• 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 195,000 Jobs; Unemployment Remains 7.6%

Gimmesometruth said:
LOL....you continue to ignore the job losses through the end of the Bush's term!

Bush had a net LOSS of jobs during his term.

Why are neocons so bad at math and with telling time?
Click to expand...

No he didn't, 137 million Americans working in January 2001 and 142 million working in January 2009, that isn't a net job loss.

Labor Force Statistics from the Current Population Survey
Original Data Value

Series Id: LNS12000000
Seasonally Adjusted
Series title: (Seas) Employment Level
Labor force status: Employed
Type of data: Number in thousands
Age: 16 years and over
Years: 1980 to 2011

Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
2001 137778 137612 137783 137299 137092 136873 137071 136241 136846 136392 136238 136047
2002 135701 136438 136177 136126 136539 136415 136413 136705 137302 137008 136521 136426
2003 137417 137482 137434 137633 137544 137790 137474 137549 137609 137984 138424 138411
2004 138472 138542 138453 138680 138852 139174 139556 139573 139487 139732 140231 140125
2005 140245 140385 140654 141254 141609 141714 142026 142434 142401 142548 142499 142752
2006 143150 143457 143741 143761 144089 144353 144202 144625 144815 145314 145534 145970
2007 146028 146057 146320 145586 145903 146063 145905 145682 146244 145946 146595 146273
2008 146397 146157 146108 146130 145929 145738 145530 145196 145059 144792 144078 143328
2009 142187 141660 140754 140654 140294 140003 139891 139458 138775 138401 138607 137968
2010 138500 138665 138836 139306 139340 139137 139139 139338 139344 139072 138937 139220
2011 139330 139551 139764 139628 139808 139385 139450 139754 140107 140297 140614 140790
2012 141608 142019 142020 141934 142302 142448 142250 142164 142974 143328 143277 143305
2013 143322 143492 143286 143579 143898 144058
Click to expand...
 
Donc said:
That was the third-best June jobs report in the last 15 years. May and April's jobs numbers were revised higher by a combined 70,000 jobs. ONly in wingerland is that a bad number.:roll:
Click to expand...

Part time jobs went up about 360,000.

Full time jobs fell by about 240,000. Full time jobs fell by about 240,000. Full time jobs fell by about 240,000. Full time jobs fell by about 240,000.

Guess what happens around September with the part time jobs? Liberals don't have a clue but I will help them. They will not turn into full time jobs. Many of them will go away.

Now in phonyland, this job report may be the best in 15 years. But it's that way because the puppet masters have told the puppets that, not because the economy has come roaring back. Besides, we've been hearing those same type line of lies for a little over four years now.
 
Conservative said:
No he didn't, 137 million Americans working in January 2001 and 142 million working in January 2009, that isn't a net job loss.
Click to expand...
And even by your numbers, it isn't "10 million". When going by the FISCAL years each President is responsible for, Bush saw a loss of employment.
 
Gimmesometruth said:
And even by your numbers, it isn't "10 million". When going by the FISCAL years each President is responsible for, Bush saw a loss of employment.
Click to expand...

Do you also want to count FISCAL years for debt accumulation?
 
Conservative said:
LOL, having problems understanding that QE is nothing more than the govt. buying assets with no guarantee that the banks will lend that money and even if they did there is no guarantee that business will have the cash necessary to repay the loans. You simply have no concept of a business financial statement.
Click to expand...
I know you are having trouble understanding QE, you don't have to tell me that.
Business financial statements and QE are very different things, stop conflating the two.

PS...I love that you used Wiki for help!
 
Gimmesometruth said:
And even by your numbers, it isn't "10 million". When going by the FISCAL years each President is responsible for, Bush saw a loss of employment.
Click to expand...

Wow, 10 million is the increase in the labor force, the 142 million working in January 2009 isn't a net job loss. You have been sold a bill of goods by the leftwing spin machine and need to stop buying the rhetoric.
 
Gimmesometruth said:
I know you are having trouble understanding QE, you don't have to tell me that.
Business financial statements and QE are very different things, stop conflating the two.

PS...I love that you used Wiki for help!
Click to expand...

No, you need to stop believing the answer to our economic problems is more govt. spending. Where do you think the money comes from to buy up the assets in QE?
 
Conservative said:
Wow, 10 million is the increase in the labor force, the 142 million working in January 2009 isn't a net job loss. You have been sold a bill of goods by the leftwing spin machine and need to stop buying the rhetoric.
Click to expand...

I posted the chart from BLS, where is the net employment loss for fiscal year?

Labor Force Statistics from the Current Population Survey
Original Data Value

Series Id: LNS12000000
Seasonally Adjusted
Series title: (Seas) Employment Level
Labor force status: Employed
Type of data: Number in thousands
Age: 16 years and over
Years: 1980 to 2011

Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
2001 137778 137612 137783 137299 137092 136873 137071 136241 136846 136392 136238 136047
2002 135701 136438 136177 136126 136539 136415 136413 136705 137302 137008 136521 136426
2003 137417 137482 137434 137633 137544 137790 137474 137549 137609 137984 138424 138411
2004 138472 138542 138453 138680 138852 139174 139556 139573 139487 139732 140231 140125
2005 140245 140385 140654 141254 141609 141714 142026 142434 142401 142548 142499 142752
2006 143150 143457 143741 143761 144089 144353 144202 144625 144815 145314 145534 145970
2007 146028 146057 146320 145586 145903 146063 145905 145682 146244 145946 146595 146273
2008 146397 146157 146108 146130 145929 145738 145530 145196 145059 144792 144078 143328
2009 142187 141660 140754 140654 140294 140003 139891 139458 138775 138401 138607 137968
2010 138500 138665 138836 139306 139340 139137 139139 139338 139344 139072 138937 139220
2011 139330 139551 139764 139628 139808 139385 139450 139754 140107 140297 140614 140790
2012 141608 142019 142020 141934 142302 142448 142250 142164 142974 143328 143277 143305
2013 143322 143492 143286 143579 143898 144058
Click to expand...
 
Conservative said:
Wow, 10 million is the increase in the labor force, the 142 million working in January 2009 isn't a net job loss. You have been sold a bill of goods by the leftwing spin machine and need to stop buying the rhetoric.
Click to expand...
Using your numbers, how does 137 to 142....become 10M?

And it is funny how fiscal years used to be your standard, but when it works against you....oh well.
 
Gimmesometruth said:
Using your numbers, how does 137 to 142....become 10M?

And it is funny how fiscal years used to be your standard, but when it works against you....oh well.
Click to expand...

It really is hard dealing with a liberal like you because you simply buy rhetoric and ignore the actual numbers. You don't seem to understand labor force and unemployment. Wish I could type slower so you understand it. You claimed Bush had a net job loss, there was no net job loss as the employment numbers show. Bush took office with 137 million working Americans and left office with 142 million working Americans. That isn't a net loss

Bush took office with a 143 million labor force and left with a labor force of 154 million, that exceeds 10 million. Liberalism is making you look foolish.

Fiscal years? What the hell are you talking about now? I feel badly for you
 
Conservative said:
I posted the chart from BLS, where is the net employment loss for fiscal year?
Click to expand...
Um, total nonfarm employment, seasonally adjusted in Sept of 2001 was 131618, in Sept 2009 it was 129784.
 
disneydude said:
There is such a thing called context and perspective. Figures don't exist in a vacuum. Are the employment figures where they should be? No. Are they a hell of a lot better than they were 5 years ago? Absolutely.
Is this a good jobs report? Yes and No. It could be a lot better, but it is better than a jobs report showing us hemorraghing hundreds of thousands of jobs. There are things about Obama that I like and things about him that I dislike. Overall on the economy....considering where we were and where we were headed....I would give him a B-. Better than most but certainly there is room for improvement.

The previous clown in the whitehouse did as good with the economy as he did capturing Bin Laden. It didn't concern him that much.
Click to expand...

So the answer is 'B-'.


A jobs report where there was actually a reduction in full time jobs from the last report (but a large increase in part time jobs) is your idea of a 'B-' jobs report?


A jobs report that over the last three months shows that the U-3 rate for Americans with a high school diploma or greater has actually risen overall.

BUT for people without a high school diploma - it's gone down.

Which proves that the new jobs being created are principally part time and unskilled.

http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.a.htm

These two facts represent a 'B-' jobs report to you?

Noted.


I guess you don't mind that America is slowly becoming a nation of unskilled, part time workers WHILE the rich get substantially richer on the backs of the Fed indirectly propping up the stock market.

Each to their own.


And btw - I am neither Dem or Rep.

And I think BOTH GWB AND Obama were/are terrible POTUS's.
 
Last edited:
Gimmesometruth said:
Um, total nonfarm employment, seasonally adjusted in Sept of 2001 was 131618, in Sept 2009 it was 129784.
Click to expand...

I posted the actual chart that is used to calculate unemployment rate. Suggest you learn how to use BLS data vs cherry picking what you want to use.
 
Conservative said:
I posted the actual chart that is used to calculate unemployment rate. Suggest you learn how to use BLS data vs cherry picking what you want to use.
Click to expand...
Um no, we are supposed to be comparing apples to apples, the OP uses BLS NONFARM EMPLOYMENT DATA:

Employment Situation Summary

Read it and weep, Con.
 
Last edited:
Gimmesometruth said:
Um no, we are supposed to be comparing apples to apples, the OP uses BLS NONFARM EMPLOYMENT DATA:

Employment Situation Summary

Read it an weep, Con.
Click to expand...

Oh, Good Lord, so you think there were only 131 million Americans working in non farm payroll jobs. Do you know the difference between the reports in BLS? Apparently not but again you are doing a great job diverting from the issue of poor Obama job performance and poor economic results. You want badly to continue to bring Bush into the discussion when you don't even understand the Bush economic results only what the left feeds you. When does this economy become Obama and when do Obama supporters hold Obama responsible for the current economic results? Such low expectations in your personal life will lead to failure.
 
Conservative said:
Oh, Good Lord, so you think there were only 131 million Americans working in non farm payroll jobs.
Click to expand...
See now, this should be a question. Yes, Con, according to the standard measure, in Sept of 2001 there were 131M nonfarm employed.


Do you know the difference between the reports in BLS?
Click to expand...
In BLS? I understand what is used as a standard, apples to apples measurement.

I wished you did.
 
Gimmesometruth said:
See now, this should be a question. Yes, Con, according to the standard measure, in Sept of 2001 there were 131M nonfarm employed.


In BLS? I understand what is used as a standard, apples to apples measurement.

I wished you did.
Click to expand...

And the report used for the unemployment percentage shows 137 million people working so I prefer apples to apples.
 
Conservative said:
And the report used for the unemployment percentage shows 137 million people working so I prefer apples to apples.
Click to expand...
FFS Con, your 137 for 1/01 is not nonfarm, it is not comparable to the numbers from the OP, nor comparable to the numbers I am talking about...not apples to apples at all.
 
Gimmesometruth said:
FFS Con, your 137 for 1/01 is not nonfarm, it is not comparable to the numbers from the OP, nor comparable to the numbers I am talking about...not apples to apples at all.
Click to expand...

You are doing your best to derail this thread to divert from the fact that Obama's economic results have been terrible at best. Whether or not Bush had plus or minus job growth is irrelevant to the fact that Obama has added over 6 trillion dollars to the debt to generate 177000 fewer unemployed after 4 plus years of his economic policies. There are still 2 million fewer employed people today than when the recession began and last month, four years after the recession ended over 1 million Americans were discouraged and not counted as unemployed. U-6 rate after all this Fed money and Obamanomics is 14.3% and that is good enough for liberals with such low standards.
 
QUOTE Conservative

Yes, it worked for Clinton, gave us a GOP Congress and the rest is history.
Click to expand...

Unlike the current donothing wingers in congress they learned that its better to work together for the betterment of the nation.SAD.:(

What is it about Obama that generates this kind of loyalty where people like you pick and choose the data you want to use?
Click to expand...

Hisses the king of cherry picking data.:2wave:
 
Donc said:
Unlike the current donothing wingers in congress they learned that its better to work together for the betterment of the nation.SAD.:(
Click to expand...

The Senate leadership?
 
ItAin'tFree said:
Part time jobs went up about 360,000.

Full time jobs fell by about 240,000. Full time jobs fell by about 240,000. Full time jobs fell by about 240,000. Full time jobs fell by about 240,000.

Guess what happens around September with the part time jobs? Liberals don't have a clue but I will help them. They will not turn into full time jobs. Many of them will go away.

Now in phonyland, this job report may be the best in 15 years. But it's that way because the puppet masters have told the puppets that, not because the economy has come roaring back. Besides, we've been hearing those same type line of lies for a little over four years now.
Click to expand...

Guess what happens around September with the part time jobs? Liberals don't have a clue but I will help them. They will not turn into full time jobs. Many of them will go away.
Click to expand...

Hmm...where did you get the crystal ball?Mind if i take a peek?:2wave:
 
AlabamaPaul said:
The Senate leadership?
Click to expand...

15lyPTk


Weeper of the house.:2wave:
 
Conservative said:
You are doing your best to derail this thread to divert from the fact that Obama's economic results have been terrible at best.
Click to expand...
The topic of the thread IS how QE/monetary policy should not be ended now since we are still in a very soft/depressed demand economy.



Whether or not Bush had plus or minus job growth is irrelevant to the fact that Obama has added over 6 trillion dollars to the debt to generate 177000 fewer unemployed after 4 plus years of his economic policies.
Click to expand...
Such a stupid comment, a very small amount of total federal spending in the Obama fiscal years has been devoted to jobs.....and you certainly are in NO position to talk about spending on jobs....YOU AND YOUR PARTY WANT NO SPENDING ON JOBS



There are still 2 million fewer employed people today than when the recession began
Click to expand...
And nearly 100% of the job losses occurred during the Bush fiscal years.



and last month, four years after the recession ended over 1 million Americans were discouraged and not counted as unemployed.U-6 rate after all this Fed money and Obamanomics is 14.3% and that is good enough for liberals with such low standards.
Click to expand...
AGAIN.....you certainly are in NO position to talk about spending on jobs....YOU AND YOUR PARTY WANT NO SPENDING ON JOBS.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom