• 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 217,000 Jobs in May, Unemployment Rate Stays at 6.3%[W:218]

DA60 said:
Btw,

Men over 20 lost 7,000 jobs.

And women 25-54 lost 37,000 jobs.

So only teen/55+ men had more jobs.

And only 16-24/55+ women had more jobs.

Table A-9. Selected employment indicators


Gotta love those McDonald's jobs.
Click to expand...

All those Wal*Mart greeters had to move to the check-out lines so now the 30-somethings are looking for temp work. Yay recovery!
 
So, according to the BLS household data survey...in the all important 25-54 age range (both sexes)...

...employment went down in this prime money making group by 110,000 last month.


Also, since March - when the winter snow was ending - 319,000 jobs in the 25-54 age range have been lost.

So much for the 'weather' excuse.

Table A-9. Selected employment indicators

The economy is stalled...period.

All it is doing is creating crap/temporary jobs for students and seniors.
 
Last edited:
Conservative said:
Honest debate and wrong terminology? LOL, when you say there are more people working now than when the recession began that isn't just using the wrong terminology that is a LIE.
Click to expand...
I think it's funny I already addressed it, showed you how it was pretty clear what I meant, and you still refuse to acknowledge it.

Let me know when you wish to discuss this with my actual argument in mind.
CanadaJohn said:
As an example, your comments above discount the reduction in the percentage of people in the labor force by implying it's largely related to retirement, even though you acknowledge there are still more people working or trying to find work - this would require, of course, that large numbers of those leaving the labor force due to retirement were those retiring early since those retiring at the standard retirement age of 65 or there abouts would no longer be included in the numbers used to determine the potential size of the labor force.
Click to expand...
It's been well known for a long time the baby boomers created a population bubble, and now that they are coming to age of retirement, it explains why more people are in the labor force, even as participation is down.

On the other hand, you discount the GDP figures because they are potentially, although not entirely, significantly impacted by the weather this past winter.
Click to expand...
I'm not discounting it, I'm just saying you have to always understand context surrounding any numbers.
pinqy said:
But it's not a fact. You can't confuse terminology like that.
Click to expand...
I already addressed this. Another poster said fewer people were in the workforce. I said that is false, as more people are in the workforce. The meaning of what I said was quite clear, as I've already pointed out.
Demon of Light said:
:roll:
Click to expand...
I don't see what you think you are contributing.
 
Conservative said:
Wonder if the 19 million unemployed/under employed/discouraged workers feel the same way? If you truly care about the U-6 then you would care about the actual people not the percentage change. How about the 11+% African American unemployed or the 19% 16-19 year old unemployed. Obama is an economic disaster either deliberate or out of ignorance. You decide?
Click to expand...

WHAT HAPPENED WITH 8 YEARS OF 'JOB CREATOR' POLICIES UNDER BUSH? Oh right he lost 673,000+ PRIVATE sector jobs in 8 years NOT counting the 4+ million lost in 2009 thanks to his policies


Even stopping pre Bush great recession, that 'Job creator' policy was MISERABLE

Bush Lead During Weakest Economy in Decades

Bush Lead During Weakest Economy in Decades



DEC 2007

The Economic Consequences of Mr. Bush

The next president will have to deal with yet another crippling legacy of George W. Bush: the economy. A Nobel laureate, Joseph E. Stiglitz, sees a generation-long struggle to recoup.


The Economic Consequences of Mr. Bush | Vanity Fair

5+ MILLION PRIVATE SECTOR JOBS (NET SINCE JAN 2009)

Bureau of Labor Statistics Data
 
Mr.Nick said:
We elect lawyers not economists - how can you be shocked.

Half these clowns in DC have never run a business in their lives and have no concept of economy.

What we need in DC are economists, business owners accountants etc...... Not a bunch of lawyers who are natural liars, who know nothing about economy.
Click to expand...


Lowest sustained tax burden on the 'job creators' for 80+ years. Highest Corp profits in the US ever, lowest tax burden on them in 40+ years and lowest cost for labor (less than 50%) ever recorded, where are those 'job creators'?
 
DA60 said:
Btw,

Men over 20 lost 7,000 jobs.

And women 25-54 lost 37,000 jobs.

So only teen/55+ men had more jobs.

And only 16-24/55+ women had more jobs.

Table A-9. Selected employment indicators


Gotta love those McDonald's jobs.
Click to expand...

'Free market'... We will look like Latin America in another 30 years, IF left up to CONservative policy

The US corporate business model has changed: It used to be based on sharing profits with workers to incentivize them and generate loyalty. Now, the model has shifted to rewarding not workers, but shareholders and upper management.. So, as corporate profits soar, the rich get richer and workers are told they are lucky to even have a job so stop whining about income disparity.
 
Conservative said:
Honest debate and wrong terminology? LOL, when you say there are more people working now than when the recession began that isn't just using the wrong terminology that is a LIE. How about telling me why when the actual data proves you wrong that you continue to spout the same rhetoric over and over again?

For some reason people like you have no concept of human behavior. You think that we would have had the same revenue growth and economic activity with people not keeping more of what they earn? There is no proof that we would have had the 17 million new taxpayers under Reagan and the 9 million jobs under Bush were it not for the tax cuts. Without those taxpayers there is no way the revenue would have been what it was. You liberals have no concept as to the four components of GDP and their contribution to GDP or you wouldn't make such partisan poorly informed comments.

Seems to me that you are the one poorly informed and continue to buy into the liberal rhetoric in spite of the facts and reality
Click to expand...

BUSH LOST 673,000+ PRIVATE SECTOR JOBS IN 8 YEARS? HUH? Since Obama there are 5+ million MORE people in the private sector work force

Reagan had 14 million (private sector) in 8 years YET Carter had 9+ million in 4, tax cuts? lol

Bureau of Labor Statistics Data
 
Conservative said:
My point stands, it is all about the numbers not the percentage and the reality is every month of Obama has had higher discouraged workers than Bush and the more discouraged workers the better the official rate which is being trumpeted today as once again percentage trumps actual individuals unemployed/discouraged/under employed. Those are real people and it is real people being hurt by this incompetent in the WH

Presidents should be judged on real people and actual results not percentage change
Click to expand...


BUSH CREATED A HOUSING BUBBLE. We call that a ponzi scheme, then it popped!
 
Tettsuo said:
U.S. Adds 217,000 Jobs in May, Unemployment Rate Stays at 6.3% | Fox Business

The U.S. added 217,000 jobs in May as labor markets seem to be gaining the kind of sustained momentum that has proven elusive as the economy has struggled to recover from the 2008 financial crisis.
The headline unemployment rate was 6.3%, according to figures released Friday by the Labor Department. That rate is the same as in April, when 288,000 jobs were created, far more than had been expected.
Click to expand...

And yet growth remains anemic.:peace
 
RDS said:
To cut matters short:
There were 7.6 million unemployed people in the U.S. in January 2008, and the unemployment rate was 4.9%. Today, there are 9.8 million unemployed Americans, well over 2 million more than before the recession, and the unemployment rate is much higher.

http://www.bls.gov/news.release/archives/empsit_02012008.pdf
Click to expand...

BUSH ENTERS OFFICE JAN 2001 111,859,000 IN THE PRIVATE SECTOR WORKFORCE

BUSH LEAVES OFFICE JAN 2009 111,397, LOSS of 673,000+ PRIVATE sector jobs in 8 years''

OBAMA ENTERS OFFICE Jan 2009 111,397,000 PRIVATE sector workers

May 2014 116,594,000 AND INCREASE OF OVER 5+ MILLION IN THE PRIVATE SECTOR WORKFORCE!

Notice: Data not available: U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics
 
dad2three2001 said:
BUSH ENTERS OFFICE JAN 2001 111,859,000 IN THE PRIVATE SECTOR WORKFORCE

BUSH LEAVES OFFICE JAN 2009 111,397, LOSS of 673,000+ PRIVATE sector jobs in 8 years''

OBAMA ENTERS OFFICE Jan 2009 111,397,000 PRIVATE sector workers

May 2014 116,594,000 AND INCREASE OF OVER 5+ MILLION IN THE PRIVATE SECTOR WORKFORCE!

Notice: Data not available: U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics
Click to expand...

Big deal. The population has grown and BHO's economy hasn't kept up.:peace

[h=3]Joe Biden: We Never Said They Would Be Good Jobs[/h]www.tpnn.com/.../joe-biden-we-never-said-they-would-be-good-jobs/
5 days ago - We didn't guarantee that every new job was going to be a high-paying job.” There you have it. They never guaranteed the jobs would be good.
 
Jack Hays said:
It is a dismal economic performance.:peace
Click to expand...

Compared to Bush's economy? lol, It's a frkn miracle! 5+ million PRIVATE sector jobs created since Obama came into office, AFTER Bush lost 673,000+ PRIVATE sector jobs in 8 years with those 'job creator' policies

Notice: Data not available: U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics

President Bush has presided over the weakest eight-year span for the U.S. economy in decades, according to an analysis of key data, and economists across the ideological spectrum increasingly view his two terms as a time of little progress on the nation's thorniest fiscal challenges

Bush Lead During Weakest Economy in Decades



DEC 2007

The Economic Consequences of Mr. Bush

The next president will have to deal with yet another crippling legacy of George W. Bush: the economy. A Nobel laureate, Joseph E. Stiglitz, sees a generation-long struggle to recoup.

The Economic Consequences of Mr. Bush | Vanity Fair


David Stockman, Ex-Reagan Budget Director: George W. Bush's Policies Bankrupt The Country

“(Reagan’s deficit policies) allowed George W. Bush to dive into the deep end, bankrupting the nation through two misbegotten and unfinanced wars, a giant expansion of Medicare and a tax-cutting spree for the wealthy that turned K Street lobbyists into the de facto office of national tax policy,” Stockman wrote.

David Stockman, Ex-Reagan Budget Director: George W. Bush's Policies Bankrupt The Country
 
dad2three2001 said:
Compared to Bush's economy? lol, It's a frkn miracle! 5+ million PRIVATE sector jobs created since Obama came into office, AFTER Bush lost 673,000+ PRIVATE sector jobs in 8 years with those 'job creator' policies

Notice: Data not available: U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics

President Bush has presided over the weakest eight-year span for the U.S. economy in decades, according to an analysis of key data, and economists across the ideological spectrum increasingly view his two terms as a time of little progress on the nation's thorniest fiscal challenges

Bush Lead During Weakest Economy in Decades



DEC 2007

The Economic Consequences of Mr. Bush

The next president will have to deal with yet another crippling legacy of George W. Bush: the economy. A Nobel laureate, Joseph E. Stiglitz, sees a generation-long struggle to recoup.

The Economic Consequences of Mr. Bush | Vanity Fair


David Stockman, Ex-Reagan Budget Director: George W. Bush's Policies Bankrupt The Country

“(Reagan’s deficit policies) allowed George W. Bush to dive into the deep end, bankrupting the nation through two misbegotten and unfinanced wars, a giant expansion of Medicare and a tax-cutting spree for the wealthy that turned K Street lobbyists into the de facto office of national tax policy,” Stockman wrote.

David Stockman, Ex-Reagan Budget Director: George W. Bush's Policies Bankrupt The Country
Click to expand...

Average unemployment under GWB was 5.6%. BHO has yet to get close to that. And growth remains anemic. Case closed.:peace
 
Jack Hays said:
Big deal. The population has grown and BHO's economy hasn't kept up.:peace
Click to expand...

Yet YOU would still support giving the 'job creators' more tax breaks *shaking head*

The US corporate business model has changed: It used to be based on sharing profits with workers to incentivize them and generate loyalty. Now, the model has shifted to rewarding not workers, but shareholders and upper management.. So, as corporate profits soar, the rich get richer and workers are told they are lucky to even have a job so stop whining about income disparity.


The last 40 years of conservati*ve think tank legislatio*n has killed the economy


Consumer Spending Will Not Save Our economy: Pay Fell 7% in Last Decade and Economists Say It Won’t Catch Up Before 2021; Even College Graduates See Salaries Slide

Americans’ incomes have dropped since 2000 and they aren’t expected to make up the lost ground before 2021, according to economists in the latest Wall Street Journal forecasting survey.

From 2000 to 2010, median income in the U.S. declined 7% after adjusting for inflation, according to Census data. That marks the worst 10-year performance in records going back to 1967.


Business does not create jobs. Jobs are created by consumer demand, CONservative policy kills demand!
 
Jack Hays said:
Average unemployment under GWB was 5.6%. BHO has yet to get close to that. And growth remains anemic. Case closed.:peace
Click to expand...

Average? Oh right the ONLY way Bush looks good, using his ponzi scheme numbers

Right-wingers Want To Erase How George Bush's "Homeowner Society" Helped Cause The Economic Collapse


2004 Republican Convention:

Another priority for a new term is to build an ownership society, because ownership brings security and dignity and independence.
...

Thanks to our policies, home ownership in America is at an all- time high.

(APPLAUSE)

Tonight we set a new goal: 7 million more affordable homes in the next 10 years, so more American families will be able to open the door and say, "Welcome to my home."


DUBYA FOUGHT ALL 50 STATE AG'S IN 2003, INVOKING A CIVIL WAR ERA RULE SAYING FEDS RULE ON "PREDATORY" LENDERS!

Dubya was warned by the FBI of an "epidemic" of mortgage fraud in 2004. He gave them less resources. Later in 2004 Dubya allowed the leverage rules to go from 12-1 to 33-1 which flooded the market with cheap money!


GUESS WHAT HAPPENED NEXT? lol

BTW, CLINTON GAVE DUBYA 4% UNEMPLOYMENT? 5.6%? LOL
 
dad2three2001 said:
Yet YOU would still support giving the 'job creators' more tax breaks *shaking head*

The US corporate business model has changed: It used to be based on sharing profits with workers to incentivize them and generate loyalty. Now, the model has shifted to rewarding not workers, but shareholders and upper management.. So, as corporate profits soar, the rich get richer and workers are told they are lucky to even have a job so stop whining about income disparity.


The last 40 years of conservati*ve think tank legislatio*n has killed the economy


Consumer Spending Will Not Save Our economy: Pay Fell 7% in Last Decade and Economists Say It Won’t Catch Up Before 2021; Even College Graduates See Salaries Slide

Americans’ incomes have dropped since 2000 and they aren’t expected to make up the lost ground before 2021, according to economists in the latest Wall Street Journal forecasting survey.

From 2000 to 2010, median income in the U.S. declined 7% after adjusting for inflation, according to Census data. That marks the worst 10-year performance in records going back to 1967.


Business does not create jobs. Jobs are created by consumer demand, CONservative policy kills demand!
Click to expand...

Please share your unique insights elsewhere. They are too puerile for this forum. After a post war and Cold War holiday from history, the US economy has been reintroduced to historic norms derived from world trade.:peace
 
Jack Hays said:
Big deal. The population has grown and BHO's economy hasn't kept up.:peace

[h=3]Joe Biden: We Never Said They Would Be Good Jobs[/h]www.tpnn.com/.../joe-biden-we-never-said-they-would-be-good-jobs/
5 days ago - We didn't guarantee that every new job was going to be a high-paying job.” There you have it. They never guaranteed the jobs would be good.
Click to expand...

Better to lose 673,000+ PRIVATE sector jobs like Dubya did in 8 years, WHILE he went to 2 UNFUNDED wars, gave US 2 UNFUNDED tax cuts, created UNFUNDED Medicare expansion AND was the head cheerleader for the Bankster created housing bubble, go figure!
 
dad2three2001 said:
Average? Oh right the ONLY way Bush looks good, using his ponzi scheme numbers

Right-wingers Want To Erase How George Bush's "Homeowner Society" Helped Cause The Economic Collapse


2004 Republican Convention:

Another priority for a new term is to build an ownership society, because ownership brings security and dignity and independence.
...

Thanks to our policies, home ownership in America is at an all- time high.

(APPLAUSE)

Tonight we set a new goal: 7 million more affordable homes in the next 10 years, so more American families will be able to open the door and say, "Welcome to my home."


DUBYA FOUGHT ALL 50 STATE AG'S IN 2003, INVOKING A CIVIL WAR ERA RULE SAYING FEDS RULE ON "PREDATORY" LENDERS!

Dubya was warned by the FBI of an "epidemic" of mortgage fraud in 2004. He gave them less resources. Later in 2004 Dubya allowed the leverage rules to go from 12-1 to 33-1 which flooded the market with cheap money!


GUESS WHAT HAPPENED NEXT? lol

BTW, CLINTON GAVE DUBYA 4% UNEMPLOYMENT? 5.6%? LOL
Click to expand...

GWB dealt with a war economy. The easy years under Clinton ended. GWB still outperformed BHO.:peace
 
Jack Hays said:
Please share your unique insights elsewhere. They are too puerile for this forum. After a post war and Cold War holiday from history, the US economy has been reintroduced to historic norms derived from world trade.:peace
Click to expand...


So GOOD GOV'T POLICY CAN'T STOP THAT HUH? We have to stick with CONservative policies? Why?

(Re-)Introducing: The American School of Economics

When the United States became independent from Britain it also rebelled against the British System of economics, characterized by Adam Smith, in favor of the American School based on protectionism and infrastructure and prospered under this system for almost 200 years to become the wealthiest nation in the world. Unrestrained free trade resurfaced in the early 1900s culminating in the Great Depression and again in the 1970s culminating in the current Economic Meltdown.

Closely related to mercantilism, it can be seen as contrary to classical economics. It consisted of these three core policies:

protecting industry through selective high tariffs (especially 1861–1932) and through subsidies (especially 1932–70)

government investments in infrastructure creating targeted internal improvements (especially in transportation)

a national bank with policies that promote the growth of productive enterprises rather than speculation

Frank Bourgin's 1989 study of the Constitutional Convention shows that direct government involvement in the economy was intended by the Founders.


American School of Economics


American School (economics) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 
Jack Hays said:
Average unemployment under GWB was 5.6%. BHO has yet to get close to that. And growth remains anemic. Case closed.:peace
Click to expand...
The housing bubble kept unemployment down.
 
dad2three2001 said:
Better to lose 673,000+ PRIVATE sector jobs like Dubya did in 8 years, WHILE he went to 2 UNFUNDED wars, gave US 2 UNFUNDED tax cuts, created UNFUNDED Medicare expansion AND was the head cheerleader for the Bankster created housing bubble, go figure!
Click to expand...

To which the only reply is: So what? Every POTUS plays the hand he is dealt. GWB played his better than BHO has played his. All US wars have been "unfunded" in the sense that the government borrowed to fight them. GWB's tax cuts gave Clinton's surplus back to the people. I've already shown how wrong you are about Medicare. Next.:peace
 
dad2three2001 said:
So GOOD GOV'T POLICY CAN'T STOP THAT HUH? We have to stick with CONservative policies? Why?

(Re-)Introducing: The American School of Economics

When the United States became independent from Britain it also rebelled against the British System of economics, characterized by Adam Smith, in favor of the American School based on protectionism and infrastructure and prospered under this system for almost 200 years to become the wealthiest nation in the world. Unrestrained free trade resurfaced in the early 1900s culminating in the Great Depression and again in the 1970s culminating in the current Economic Meltdown.

Closely related to mercantilism, it can be seen as contrary to classical economics. It consisted of these three core policies:

protecting industry through selective high tariffs (especially 1861–1932) and through subsidies (especially 1932–70)

government investments in infrastructure creating targeted internal improvements (especially in transportation)

a national bank with policies that promote the growth of productive enterprises rather than speculation

Frank Bourgin's 1989 study of the Constitutional Convention shows that direct government involvement in the economy was intended by the Founders.


American School of Economics


American School (economics) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Click to expand...

The path to backwardness and poverty.:peace
 
Jack Hays said:
GWB dealt with a war economy. The easy years under Clinton ended. GWB still outperformed BHO.:peace
Click to expand...


Nonsense, Obama had a war economy, he went to the 'good war', Dubya CHOSE to go to a bad war AFTER ignoring REPEATED warnings of

"Bin Ladin Determined To Strike in US -"

"In a single 17-sentence document, the intelligence briefing delivered to President Bush in August 2001 spells out the who, hints at the what and points towards the where of the terrorist attacks on New York and Washington that followed 36 days later."

According to the CIA and the 9/11 commission, there were 40 other mentions of Al Qaeda or Bin Laden in the President's Daily Briefs before 9/11

The President's Daily Brief
 
Jack Hays said:
GWB dealt with a war economy. The easy years under Clinton ended. GWB still outperformed BHO.:peace
Click to expand...

No....they're pretty much the same guy doing the same ****.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom