• 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!

Payrolls in U.S. Rise More Than Projected, Jobless Rate at 5%

Thank you Obama.

I'm not sure how much the Prez has to do with the recovery but his opposition sure did want to blame him when the economy was struggling in his first term
 
So sorry but I was involved in debates on exactly that topic, maybe you were not paying attention those days.
Here are a few, some older some newer.: (Enjoy)
How Many Jobs Are Needed to Keep Up with Population Growth? | The Economic Populist
How Many New Jobs Are Really Needed Each Month? | TheBlaze.com

Those are just two, and yes I before you scream, I am no fan of The Blaze but the article is accurate.

Your claim was that 380,000 new jobs were needed to break even with population growth. The Economic Populist article states that 126,000 new jobs would be needed to keep the unemployment rate the same, assuming 68% of the increased population entered the labor force. So that does not support your claim.

The Blaze article talks about new jobs necessary to raise enough tax revenue to eliminate the deficit. That has nothing g to do with your claim either.
 
JPMorgan just and quietly cut its 4Q GDP estimate from 1% to 0.1%.

But as long as the economy is creating service sector/hair-net jobs that brings unemployment down to 5%, the Obamaphiles think everything is wonderful.
 
JPMorgan just and quietly cut its 4Q GDP estimate from 1% to 0.1%.

But as long as the economy is creating service sector/hair-net jobs that brings unemployment down to 5%, the Obamaphiles think everything is wonderful.

Interesting...I missed that.
 
as long as the economy is creating service sector/hair-net jobs that brings unemployment down to 5%, the Obamaphiles think everything is wonderful.

All Employees: Goods-Producing Industries

emp_goods-producing_1980_2015.jpg

1981-89 — down 0.3%
1989-93 — down 8%
1993-2001 — up 7%
2001-09 — down 22%
2009-15 — up 5%

Up 10% since 2010

Production and Nonsupervisory Employees: Professional and Business Services

emp_biz_prof_sevices_1980_2015.jpg

1981-89 — up 36%
1989-93 — up 10%
1993-2001 — up 36%
2001-09 — up 2%
2009-15 — up 22%
 
All Employees: Goods-Producing Industries

View attachment 67195872

1981-89 — down 0.3%
1989-93 — down 8%
1993-2001 — up 7%
2001-09 — down 22%
2009-15 — up 5%

Up 10% since 2010

Production and Nonsupervisory Employees: Professional and Business Services

View attachment 67195871

1981-89 — up 36%
1989-93 — up 10%
1993-2001 — up 36%
2001-09 — up 2%
2009-15 — up 22%


And yet the average hourly wage and median household is flat at best. What does that tell you about the increase in 'production jobs' you tout? I have a very good friend who manages a small production company that has hired a boat-load of work-at-home folks that put widgets in little plastic shipping bags. Those jobs report as 'production' and pay a few buck above minimum wage. YEA!!!!! You throw up those BS charts thinking and hoping the useful idiots will think those are the historical middle-class wage paying manufacturing jobs. NOT!!!
 
Last edited:
All Employees: Goods-Producing Industries

View attachment 67195872

1981-89 — down 0.3%
1989-93 — down 8%
1993-2001 — up 7%
2001-09 — down 22%
2009-15 — up 5%

Up 10% since 2010

Production and Nonsupervisory Employees: Professional and Business Services

View attachment 67195871

1981-89 — up 36%
1989-93 — up 10%
1993-2001 — up 36%
2001-09 — up 2%
2009-15 — up 22%

Yup...Obama has really reduced poverty.

:roll:

Food-Stamps-Monthly.jpg


http://www.trivisonno.com/wp-content/uploads/Food-Stamps-Monthly.jpg

Isn't it sad how some Obamabots ignore the poor when it's politically advantageous to do so?
 
Last edited:
That is a pretty unsophisticated view of the 2008 financial meltdown... It was NOT caused by banks being "forced" to do anything, much less lend to unqualified homebuyers.
I disagree: Sorry, Folks, The CRA Really Did Require Crap Lending Standards - Business Insider

85% of the sub-prime loans were originated from private funds, not from banks in the Fed system.
It’s actually more like 50% but either way, the loan origin is irrelevant.Three Ways The CRA Pushed Countrywide To Lower Lending Standards - Business Insider

No, the financial meltdown of 2008-09 was rooted in very complicated things, the can be traced to very simple things: unfettered greed and the greater fool....
Ah yes, it’s always those greedy capitalists and the fools they prey on right? Admittedly, there were several other factors in play like low interest rates, high oil prices and inflated housing prices involved but lax lending standards caused by the CRA were the primary driver. CRA Stawman Argument Is Silly - Business Insider

Study up and get back to us once you understand what actually happened...
Your ad hominem attacks don’t make you look any more informed or make me look any less informed, so you can keep them to yourself.

You know, I produced several authoritative pieces that say otherwise. You simply choose to double down on your ignorance and naivete. Grow up, develop an argument and get a source to back it up. I am not interested in engaging with the lazy and ignorant.
Grow up? Ignorant & naïve? I suggest you reassess your strategy here and dial the rhetoric back a notch or two.

First off, I lived this first hand consulting to a boiler-room mortgage operation that operated a boiler room pushing out loans. I saw this house of cards in 2005. The mortgage company I was dealing with was operating off private funds that we pushed down on it by Countrywide and Lehman.
Irrelevant and circumstantial. I lived this first hand too and I also saw it coming. So what?

As the previous article well articulates, this money had nothing to do with the CRA. In fact, 85% of the money involved the bad mortgages was from institutional investors.
Like I said before, the origins of the original loans are irrelevant and that number is actually more like 50%. The CRA forced changes in the lending standard even for non GSE’s. Sorry, Folks, The CRA Really Did Require Crap Lending Standards - Business Insider

This idea that the CRA collapsed the world markets is completely nonsensical (not to mention, it was fundamentally a toothless piece of legislation.)
The CRA wasn’t the only problem, particularly for the rest of the world, but it played a HUGE role in the market collapse. As for the CRA being “toothless”, it’s rather ironic how those who were once touting its effectiveness before the crash are now attempting to downplay its effectiveness after the crash. Community Investing, Under Attack | Brookings Institution

So, do some reading, educate yourself and try again. I gave you six cites; you can at least produce a couple to back up your story.
Let the links war begin! I’m right because I can find at least 500 links that support my position. :roll:
 
And yet the average hourly wage and median household is flat at best.

Median Household Income in the United States

2010 — 49276
2014 — 53657, up 9%
Nov 2015 — 56746 (est.) (source), up 15% from 2010

median_hh_income_2007_2014.jpg

As pinqy explained in another post, median personal income may be a better measure at the moment, given changes in demographics and labor force participation.

median_personal_income_yoy_perc_change_1976_2015.jpg

2010 — 26175
2014 — 28757, up 10%

>>What does that tell you about the increase in 'production jobs' you tout?

Yer unsupported claim of "flat at best" doesn't tell me much of anything. The statistics I provided are more informative, imo.

>>I have a very good friend who manages a small production company … You throw up those BS charts thinking and hoping the useful idiots will think those are the historical middle-class wage paying manufacturing jobs.

You make unsupported claims that are contradicted by statistical evidence, and then offer a useless anecdote.

Isn't it sad how some Obamabots ignore the poor when it's politically advantageous to do so?

The Left certainly isn't ignoring poverty. If we can gain enough votes in the Congress to enact the legislation we want that addresses poverty, we'll see the rate go down, while the Right squeals like pigs.

I’m right because I can find at least 500 links that support my position.

No, yer wrong, because the evidence clearly indicates that to be the case, yer number of links notwithstanding.
 
I'm not sure how much the Prez has to do with the recovery but his opposition sure did want to blame him when the economy was struggling in his first term

well it's been 7 years now and the economy still sucks, so time to START blaming obama.

and with adults working at 64%, the lowest in almost 50 years, it's moronic to point to employment and say obama is succeeding.

His economy is a failure, and will be remembered as such.
 
Median Household Income in the United States

2010 — 49276
2014 — 53657, up 9%
Nov 2015 — 56746 (est.) (source), up 15% from 2010

View attachment 67195888

As pinqy explained in another post, median personal income may be a better measure at the moment, given changes in demographics and labor force participation.

View attachment 67195889

2010 — 26175
2014 — 28757, up 10%

>>What does that tell you about the increase in 'production jobs' you tout?

Yer unsupported claim of "flat at best" doesn't tell me much of anything. The statistics I provided are more informative, imo.

>>I have a very good friend who manages a small production company … You throw up those BS charts thinking and hoping the useful idiots will think those are the historical middle-class wage paying manufacturing jobs.

You make unsupported claims that are contradicted by statistical evidence, and then offer a useless anecdote.



The Left certainly isn't ignoring poverty. If we can gain enough votes in the Congress to enact the legislation we want that addresses poverty, we'll see the rate go down, while the Right squeals like pigs.



No, yer wrong, because the evidence clearly indicates that to be the case, yer number of links notwithstanding.

Try this one.

https://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/series/MEHOINUSA672N


Putting more dems in congress to address the poverty issue = (rational people's interpretation) give more free-**** to the people in poverty. Make it comfortable to be a deadbeat......more people become deadbeats.......and loyal dem voters, which is all the dem elite really care about.
 
Last edited:
well it's been 7 years now and the economy still sucks, so time to START blaming obama.

and with adults working at 64%, the lowest in almost 50 years, it's moronic to point to employment and say obama is succeeding.

His economy is a failure, and will be remembered as such.

Can you tell me who controls both houses of Congress? If the economy is still as bad as it was, why don't those Republicans do something about it?

Excuses excuses

Plenty of blame to go around if what you say is true

But that is the question

Were is the proof in your statement?
 
Try this one.

I was responding to #56, where you claimed that median household income has been flat. If you want to talk about real income, you should say so.

What happened with that measure 2007-11, as we went from a bubble high to the consequences of the collapse associated with the housing crisis? Down eight percent. Makes flat look better, I'd say. And how about 2002-09, the Bush43 era? Up 1.6%. Sounds pretty flat to me.

real_median_hh_income_1948_2015.jpg

>>Putting more dems in congress to address the poverty issue = (rational people's interpretation) give more free-**** to the people in poverty.

I'd describe that as the reactionary interpretation. Right-wing SSE policies have created a huge disparity of income and wealth in the US. Giving massive and unproductive tax cuts to wealthy households.

well it's been 7 years now and the economy still sucks, so time to START blaming obama.

Well, you say it sucks, but the evidence indicates otherwise.

>>adults working at 64%, the lowest in almost 50 years, it's moronic to point to employment and say obama is succeeding.

Given the demographic changes in recent years, particularly the aging of the baby boomer cohort, it's moronic to point to the decline in the labor force participation rate in the past few years as an indication that Obummer is failing.

If you look at the more informative employment-population ratio, that has increased since 2009.

emp_pop_ratio_1948_2015.jpg

It's also higher than it was before 1985, when the economy was generally doing well. Did the economy suck 1948-85?

>>His economy is a failure, and will be remembered as such.

His policies helped dig us out of a big hole we were put in by the GOP SSE Great Recession. That's how they'll be remembered by people who aren't right-wing hacks.
 
No, yer wrong, because the evidence clearly indicates that to be the case, yer number of links notwithstanding.
No, the evidence overwhelmingly supports my positions.
 
The economy is doing quite well. Unless I'm mistaken, we've recovered from the recession better then most countries worldwide.

Finally someone with some common sense

The only reason to deny the current economic figures is pure partisanship. Frankly, I have never understood why so many on the opposite political scale take great delight in Americas supposedly terrible economic situation. It smacks of being unpatriotic, and kind or petty.
 
I was responding to #56, where you claimed that median household income has been flat. If you want to talk about real income, you should say so.

What happened with that measure 2007-11, as we went from a bubble high to the consequences of the collapse associated with the housing crisis? Down eight percent. Makes flat look better, I'd say. And how about 2002-09, the Bush43 era? Up 1.6%. Sounds pretty flat to me.

View attachment 67195896

>>Putting more dems in congress to address the poverty issue = (rational people's interpretation) give more free-**** to the people in poverty.

I'd describe that as the reactionary interpretation. Right-wing SSE policies have created a huge disparity of income and wealth in the US. Giving massive and unproductive tax cuts to wealthy households.



Well, you say it sucks, but the evidence indicates otherwise.

>>adults working at 64%, the lowest in almost 50 years, it's moronic to point to employment and say obama is succeeding.

Given the demographic changes in recent years, particularly the aging of the baby boomer cohort, it's moronic to point to the decline in the labor force participation rate in the past few years as an indication that Obummer is failing.

If you look at the more informative employment-population ratio, that has increased since 2009.

View attachment 67195894

It's also higher than it was before 1985, when the economy was generally doing well. Did the economy suck 1948-85?

>>His economy is a failure, and will be remembered as such.

His policies helped dig us out of a big hole we were put in by the GOP SSE Great Recession. That's how they'll be remembered by people who aren't right-wing hacks.

Aaahhhhh I see how you work, another liberal still trying to figure out what the definition of 'is' is.

You obviously don't know what the root cause of the GR was.
 
Finally someone with some common sense

The only reason to deny the current economic figures is pure partisanship. Frankly, I have never understood why so many on the opposite political scale take great delight in Americas supposedly terrible economic situation. It smacks of being unpatriotic, and kind or petty.

If the economy is so good, why do we have a record number of people on food stamps? (46 million)

Why is the middle class continually shrinking?
 
All Employees: Goods-Producing Industries

View attachment 67195872

1981-89 — down 0.3%
1989-93 — down 8%
1993-2001 — up 7%
2001-09 — down 22%
2009-15 — up 5%

Up 10% since 2010

Production and Nonsupervisory Employees: Professional and Business Services

View attachment 67195871

1981-89 — up 36%
1989-93 — up 10%
1993-2001 — up 36%
2001-09 — up 2%
2009-15 — up 22%

And this one.

https://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/series/GACDISA066MSFRBNY

Bush was just unlucky enough to be in office when the debt/subprime crisis, which he did not create, imploded. What is an Obamaphiles excuse for Obama?
 
If the economy is so good, why do we have a record number of people on food stamps? (46 million)

Why is the middle class continually shrinking?

I asked first, so please answer

If things are so bad why don't the Republicans get off there butts do something about it? You failed to answer the question on who controls congress, of course that answer does not fit into your political agenda of this post, does it?

Who's leaving America's middle class? | Pew Research Center

The middle class has been shrinking for 40 years, do the math, how many Republicans were in charge of the WH and Congress during that time. Stop blaming the countries supposedly stagnant economy on one party. It does nothing to advance your cause.
 
I asked first, so please answer

If things are so bad why don't the Republicans get off there butts do something about it? You failed to answer the question on who controls congress, of course that answer does not fit into your political agenda of this post, does it?

Who's leaving America's middle class? | Pew Research Center

The middle class has been shrinking for 40 years, do the math, how many Republicans were in charge of the WH and Congress during that time. Stop blaming the countries supposedly stagnant economy on one party. It does nothing to advance your cause.

You bit into that nonsense? Some changes made by any given congress or president can take years to truly effect changes in the economy. Some times the other party benefit of by being in office during the good times, and sometimes they get the blame for things they had nothing to do with.

It always has been that way, and probably always will be.
 
You bit into that nonsense? Some changes made by any given congress or president can take years to truly effect changes in the economy. Some times the other party benefit of by being in office during the good times, and sometimes they get the blame for things they had nothing to do with.

It always has been that way, and probably always will be.

Lol

I couldn't help myself

It was so EASY !!
 
Nutshell to this whole mess:


The Fed 0% rate QE1, 2, 3 plus has only created bubbles in every asset class from cars, homes to equities, with very limited material benefit to Obama's f*ed-up economy. The free-cash is over folks, all those bubbles will start to burst, and the economy is already slipping back into recession.
 
You bit into that nonsense? Some changes made by any given congress or president can take years to truly effect changes in the economy. Some times the other party benefit of by being in office during the good times, and sometimes they get the blame for things they had nothing to do with.

It always has been that way, and probably always will be.

I have said the same thing in earlier posts

Your preaching to the choir
 
Back
Top Bottom