U.S. Adds 195,000 Jobs; Unemployment Remains 7.6%

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.

Click to expand...

Results speak for themselves, 9.9 trillion GDP to 14.4 trillion, 10 plus million labor force increase, 146 million working Americans, average unemployment under 6%, never having 1 million discouraged workers so apparently Bush was President during that period of time too.

Donc said:

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:

Click to expand...

No, meaning the dozens of House bills designed to grow jobs and improve economic growth that haven't been brought to the floor for debate and that excludes the repeal of Obamacare which would help as well.

Conservative said:

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.

Click to expand...

pbrauer said:

Click to expand...

Want badly to bring Bush into this, don't you? To bad we have Obama's results that you want to ignore. Tell me which Obama economic result warrants this kind of loyalty and support? Could it be the 6 trillion added to the debt? Or how about the 2 million fewer people working today than when the recession began? How about the 1.8% GDP growth for 2013 annualized based upon first quarter results? And all this 4 years after the end of the recession? This is what you support?

Conservative said:

No, meaning the dozens of House bills designed to grow jobs and improve economic growth that haven't been brought to the floor for debate and that excludes the repeal of Obamacare which would help as well.

Click to expand...

Give me a name/number, something specific so I can check and see why if wasn’t brought to the floor for a vote.:2wave:

Conservative said:

Want badly to bring Bush into this, don't you? To bad we have Obama's results that you want to ignore. Tell me which Obama economic result warrants this kind of loyalty and support? Could it be the 6 trillion added to the debt? Or how about the 2 million fewer people working today than when the recession began? How about the 1.8% GDP growth for 2013 annualized based upon first quarter results? And all this 4 years after the end of the recession? This is what you support?

Click to expand...

How about Bush saw it happening and did nothing to stop it? Wouldn't you blame Obama if it were him at a fund raiser?

Donc said:

Give me a name/number, something specific so I can check and see why if wasn’t brought to the floor for a vote.:2wave:

Click to expand...

Republicans see jobs bills as election winner | Reuters

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politic...n-a-blame-game-over-stalled-jobs-legislation/

American said:

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?

Click to expand...

As explained to you previously, the headline figure is in net form. Do you believe that there were no jobs created in months where a negative figure was published? Really simple concept.

pbrauer said:

How about Bush saw it happening and did nothing to stop it? Wouldn't you blame Obama if it were him at a fund raiser?

Click to expand...

How about proving it and why does it matter today. It has been over 4 years that Obama has had control of the WH and the numbers today show poor leadership and failure to generate positive economic results even though spending trillions

I wonder how many Obama supporters believe that if they generated the numbers Obama has generated that they would have that job four years after taking the job?

a351 said:

As explained to you previously, the headline figure is in net form. Do you believe that there were no jobs created in months where a negative figure was published? Really simple concept.

Click to expand...

In the month of June, over 1 million people became discouraged and are no longer counted as unemployed. When you add that one million back to the unemployment roles the unemployment rate is 8.2%. Seems that as long as people drop off the unemployed roles and are no longer counted they don't really exist in the Obama supporter world. The point is 195000 is a drop in the bucket when you are losing people out of the labor force because they are discouraged. the official u-6 rate is 14.3% which puts the unemployed/under employed/discouraged workers over 21 million. That should alarm everyone as many of these are now becoming chronically unemployed

Conservative said:

Republicans see jobs bills as election winner | Reuters

Senate and House in a Blame Game Over Stalled Jobs Legislation - ABC News

Click to expand...

Unlike Harry I woulda put the bill on the floor and let everyone take a peek at the subterfuge (cutting regulations and hindering the E P A from clamping down on toxic mercury and arsenic pollutants)that the house wingers were trying to push…before the election.

Do you actually think that this would have been voted into law? That BO woulda signed it?:shock:

Donc said:

Unlike Harry I woulda put the bill on the floor and let everyone take a peek at the subterfuge (cutting regulations and hindering the E P A from clamping down on toxic mercury and arsenic pollutants)that the house wingers were trying to push…before the election.

Do you actually think that this would have been voted into law? That BO woulda signed it?:shock:

Click to expand...

Doesn't matter, the right thing to do was to put the bills on the floor and let them be debated not let them sit in a desk and call the House Obstructionist.

Conservative said:

In the month of June, over 1 million people became discouraged and are no longer counted as unemployed. When you add that one million back to the unemployment roles the unemployment rate is 8.2%. Seems that as long as people drop off the unemployed roles and are no longer counted they don't really exist in the Obama supporter world. The point is 195000 is a drop in the bucket when you are losing people out of the labor force because they are discouraged. the official u-6 rate is 14.3% which puts the unemployed/under employed/discouraged workers over 21 million. That should alarm everyone as many of these are now becoming chronically unemployed

Click to expand...

I know you will read this wrong, but do you really think this would magically change with a republican in charge? Hell, it started with a republican. I'm not blaming the republican mind you, as presidents not control the economy, but the fact is the problem would not go away. You just stop talking about it.

Boo Radley said:

I know you will read this wrong, but do you really think this would magically change with a republican in charge? Hell, it started with a republican. I'm not blaming the republican mind you, as presidents not control the economy, but the fact is the problem would not go away. You just stop talking about it.

Click to expand...

Yes, I really do. I know that four years after the end of a recession we would have better economic results than we have today because any Republican wouldn't have supported the anti growth policies that Obama has implemented nor would any republican demonize individual wealth creation. Obama leadership has been limited to vacation and golf course activities certainly not economic or foreign affairs.

I spent 35 years in the business world in a leadership and management position. Obama is the worst I have ever seen in being a leader, taking responsibility, and managing his staff along with economic policies.

Conservative said:

Yes, I really do. I know that four years after the end of a recession we would have better economic results than we have today because any Republican wouldn't have supported the anti growth policies that Obama has implemented nor would any republican demonize individual wealth creation. Obama leadership has been limited to vacation and golf course activities certainly not economic or foreign affairs.

I spent 35 years in the business world in a leadership and management position. Obama is the worst I have ever seen in being a leader, taking responsibility, and managing his staff along with economic policies.

Click to expand...

I'm sorry, but you would be wrong. It would not have changed at all. It will run its course regardless.

Conservative said:

Yes, I really do. I know that four years after the end of a recession we would have better economic results than we have today because any Republican wouldn't have supported the anti growth policies that Obama has implemented nor would any republican demonize individual wealth creation. Obama leadership has been limited to vacation and golf course activities certainly not economic or foreign affairs.

I spent 35 years in the business world in a leadership and management position. Obama is the worst I have ever seen in being a leader, taking responsibility, and managing his staff along with economic policies.

Click to expand...

sigh...no, you don't know, and are blinded by your partisianship....and whatever experiences you had in the business world, if one believes them, are not relevant to the topic.

Conservative said:

Doesn't matter, the right thing to do was to put the bills on the floor and let them be debated not let them sit in a desk and call the House Obstructionist.

Click to expand...

I,m glad we agree on something;hope springs eternal.Maybe you should write bohner and tell him to ignore the outdated Hastert rule and put what the senate passed up for a vote.:2wave:

randel said:

sigh...no, you don't know, and are blinded by your partisianship....and whatever experiences you had in the business world, if one believes them, are not relevant to the topic.

Click to expand...

Your opinion noted, exactly what is your expertise in actually hiring people and the motivation to do so?

Donc said:

I,m glad we agree on something;hope springs eternal.Maybe you should write bohner and tell him to ignore the outdated Hastert rule and put what the senate passed up for a vote.:2wave:

Click to expand...

Then we agree that the bills passed by the House should be put on the floor for debate as well? How can the House be called do nothing when there are actual bills passed sitting in Reid's desk? Seems to me that many have the Houses of Congress confused

Conservative said:

In the month of June, over 1 million people became discouraged and are no longer counted as unemployed.

Click to expand...

Wrong. The figure for discouraged is not the gross change, but the total number. I'm not sure why you think when every other number in the report is a current level or rate that that one number is a gross change with no total level published. The survey asks many questions. Here are the questions and answers to be classified as Discouraged:
(THE WEEK BEFORE LAST/LAST WEEK), did (name/you) do ANY work for (pay/either pay or profit)? NO

(Do / Does) (name/you) currently want a job, either full or part time? YES

What are all the things (you/he/she) (have/has) done to find work during the last 4 weeks? Looked at ads or Attended job training programs/courses or Other passive or Nothing

When did (you/he/she) last work at (a/that) job or business? Within the last 12 months

(THE WEEK BEFORE LAST/LAST WEEK), could (you/he/she) have started a job if one had been offered? YES

What is the main reason (you/he/she) (was/were) not looking for work during the LAST 4 WEEKS? Believes no work available in line of work or area or Couldn't find any work or Lacks necessary schooling, training, skills or experience or Employers think too young or too old or Other types of discrimination

So if someone stopped looking for work back in October, and answered all the other questions with one of the ones I've listed, s/he would be classified as Discouraged. The net change for discouraged in June was +247,000...meaning there were 247,000 more people discouraged in June than in May.

When you add that one million back to the unemployment roles the unemployment rate is 8.2%.

Click to expand...

True, but why would you?

Boo Radley said:

I'm sorry, but you would be wrong. It would not have changed at all. It will run its course regardless.

Click to expand...

That would be your opinion, the problem is that opinion of mine is based upon 35 years in the business world where I actually had to meet a payroll and monthly expenses, plus have the cash necessary to actually grow my business. You don't grow your business unless there is enough revenue to fund the additional employees and the costs associated with increasing the business size as well as generate the profit to justify my return on investment. That is exactly what we are seeing now, businesses reluctant to hire because of increasing business costs and risk..

pinqy said:

Wrong. The figure for discouraged is not the gross change, but the total number. I'm not sure why you think when every other number in the report is a current level or rate that that one number is a gross change with no total level published. The survey asks many questions. Here are the questions and answers to be classified as Discouraged:
(THE WEEK BEFORE LAST/LAST WEEK), did (name/you) do ANY work for (pay/either pay or profit)? NO

(Do / Does) (name/you) currently want a job, either full or part time? YES

What are all the things (you/he/she) (have/has) done to find work during the last 4 weeks? Looked at ads or Attended job training programs/courses or Other passive or Nothing

When did (you/he/she) last work at (a/that) job or business? Within the last 12 months

(THE WEEK BEFORE LAST/LAST WEEK), could (you/he/she) have started a job if one had been offered? YES

What is the main reason (you/he/she) (was/were) not looking for work during the LAST 4 WEEKS? Believes no work available in line of work or area or Couldn't find any work or Lacks necessary schooling, training, skills or experience or Employers think too young or too old or Other types of discrimination

So if someone stopped looking for work back in October, and answered all the other questions with one of the ones I've listed, s/he would be classified as Discouraged. The net change for discouraged in June was +247,000...meaning there were 247,000 more people discouraged in June than in May.


True, but why would you?

Click to expand...

There is no incentive for people to look for work with all the benefits available to them created by liberals thinking with their heart instead of their brain. People dropping out of the labor market is never a good thing as it destroys initiative and rewards people for improper action.

What you and others do not seem to understand is that personal responsibility isn't govt. responsibility and when you reward people for improper or bad behavior you are going to get the results you have today. Only a truly poorly educated individual can believe that stagnant economic growth, over 6 trillion added to the debt, 1 million discouraged workers, and over 21 million unemployed/under employed, discouraged workers isn't a problem for the greatest country on the face of the earth

DA60 said:

No idea what post you are blathering about.

Click to expand...

The one you quoted. Seriously, reading comprehension...try it.

You commented - indirectly - on the job report right here:

'It's like I said at the very beginning. "You can always count on the Republicans/conservatives to hate good news under Obama."'

And the statement was in direct response to a post about the jobs report.



So, do you think this is a good jobs report - yes or no?

Click to expand...

Wow, you really have trouble with this reading comprehension thing, don't you?

Slyfox696 said:

Anytime we add jobs instead of losing them it's good.

Click to expand...

DA60 said:

Really, and where is your unbiased, factual proof that my memory and reading comprehension 'isn't' getting any better?

Click to expand...

The fact you asked a question I answered in the post of mine you quoted is unbiased, factual proof, as evidenced by the fact I literally quoted myself from the previous post to answer your question.


Have a good day, and good luck with that memory/reading comprehension thing.

Conservative said:

There is no incentive for people to look for work with all the benefits available to them created by liberals thinking with their heart instead of their brain.

Click to expand...

The reference week for the June UE rate was June 9-15. That showed a total of 12,248,000 Unemployed (not seasonally adjusted). For that same week, the number of people receiving unemployment benefits from all programs was 4,557,765 (preliminary data)
So only 37% of the unemployed (those actively seeking work) were receiving Unemployment checks. So it looks like most of the unemployed do have an incentive to look for work. Those not looking for work, of course, are not eligible for UI benefits.

People dropping out of the labor market is never a good thing as it destroys initiative and rewards people for improper action.

Click to expand...

Dropping out or just leaving? Many of the people "dropping out" are high school and college students who don't necessarily need a job. I'm not sure how you think people dropping out are rewarded.

[qutoe]What you and others do not seem to understand is that personal responsibility isn't govt. responsibility and when you reward people for improper or bad behavior you are going to get the results you have today. [/QUOTE] I understand that fine. I disagree with your claims of incentive.

pinqy said:

The reference week for the June UE rate was June 9-15. That showed a total of 12,248,000 Unemployed (not seasonally adjusted). For that same week, the number of people receiving unemployment benefits from all programs was 4,557,765 (preliminary data)
So only 37% of the unemployed (those actively seeking work) were receiving Unemployment checks. So it looks like most of the unemployed do have an incentive to look for work. Those not looking for work, of course, are not eligible for UI benefits.

Dropping out or just leaving? Many of the people "dropping out" are high school and college students who don't necessarily need a job. I'm not sure how you think people dropping out are rewarded. I understand that fine. I disagree with your claims of incentive.

Click to expand...

Growing up I heard a lot about book smart street stupid people and as I matured I understand that many people fit into that category of being book smart and street stupid. Thankfully I had a career that made me both book smart and street smart which benefited me in the business world. A book smart people ignores human behavior and simply looks at numbers on the surface and if they meet their ideology they accept them. If not they ignore them believing their ideology trumps logic and common sense.

In my business career of 35 years I ran a 200 million dollar a year business that employed over 1200. I had 10 direct reports and learned first hand incentive as well as the costs of doing business. I grew up a Democrat but learned that Democrats of my time, JFK Time, don't exist today. Anyone that believes 195000 jobs created four years after the end of a recession that held unemployment at 7.6% and generated a U-6 rate of 14.3% is a good thing is book smart but street stupid.

Anyone that believes the economic results generated by this President are acceptable in this country are blinded by an ideology. Last quarter our annualized GDP rate was 1.8%, last month there were 177,000 fewer unemployed than when Obama took office and this was at a cost of over 6 trillion to the debt. One of the worst recessions in history ended in June 2009 and the results today are terrible showing lack of good leadership and good economic policies with over 2 million people less employed than when the recession ended.

When raising a child sometimes tough love is required to help in their developmental process. Today there is no such thing as tough love thus very little consequences for poor personal choices. Too many free things out there destroying the incentive for far too many. It is obvious to me that you lack a basic understanding of incentive making you part of the problem and not part of the solution. Please name for me any liberal social program that cost what it was supposed to cost, did what it was supposed to do, solved a problem, and went away? There is your example of a failed ideology and trumpeting results like we continue to get out of this Administration and supporters shows just how far this country has declined.