• 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%

When the labor force increases and there are more people working than when the recession began which in Bush's case was March 2001, you betcha and in fact Bush increased the labor force over 10 million and the number employed by over 6 million until the recession hit. Context is something you don't understand just like you lack any understanding of leadership.
are you going to deny that 30plus months of consecutive job growth is a good thing? again, as for the rest, intended to take the conversation off track , best be careful con.....just sayin'
 
are you going to deny that 30plus months of consecutive job growth is a good thing? again, as for the rest, intended to take the conversation off track , best be careful con.....just sayin'

Sorry but it is a waste of time discussing economic issues with someone who doesn't have a clue how our economy works and has no problem four years after the end of the recession with the economic numbers we have today. Such low expectations must be an example of a liberal's personal success.
 
Converting 600,000 full time jobs with benefits to 29 hour-a-week jobs without benefits would create over 200,0ng 00 new jobs.

And then the White House brags about it? Truly disgusting and a fundamental lie. If everyone was reduced to 20 hours a week and no benefits the White House would boast of creating 10,000,000 new jobs.

Well that is what Texas does and boosts it has a wonderful record of job creation. :peace
 
are you going to deny that 30plus months of consecutive job growth is a good thing? again, as for the rest, intended to take the conversation off track , best be careful con.....just sayin'
is it better to have one person working a 40 hour week with benefits like insurance or two persons working 20 hours a week with no benefits? only democrats would want two at 20 with no benefits so more will be dependent on the government
 
Last edited:
are you going to deny that 30plus months of consecutive job growth is a good thing? again, as for the rest, intended to take the conversation off track , best be careful con.....just sayin'
Of course he is. Do think he would admit to something like that?
 
Sorry but it is a waste of time discussing economic issues with someone who doesn't have a clue how our economy works and has no problem four years after the end of the recession with the economic numbers we have today. Such low expectations must be an example of a liberal's personal success.

That was a sly little personal attack there. Well...you actually used the word "personal" in the sentence...so maybe it wasn't so "sly". Stop being a crybaby. Point, Counter Point. Use Facts. State some basic or complex political/economic opinion. Stay on Topic.

Simple enough rules to follow one would think.
 
Of course he is. Do think he would admit to something like that?

Now how about context, 6 trillion added to the debt and these are the numbers you are proud of? You think someone in the private sector would still have a job generating these kind of numbers at a cost of over 6 trillion added to the debt? Leadership and accountability aren't something you understand?

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
 
That was a sly little personal attack there. Well...you actually used the word "personal" in the sentence...so maybe it wasn't so "sly". Stop being a crybaby. Point, Counter Point. Use Facts. State some basic or complex political/economic opinion. Stay on Topic.

Simple enough rules to follow one would think.

Facts have been provided, charts posted and all ignored.
 
Nope, you are missing the point, you have constantly said that Bush had no effect upon the economy of his day, ie 2001-2009, yet Obama does have an effect in his day, 2009 through to today.

You don't get to play both side of the same argument.
Again, show me where I said that Bush didn't have anything to do with the economy during his term?
Right here, in this thread:

The economy didn't crash because of Bush
According to you, he had no effect upon the recession, he had no responsibility for the recession.
 
At some point, reality will sink in. Complete, "full time" employment is over. Just as Americans once worked 10-12 hours per day 6-7 days per week as a norm, so to will the norm of the 5 day, 35-45 hour per week norm die.

30 hours is the target set by the health care law. 30 hours per week is the new full time. Increases to minimum wage will be made to accommodate for the lack of hours.
 
Look, the government does have numbers that take into account who has full time jobs, and counts part timers as unemployed. It is called U6 Unemployment. It also counts as unemployed the people who have stopped looking for work and thus are not counted in the normally used U3 numbers.

That number, while obviously much higher than the standard number used, HAS GOTTEN BETTER. It is now below what it was in 2009, from around 17 percent down to around 14 percent.

Here is link : Portal Seven | U6 Unemployment Rate

It will be interesting though to see where this number goes once the employer mandate kicks in...
 
Now how about context, 6 trillion added to the debt and these are the numbers you are proud of? You think someone in the private sector would still have a job generating these kind of numbers at a cost of over 6 trillion added to the debt? Leadership and accountability aren't something you understand?
Are they non-farm paying jobs?
 
QE is the reason it is safer and have a better return investing in bonds commodities and futures because QE devalued the dollar
Not only is this totally confused jabber, it is contradictory. If QE "devalued", it made nothing "safer".

Please, stop posting already.
 
Right here, in this thread:

According to you, he had no effect upon the recession, he had no responsibility for the recession.

The economy didn't crash because of Bush doesn't mean that Bush didn't have anything to do with the economy. The point is and always has been he had a lot of help just like Obama had a Democrat Controlled Congress his first two years and the numbers speak for themselves, numbers you want to ignore. You really are desperate here and I don't blame you, You voted for an empty suit whose economic policies have been a disaster.
 
Facts have been provided, charts posted and all ignored.

The problems with jumping into what is already 11 pages of debate....I'd have to go back and look at how it all went down...but still, no need to go saying your political opposites have low personal success.
 
The problems with jumping into what is already 11 pages of debate....I'd have to go back and look at how it all went down...but still, no need to go saying your political opposites have low personal success.



I have a long history with those here and my insinuation is based upon months and months of interactions as well as their responses to actual data posted. Seems that liberals have very low expectations when the President is of their Political persuasion.
 
The economy didn't crash because of Bush doesn't mean that Bush didn't have anything to do with the economy.
LOL....wanna rephrase without the double talk? You cannot seriously argue that he had only positive effect upon the economy.

This is absolutism and partisanism to the extreme.
 
The only person that would keep a job with those kind of numbers is a Democrat President of the United States who happens to be black.
Thank you for your non-answer.
 
The only person that would keep a job with those kind of numbers is a Democrat President of the United States who happens to be black.
Wow, playing the race card!

That is signature worthy.
 
People hanging on every report of 100,000 to 200,000 jobs is a joke. This isn't Sweden or Denmark or some other much less populated country. We have a workforce of what 150,000,000? What is 195,000 jobs, when you're losing jobs as well? And what KIND of jobs? That's the key, are they flipping hamburgers or designing computers? I don't give a **** about a report that just talks about jobs, without qualifying it with the type of jobs. Look what they did with Obamacare, they postponed it because it's a jobs killer and would kill the Democrats trying to get reelected.
 
I have a long history with those here and my insinuation is based upon months and months of interactions as well as their responses to actual data posted. Seems that liberals have very low expectations when the President is of their Political persuasion.

I can give you the benefit of the doubt on that then, I think. Sorry.
 
Amazing, isn't it, the GOP House is stonewalling by not bringing a Senate Passed bill for a vote but the Democrat controlled Senate under Harry Reid is doing the right thing preventing dozens of House passed bills from getting to the floor for a vote. Got it, no double standard there. Liberals are truly bipartisan and looking for compromise

You mean like bringing to the senate floor for a vote every time (37 times) the loons in the house voted to repeal BOcare?:shock: That shows responsibility on Harry’s part for not bringing it up to me.

Why waste senate time on something that is not going to be signed into law? Now if bohner would put the senate bill to a vote there’s a pretty good chance of it being passed don’t you think?:2wave:
 
Sorry but it is a waste of time discussing economic issues with someone who doesn't have a clue how our economy works and has no problem four years after the end of the recession with the economic numbers we have today. Such low expectations must be an example of a liberal's personal success.
is it too much to ask of you to quit going personal, and stick to the topic at hand? just asking
 
Not only is this totally confused jabber, it is contradictory. If QE "devalued", it made nothing "safer".

Please, stop posting already.

i knew i would prove your ignorance
QT is what made them safer Bonds have a guarantee return commodities have their own inherent value that is not tied to the dollar it is the reason gold sky rockets when currency takes a dive gold has its own value, and futures are traded on future returns on commodities
 
Back
Top Bottom