just sayin'...


Have a nice day.
Click to expand...

What the hell?? I thought you were done with this? Why are you still going on about it? Don't you keep your word?
 
Re: U.S. Adds Only 88,000 Jobs; Jobless Rate Falls to 7.6%

DA60 said:
I changed that post - I did not call you a name.


As for the rest?

So these stats you do recognize.

But others you do not.

:rolleyes:

If you are not even going to acknowledge official government statistics as official government statistics - then you must be nuts if you think I am going to waste one second talking with you about official government statistics.



Have a nice day.
Click to expand...
Let me know when you are truly done with this, ok? Because you keep going on about it even though you said you were done. :roll:
 
Re: U.S. Adds Only 88,000 Jobs; Jobless Rate Falls to 7.6%

Sheik Yerbuti said:
What the hell?? I thought you were done with this? Why are you still going on about it? Don't you keep your word?
Click to expand...
I will stop posting whenever I believe all my points have been made and understood.

Just trying to help you not waste your time in future when you type posts to me.

Don't bother to thank me.


BTW - another suggestion.

Getting overly emotional, making a lot of silly/childish/rudish statements and gestures does not further your cause.

It just makes you look - imo - rather insecure and undisciplined.

People that are secure in their facts do not usually act like that.

People that are not, generally do...especially when it comes to economics.

Again, just trying to help.


Anyway...back to the topic.


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

Moderator's Warning:
Here's a suggestion for the two of you: discuss the topic, not each other.
 
Re: U.S. Adds Only 88,000 Jobs; Jobless Rate Falls to 7.6%

DA60 said:
I will stop posting whenever I believe all my points have been made and understood.

Just trying to help you not waste your time in future when you type posts to me.

Don't bother to thank me.


BTW - another suggestion.

Getting overly emotional, making a lot of silly/childish statements and gestures does not further your cause.

It just makes you look - imo - rather juvenile and undisciplined.

Again, just trying to help.


Anyway...back to the topic.


Have a nice day.
Click to expand...
Ok, so you're not done, then? Just trying to clarify because you said you were.

Still, by either starting date (December vs. January), the unemployment rate is still not worse than it was when Obama became president.
 
Re: U.S. Adds Only 88,000 Jobs; Jobless Rate Falls to 7.6%

DA60 said:
So, even though the official unemployment rate the day Obama took office was posted by the BLS at 7.3% - you say that this was not the official unemployment rate the day he took office.

Okaaaaaaaaay.

I wonder what other facts you only see when they suit you....yikes.

Wow - you are really out there.


Have a nice day.
Click to expand...

Speaking of the unemployment rate when Obama became president ...
Here, do you think any of the following don't know what the unemployment rate was when Obama became president?

  • Obama’s victory came as unemployment hovered at 7.9 percent -- slightly higher than the 7.8 percent rate he faced when he took the oath of office on Jan. 20, 2009

  • The 7.8 percent unemployment rate for September matches the rate in January 2009, when Obama took office
AP​

  • Friday following his disappointing debate performance as the unemployment rate dropped to 7.8 percent. That’s the lowest it’s been since he took office in 2009.
Fox​

  • The unemployment rate was 7.8% when Obama took office in January 2009.

  • Unemployment was 7.8 percent when Obama took office
 
Re: U.S. Adds Only 88,000 Jobs; Jobless Rate Falls to 7.6%

Conservative said:
You really have no idea how the private sector works, do you?
Click to expand...
Look at who is talking, the guy that called the housing bubble "wealth creation"!
 
Re: U.S. Adds Only 88,000 Jobs; Jobless Rate Falls to 7.6%

Sheik Yerbuti said:
Speaking of the unemployment rate when Obama became president ...
Here, do you think any of the following don't know what the unemployment rate was when Obama became president?

  • Obama’s victory came as unemployment hovered at 7.9 percent -- slightly higher than the 7.8 percent rate he faced when he took the oath of office on Jan. 20, 2009

  • The 7.8 percent unemployment rate for September matches the rate in January 2009, when Obama took office
AP​

  • Friday following his disappointing debate performance as the unemployment rate dropped to 7.8 percent. That’s the lowest it’s been since he took office in 2009.
Fox​

  • The unemployment rate was 7.8% when Obama took office in January 2009.

  • Unemployment was 7.8 percent when Obama took office
Click to expand...

Changes nothing - though you posted links, good lad (which is mainly why I am even bothering to reply).


The OFFICIAL unemployment rate on the day Obama took office was 7.3%.

Maybe the actual unemployment rate was higher/lower - but the OFFICIAL one was 7.3% as the 7.8% number was not released until two weeks after Obama took office.


Use your head - how can the official number on the day he took office be 7.8% when it was not even released for two weeks after Inauguration Day?

Did the media say on that day - 'Obama has a tough road ahead, considering the unemployment numbers that will be released in two weeks will say 7.8% - even though there is no possible way we can know what those numbers actually are today'.

Riiiiiight.

They would say 'Obama has a tough road ahead considering the latest unemployment rate is 7.3%' (actually, then they would say 7.2% as it was later revised upwards).

Duh.


Until you can admit this ridiculously simple and obvious fact - then I will (hopefully) waste no more time with you on it.

Even if you include links - lol.


Have a nice day.
 
Last edited:
Sheik Yerbuti said:
Ya gotta just love righties' attempts to make Bush look better than the complete incompetent he was, I tell ya. :roll:

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

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
Click to expand...

I will accept the amount proposed in Bush's budget to congress which was 670billion. I will not accept that hes responsible for the additional $400B in spending that democrats added to his proposal, I will not accept that republicans are solely responsible for TARP, when it was greatly expanded under Obama for fiscal 2009. I will not accept that Obama is blameless when the Democrats had both houses and the White House their agenda was not to get a budget that reined in spending but made the 2009 spending the baseline and have blocked all attempts to curtail spending.

Your opinions are laughable on this. Obama is a tax and spend democrat. You know it, I know it. Playing out this farce requires you to cherry pick data and ignore the totality of the Obama record. Repeat after me: Obama is the President. The deficit and the economy are HIS responsibility. If you cant manage that, and its patently obvious you can't, you should stop talking because whatever you have to say isn't worth hearing.
 
Re: U.S. Adds Only 88,000 Jobs; Jobless Rate Falls to 7.6%

Sheik Yerbuti said:
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.

:roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll:
Click to expand...

Reagan did it a lot quicker than Obama and did it with great leadership, something neither you or Obama understand. Improving the numbers he inherited which as you claimed weren't that good isn't much to be proud of especially with the money that was spent. When he gets back to the employment rate of December 2007 and a more realistic labor force then you will have something to crow about.

What I love about you is you always look in the rear view mirror to distort data and ignore the present data which is there for all to see.
 
Sheik Yerbuti said:
Seems you're the one who doesn't understand that video. Bush even exaplains in it what he meant by 'qualified' ... easing the restrictiions to qualify. "help the people pay that downpayment". His plan was to relax qualifications so that more people who wouldn't otherwise qualify because they couldn't afford the home they were buying, could buy the home anyway. That was one of the causes of the crash and that video shows Bush promoting the idea.

... g'head, this is where you respond with invective in lieu of debate ...
Click to expand...

Easing the restrictions amounted to not having the money for a downpayment which has nothing to do with interest rates, variable rate loans, or buying a house they cannot afford. You have a very selective reading comprehension problem based solely on your invested time in hatred and misinformation regarding Bush. Put down the leftwing blogs and take responsibility for the failures of Obama and Democrats.
 
Re: U.S. Adds Only 88,000 Jobs; Jobless Rate Falls to 7.6%

Gimmesometruth said:
Look at who is talking, the guy that called the housing bubble "wealth creation"!
Click to expand...

Seems very telling that you don't understand how the free market works, nor any basic understanding of economic data. don't know if you are female or not but you certainly have to have the last word. A lot of people made a lot of money during 2003-2007 which you and others want to ignore, just like a lot people made money from 1997-2000 but I don't hear you ranting about the Clinton years. You see bubbles are indeed opportunities to create wealth because rising tide raises all boats not just the real estate market. Further I have yet to hear how the recession hurt you and your family. I didn't lose a dime in the recession because I didn't sell, did you?
 
Re: U.S. Adds Only 88,000 Jobs; Jobless Rate Falls to 7.6%

DA60 said:
The U-3 is the official rate. Sorry you do not know that. Oh well.
Click to expand...

A rather silly remark.

Now where did the Fed state (even the essence) that you should add 1/2 of those who left the labor force because the "economy stinks" to U-3? If i didn't know any better, i would think you just made that up!
 
Re: U.S. Adds Only 88,000 Jobs; Jobless Rate Falls to 7.6%

Conservative said:
Prior to that from 2003-2007 there was incredible wealth creation and growth which seems to escape a lot of people. That has been reversed and Obama had nothing to do with it other than trying to destroy it again
Click to expand...

The problem is, the incredible wealth creation and economic growth that occurred between 2003 and 2007 was completely wiped out by 2009. An entire decade of gains down the drain. Without trillion dollar+ deficits, the economy goes to hell in a handbasket. If low taxes and deregulation were the catalyst of economic growth, how on earth did we get here to begin with?

It is far more complicated than "it's all Obama's fault" just as it is far more complicated than "it's all Bush's fault".

Right now, the world economy is still overcoming the negative wealth effect of 2008-2009; not something that reverses overnight (households have yet to recover!).

Some food for thought: "The End Loser of Liberalism"
 
Re: U.S. Adds Only 88,000 Jobs; Jobless Rate Falls to 7.6%

Kushinator said:
The problem is, the incredible wealth creation and economic growth that occurred between 2003 and 2007 was completely wiped out by 2009. An entire decade of gains down the drain. Without trillion dollar+ deficits, the economy goes to hell in a handbasket. If low taxes and deregulation were the catalyst of economic growth, how on earth did we get here to begin with?

It is far more complicated than "it's all Obama's fault" just as it is far more complicated than "it's all Bush's fault".

Right now, the world economy is still overcoming the negative wealth effect of 2008-2009; not something that reverses overnight (households have yet to recover!).
Click to expand...

How much wealth did you lose? I didn't lose a dime, does that make me smarter than most? Don't think so. Those that didn't sell didn't lose anything. Low taxes and deregulations are a key to any economic growth as they provide incentive to grow and expand due to financial gain from their efforts. Works all the time, problem is sometimes a few unscrupulous individuals cause an over reaction by those who don't like the private sector and capitalism.

The world economy, especially Europe, is driven by govt. spending. Ours is a private sector economy where govt. spending does very little except create debt and we all know debt has to be serviced and that can cause high inflation and real economic problems.
 
Re: U.S. Adds Only 88,000 Jobs; Jobless Rate Falls to 7.6%

Conservative said:
Seems very telling that you don't understand how the free market works, nor any basic understanding of economic data. don't know if you are female or not but you certainly have to have the last word. A lot of people made a lot of money during 2003-2007 which you and others want to ignore, just like a lot people made money from 1997-2000 but I don't hear you ranting about the Clinton years. You see bubbles are indeed opportunities to create wealth because rising tide raises all boats not just the real estate market. Further I have yet to hear how the recession hurt you and your family. I didn't lose a dime in the recession because I didn't sell, did you?
Click to expand...
This argument of yours just gets dumber and dumber, your argument is that since a few people made out like bandits during the housing bubble 03-06, we therefore can call that a period of "wealth creation", EVEN THOUGH that when the bubble popped, average household wealth DECLINED by $16 TRILLION. Bubbles are described as such BECAUSE THEY POP, that is not a good thing, stop trying to make speculative bubbles into a good thing.
 
Re: U.S. Adds Only 88,000 Jobs; Jobless Rate Falls to 7.6%

Conservative said:
don't know if you are female or not but you certainly have to have the last word.
Click to expand...

Attempted insult toward women is noted.

A lot of people made a lot of money during 2003-2007 which you and others want to ignore, just like a lot people made money from 1997-2000 but I don't hear you ranting about the Clinton years. You see bubbles are indeed opportunities to create wealth because rising tide raises all boats not just the real estate market. Further I have yet to hear how the recession hurt you and your family. I didn't lose a dime in the recession because I didn't sell, did you?
Click to expand...

You are ignoring the magnitude!

Household Net Wealth

The Clinton years:

fredgraph.png


The Bush years:

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

Gimmesometruth said:
This argument of yours just gets dumber and dumber, your argument is that since a few people made out like bandits during the housing bubble 03-06, we therefore can call that a period of "wealth creation", EVEN THOUGH that when the bubble popped, average household wealth DECLINED by $16 TRILLION. Bubbles are described as such BECAUSE THEY POP, that is not a good thing, stop trying to make speculative bubbles into a good thing.
Click to expand...

Average household wealth didn't decline by 16 trillion dollars and wealth only declined if you sold at the bottom. I didn't sell, did you? You want badly to blame Republicans and Bush for all your problems while ignoring the biggest problem of all, people failing to accept personal responsibility and expecting someone else to bail them out.
 
Re: U.S. Adds Only 88,000 Jobs; Jobless Rate Falls to 7.6%

Conservative said:
How much wealth did you lose? I didn't lose a dime, does that make me smarter than most? Don't think so. Those that didn't sell didn't lose anything. Low taxes and deregulations are a key to any economic growth as they provide incentive to grow and expand due to financial gain from their efforts. Works all the time, problem is sometimes a few unscrupulous individuals cause an over reaction by those who don't like the private sector and capitalism.

The world economy, especially Europe, is driven by govt. spending. Ours is a private sector economy where govt. spending does very little except create debt and we all know debt has to be serviced and that can cause high inflation and real economic problems.
Click to expand...
You completely avoid the point YOU BROUGHT UP, the bubble popped and caused this massive recession we have just started to crawl out from, all you can go is to change the subject to your small govt rhetoric.

This is just pathetic.
 
Last edited:
Re: U.S. Adds Only 88,000 Jobs; Jobless Rate Falls to 7.6%

Conservative said:
Average household wealth didn't decline by 16 trillion dollars
Click to expand...
Yes, it did, Kush shows it clearly.


and wealth only declined if you sold at the bottom. I didn't sell, did you? You want badly to blame Republicans and Bush for all your problems while ignoring the biggest problem of all, people failing to accept personal responsibility and expecting someone else to bail them out.
Click to expand...
FFS....BUSH BAILED OUT THE BANKS!!!!!
 
Re: U.S. Adds Only 88,000 Jobs; Jobless Rate Falls to 7.6%

Conservative said:
How much wealth did you lose? I didn't lose a dime
Click to expand...

It is not about an individual; overall, real wealth has yet to recover!

Those that didn't sell didn't lose anything.
Click to expand...

This is false, especially when we adjust for inflation (purchasing power).

Low taxes and deregulations are a key to any economic growth as they provide incentive to grow and expand due to financial gain from their efforts.
Click to expand...

And it lead to the great loss in net wealth since the Great Depression. Imagine that!

Works all the time, problem is sometimes a few unscrupulous individuals cause an over reaction by those who don't like the private sector and capitalism.
Click to expand...

You are referring to negative externalities of deregulation and low taxes, i.e. the spillover effects onto millions of individuals due to no fault of their own.

The world economy, especially Europe, is driven by govt. spending. Ours is a private sector economy where govt. spending does very little except create debt and we all know debt has to be serviced and that can cause high inflation and real economic problems.
Click to expand...

Europe is currently in recession due to a decrease (minor at that) in government spending. It has now spilled over into China as lagging demand out of the Eurozone has led to a decline in Chinese exports. Has China's Economy Hit a ‘Dead End’?
 
Re: U.S. Adds Only 88,000 Jobs; Jobless Rate Falls to 7.6%

Kushinator said:
Attempted insult toward women is noted.



You are ignoring the magnitude!

Household Net Wealth

The Clinton years:

fredgraph.png


The Bush years:

fredgraph.png
Click to expand...

Looks like a very good climb from 2003-2008 which is basically what I stated. It does seem that far too many believe Bush was President only for 2008 and ignore what was generated from 2003-2008
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom