• 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!

Strongest jobs recovery in decades.

I thought it was a Conservative with his massive tax breaks, foolish trillion+ dollar war and not so conservative spending that really dug us in deep. Something I learned today, your typical conservative has a very short memory.
 
Well, we already practice socialism to a degree. Social Security and welfare have existed for some time. Roosevelt's 2nd Bill of Rights would have gone a long way to keeping a more equal balance in America.

Social Security and all other welfare entitlement programs are unconstitutional.

And we've been practicing socialism for so long we have to start considering that the United States is expert at it, and it doesn't work.

Socialism never works. It violates human nature.

But a 100% capitalism is heartless for a nation that has a long history of being otherwise.

No, it's not.

Anyone who wants to give to charity can give to charity. How heartless is that? It's more heartless to steal money from people who earn it to buy votes from the poor eagerly wanting to sell their votes. Not to mention that it's unconstitutional.

It's bad enough that our corporations (Wal-Mart, Nike, etc) screw over many workers abroad,

Do they? Providing a job is "screwing people over"?

We need to be Americans first

And socialists never.

Socialism and the kleptocracy and slavery that goes with it are not compatible with the American ideal and they're not Constitutional, either.

corporations second. Since around the 80s, we have reversed that.

No. The fact of the corporation has been with this country since the first settlers arrived. The ability to incorporate is enshrined in the Constitution, under the First Amendment freedom to assemble and the Fourth Amendment freedom to own property,

Washington caters to corporations long before it caters to Americans,

Here's a novel idea:

Go back to demanding the government in Washington be limited by the explicit bounds of the Constitution, and the government will then no longer have the power to run a catering business.

We also have to consider the environment.

Absolutely. First we need to criminally prosecute the people promoting the Global Warming Hoax, and start firing the crew on the EPA that have been causing so much trouble. Once our environment is cleared of these pollutants, we can see how the improvements work out.

We are in a "Progress Trap." This is a term best explained using Easter Island.

Ya think the US is going to deforest itself? Do you seriously believe the logging companies are going to cut down all the trees, when their business is selling tree products?

Extremists who cite the unlikely aren't credible and pose a real threat to public safety.

Eventually, one guy visited the last tree on that island and hacked it down.

You know this for a fact? The movie Rapa Nui is a documentary? How certain are you that the people didn't protect the last tree until it died of old age? And, interestingly, Easter Island is too far from land for the indigenous forest to have been a remant cut off from the mainland by rising sea levels. No, the indigenous forest was also an immigrant forest, and it was only a matter of time before some chance event reseeded the island with trees of some sort.

Another example of the "Progress Trap" is in Canada. I forget what the site is called, but it was a location where hunters thousands of years ago used to run hundreds of bison over a cliff. They had evolved their hunting abilities to the point where they figured out that they didn't even have to try. They could just herd hundreds of them off a cliff and pick a few out for dinner. Eventually, they killed out all the game like this. They knew that the herds were becoming harder and harder to find, yet they practiced this until starvation took them or they migrated to find food elsewhere.

Just in case you missed it, but there were massive bison herds in North America until the middle of the 1800's. The indians never had a chance of exterminating THOSE megafauna. It took white men, white man rifles, and white man's horses, to almost make the bison extinct.

Capitalism is a progress trap in today's civilization.

Okay, we should only allow nations that were capitalist to remain capitalist. Fortunately for me, that means the United States should remain free. It's going to be rough on India, China, Ethiopia, Zaire, Cuba, and all the other places in the world ravaged by the evils of socialism, but hey, its not my problem what happens over there.

We see the rain forests, the oceans, and ecosystems being destroyed exponentially year after year, yet we continue to "progress" and push as if we can't see an end. 100% capitalism is not good for the economy as a whole, people as a whole, and the environment as a whole. Right now we consume 130% of what the earth can produce a year. This is mostly all through capitalism and it is the very few in corporate offices who are getting rich. In the mean time the bison are runnning out and the Easter Island heads can't be moved as they once could.

You got any clue what the word "exponentially" means? Want to know why the jungles in Brazil are being stripped?

It's because NO ONE OWNS THEM.

They're the "commons". And like all commons everywhere, no one owns them, so everyone seeks to maximize the immediate profit they can get from them before they're used up.

It's what socialism is really good at, destruction.

Japan can run around murdering whales for fake scientific reasearch because NO ONE OWNS the whales. There's no legal recourse anyone has to stop them. So now there's a popular TV show about terrorists engaging in piracy against Japanese ships in the Great Southern Ocean. What idiocy. Auction the damn whale pods to interested buyers, and sue poachers in international court when they're caught. Only licensed pod owners could sell whale product on the lawful market, and write the terms of the auction to ensure that the owners of the pod are stewards required to manage their property to increase it's numbers, something any sane capitalist would do as a matter of practical business sense. No rancher slaughters his herd in one season, or even so much that natural increases won't be able to keep him in business for the long term.

The problem with the whales is that they're part of the commons.
 
I thought it was a Conservative with his massive tax breaks, foolish trillion+ dollar war and not so conservative spending that really dug us in deep. Something I learned today, your typical conservative has a very short memory.

This economic problem started with Reagan, worked its way through Clinton and emerged with Bush. Without the Iraq war, this was still going to happen.

This is not just a conservative or a liberal creation. They are both at guilt and trying to play one up against the other merely encourages the same foolish partisan garbage that makes coming to a solution impossible.
 
This economic problem started with Reagan, worked its way through Clinton and emerged with Bush. Without the Iraq war, this was still going to happen.

This is not just a conservative or a liberal creation. They are both at guilt and trying to play one up against the other merely encourages the same foolish partisan garbage that makes coming to a solution impossible.

That's right.

Jimmy Carter never had to give a speech that was never later called his "Economic Malaise" speech. And since he never actually gave his Economic Malaise speech, it's not meaningful to say that Carter never actually used the phrase "Economic Malaise" in the speech he didn't give in which he told Americans there was nothing to do about the economy that wasn't deteroriating under his one and only single term presidency and that the Americans would just have to learn to lower their expectations about the future of their lives and their children's.

All the economic problems started with Reagan. You're absolutely right.
 
the putz on pennsylvania came out for 45 seconds this morning to assure us all we're heading in the right direction

gosh, what must be his goal?

img1A6.jpg
 
Socialism never works. It violates human nature.

The impractical vision of Marx was distorted and it manifested itself in the hands of Mao, Stalin, and Pol Pot. Whenever dreamers such as Marx shove their utopian ideas of how to perfect humanity, they should be silenced. We can't kill the dreamer, but we can certainly kill the dream. Imperfect humans will always dissapoint the perfect "-ism." The Age of Ideology (1789-1991) is dead. It's this period's extreme sense of how to organize people that have violated human nature.

But this doesn't mean that degree of this and that is harmful. Fascism and socialism slaughtered hundreds of millions of bodies. Capitalism is a bit more sly. There are no slaughtering grounds or genocidal numbers of corpses littering the landscape, but it has proven to be harmful unchecked.

Do they? Providing a job is "screwing people over"?

Look at it honestly. I would absolutely agree that localgovernments are ultimately responsible for their own. 600,000 Chinese die a year in sweat shops for American companies with no attention given to them by their own Chinese government. But it is our unchecked capitalist corporations that send jobs across the sea, leaving Americans jobless in order to get the next best thing to slavery (wages). If the average American troop is supposed to be an ambassador of our nation in foreign lands, what is our corporations supposed to be? Are they completely without responsibility? What's a soldier as compared to a multi-billion dollar industry that seeks to create sweat shops around the world for cheap labor?

I hate our corporations as much as I hate our media. Both feel more towards being a global citizen than they do about being an American one. This is why the media screws us over repeatedly. This is why our corporations now cater to foreign workers. Neither have a sense of loyalty outside of what will make a buck. And you defend this? You are the ignorant suicide bomber the smarter Bin Laden seeks for his cause.


And socialists never.

Socialism and the kleptocracy and slavery that goes with it are not compatible with the American ideal and they're not Constitutional, either.

This is not the Cold War anymore. The West, especially America, married democracy to capitalism while communists was married to socialism. Communism failed on a monumental level across the world in various cultures because it denied people the freedom to rise above another. Socialism maintained a sense of unfair equality. But this is 2010. The Berlin Wall came down 21 years ago. Democracy and capitalism prevailed. But pure capitalism is takling its toll on everything. The Scandinavian countries of Europe have struck a balance between capitalism and socialism while living in democracy (or republic). We just can't keep driving ourselves towards the global doom we all see and call it progress. Everything changes. The best empires in history were able to identify that and roll. Before us, the Romans and the Biritish went through many economic, religious, and government changes to continue its power. We have done the same. We have gone from being very happy as isolationalists to "world policemen" to what we are transitioning into today (though people haven't realized it yet). We got democracy right. We got the idea of capitalism right. But we have to marry capitalism to socialism in a way that pushes us forward without the trap. Time to evolve beyond the black and white. If we don't then we fall, which is eventually what the Romans did when they decided that no change was neccessary. The British, though not a global power on our level, continue to be strength because it continues to roll.


No. The fact of the corporation has been with this country since the first settlers arrived. The ability to incorporate is enshrined in the Constitution, under the First Amendment freedom to assemble and the Fourth Amendment freedom to own property,

And we will crumble under a great vision that has been twisted. Just like the twist between Marx and Stalin.

Go back to demanding the government in Washington be limited by the explicit bounds of the Constitution, and the government will then no longer have the power to run a catering business.

Well, it runs a catering business right now. It caters to the corporations. It caters to the oil companies that keep us moving. It caters to the money that gets them re-elected. It's disgusting. You aren't in charge. Wal-Mart and Exxon is.

Ya think the US is going to deforest itself? Do you seriously believe the logging companies are going to cut down all the trees, when their business is selling tree products?

Nope. I believe our current "Progress Trap" will have us cutting down the forests of foreign lands until we have to supply paper out of Yellow Stone National Park. And when our last tree is chopped down, we will simply perish like so many civilizations before us on a local level.

You know this for a fact? The movie Rapa Nui is a documentary? How certain are you that the people didn't protect the last tree until it died of old age? And, interestingly, Easter Island is too far from land for the indigenous forest to have been a remant cut off from the mainland by rising sea levels. No, the indigenous forest was also an immigrant forest, and it was only a matter of time before some chance event reseeded the island with trees of some sort.

More certain than you. The rocks were moved by trees. When the trees ran out, they began carving heads on the coasts. The could tell this by dating the stones. And eventually the island was made extinct of trees and human life because they moved off it or simply starved to death for lack of vegetation. I've noticed how people tend to accuse the scientists or thinkers as "radicals" or "extremists" while countering with a bunch of "accidents" and "by chances" or "fluke occurrence." In religious terms (as I am well versed) this is what the fanatic or extremists is only these "flukes" are explained by God.

Just in case you missed it, but there were massive bison herds in North America until the middle of the 1800's. The indians never had a chance of exterminating THOSE megafauna. It took white men, white man rifles, and white man's horses, to almost make the bison extinct.

You missed the point. Tghe herds I spoke of are recorded in northern Canada. But you assist in my point too by bringing up our territory. White men and their sense of progress slaughtered out the Bison even as they became well aware that it was becoming harder and harder to find the herds? This is another Progress Trap. The better they progressed their skills the harder it was to stop.

Okay, we should only allow nations that were capitalist to remain capitalist. Fortunately for me, that means the United States should remain free. It's going to be rough on India, China, Ethiopia, Zaire, Cuba, and all the other places in the world ravaged by the evils of socialism, but hey, its not my problem what happens over there.

You equate socialism to communism. This is a 20th century historical understanding as many do this. But this is not accurate. Neither is your idea that what "happens over there" doesn't matter to us. Our history proves that the health of foreign regions affects our security. We were isolationalists before Europeans sucked us out in to their world for two World Wars and then a Cold War. The oppressed and abused Middle East has facilitated hatred towards the West that goes back to European colonial days. Today we are the face of the West to many no matter what we do.

India is a perfect example of this, since you brought it up. For a period after WWII it was a nation of problems. Immigration into Europe and Amertica was exponentially growing because they were escaping misery for a chance at something better. In the mean time, with the wealthiest, brightest and educated leaving India, the people left behind were having more and more difficulty dealing with India's problems. It wasn't until America jumped in in the 60s and jump started their agricultural programs and economical bases that India turned around. All of a sudden Indians began returning to their homeland. India began to prosper. And what is India today? Aside from being a source for our corporations to export jobs, it is a genuine contributer to international society. It is no longer a burden as it was.

India is an example of how unhealthy regions abroad do affect us. The solution is simple. Give them a reason to stay at home and they will. Capitalism is raping their landscapes and they will seek a better land to prosper. And where do you think that is? Where has that always been?


You got any clue what the word "exponentially" means? Want to know why the jungles in Brazil are being stripped?

It's because NO ONE OWNS THEM.

They're the "commons". And like all commons everywhere, no one owns them, so everyone seeks to maximize the immediate profit they can get from them before they're used up.

Immediate profit is a capitalist term that destroys because in the end that which provided the immediate orgasm goes away. In the end they will be used up and what will your bank account show for it? I'm assuming you aren't a corporate suit ****ting on the rest of us. And "exponentially" means an increase at ever more increments. And when they are used up as you stated?


The problem with the whales is that they're part of the commons.

And when there are no whales? Will the retarded still speak on the demand to hunt until extinction? It may have been good for the very few individuals in corporate offices, but what did it do for your bank account? ****. Yet you stroke away.
 
Last edited:
That's right.

Jimmy Carter never had to give a speech that was never later called his "Economic Malaise" speech. And since he never actually gave his Economic Malaise speech, it's not meaningful to say that Carter never actually used the phrase "Economic Malaise" in the speech he didn't give in which he told Americans there was nothing to do about the economy that wasn't deteroriating under his one and only single term presidency and that the Americans would just have to learn to lower their expectations about the future of their lives and their children's.

All the economic problems started with Reagan. You're absolutely right.

So you wish to start it with Carter? Fine by me. I'm not the partisan slave you appear to be. Either way, both worthless parties are at fault. But consider this...

- 20 years of Republican White House came after Carter.

- 10 years of Democratic White House came after Carter.

That's 30 years of Republican and Democratic BS gumming up the works, most of which was Republican. Still seeking to exonerate Republican hands? Instead of being a stooge for one of them, criticize both.
 
Last edited:
I thought it was a Conservative with his massive tax breaks, foolish trillion+ dollar war and not so conservative spending that really dug us in deep. Something I learned today, your typical conservative has a very short memory.

Actually, that didn't have anything to do with it...LMAO!!
 
What he said ^^^


Tim-

Okay. Let's examine this historically:

Reagan's recession: 7/81 to 11/82 - 16 months.

Let's look at the unemployment rate under his first term:

In February, 1981 the unemployment rate was 7.4%

By this point in his term, the unemployment rate was 10.1%.

At the end of the recession in November of 1982, unemployment was 10.8%.

It would not be until September, 1984 that the unemployment rate returned to its original level, slightly lower at 7.3%. It wouldn't be until well into 1987 that the unemployment rate would return consistantly under 7%.

So, Reagan's recovery took much longer than the present one and unemployment continued upward for quite some time, as opposed to the present recovery, where unemployment has at least stagnated.

Let's look at Bush's 1st recession: 3/01 to 11/01 - 8 months.

In February, 2001 Bush's unemployment rate was 4.2%.

At the end of the recession, the unemployment rate was 5.5%.

Post-recession, the unemployment rate would continue to slowly increase to 6.3%, peaking in June, 2003.

So, in other words: under Reagan, and under Bush - unemployment continued RISING for nearly one full year at this point in their recoveries.

In the present recession - which is considered by basically everyone to be the worst since the Depression - unemployment has stabilized and has already come down from its peak of 10.1% in October of last year.

Do you denounce a single one of these facts? If so, how?

In other words, the current recovery is actually ahead of both Reagan's and Bush's - and Bush's was by far the weakest of the three recessions.

So, I guess I'm asking why you think Obama (whose recovery is actually ahead of both Reagan's and Bush's pace) is to blame (credit?), but Reagan and Bush were to credit (or blame?).

I think the title of the article is pretty hyperbolic. But job growth always lags behind other factors in economic recovery. Perhaps you can find a recovery that went differently, but I'm not aware of one.
 
Hardly. As much as the Americans like to think that they're the only gem of purity and goodness in the world, and that every other country on the face of the earth ought to either grovel or stay out of America's way, the reality is that, in the year 2010, your nation, along with the rest of the world, has come a long way from 1991. America is once again just one power among many, and any rational man can tell you that, for all of the stories of interdependence between America and China, it's the EU and America that are the closest partners when it comes down to world relations. It'd be disastrous to America to see the EU breakup, and it'd be disastrous to the EU to see America breakup.

Now, admittedly, I am English, and you're right in saying that the current trend is probably more favourable to our half of the partnership, whereas America's going through some rough times right now. But it'd be daft to alienate your most vital allies and partners because you're sore about losing your preeminent status.

here's one american conservative who's hardly chauvinist

i mean, i root for america, and all, but...

rooting is for little girls

i'm more like a buddhist, a kinda macho buddhist...

anyway, i just observe, and my disposition to the soon-to-come and totally unavoidable u.s. collapse is---well, if we deserve it...

it will come

same as the eu, which has enacted some rather odd directions herself in the last decades, we've watched

and of course, by nature, like phsyics, it is where it is

UK budget deficit 'to surpass Greece's as worst in EU' | Business | The Guardian

you were ahead of us, we're rapidly following, you're suddenly trying to swing around that leviathan

the word is austerity
 
Recovery? You have to be kidding. The only reason that job losses are fewer is because we have already lost so many jobs that there are fewer jobs to lose, so there are fewer job losses. A recovery is when we begin getting jobs back, not losing fewer of them.

that is spot on, that is extremely important and fundamentally basic, when you're starting from way, way down, it's hard to go lower

it's the kind of observation i'm loathe to make as it is so prone to misinterpretation by the kids in the back, and i dread explaining...

thanks
 
Well, we already practice socialism to a degree.

you can say that again

Washington caters to corporations long before it caters to Americans

washington caters to everyone

We also have to consider the environment. We are in a "Progress Trap." This is a term best explained using Easter Island. This island used to [be] saturated with forest. Over the centuries, the indigenous people hacked down trees to use as rollers to move their rock carved heads around the island. At one point, the trees were becoming scarce and this is where [when] rock heads started to be left on the coasts. Eventually, one guy visited the last tree on that island and hacked it down. What this means is that people had a sense of progress in their heads with these carved heads and no matter how obvious the end was, they continued as if committing suicide.

wow, someone really got an A on a bluebook

Capitalism is a progress trap in today's civilization. We see the rain forests, the oceans, and ecosystems being destroyed exponentially year after year

global warming is so dead as an issue, rarely has a platform so high fallen with such hubris so fast

when's the last time someone around here pushed it, how far did it go?

did you see what happened in the copenhagen cold?

In the mean time the bison are runnning out and the Easter Island heads can't be moved as they once could.

whoa

i guess it's just a matter of priorities

y'know, in times like these
 
I thought it was a Conservative with his massive tax breaks, foolish trillion+ dollar war and not so conservative spending that really dug us in deep.

i guess what's-his-name wasn't such a con, after all

ESPECIALLY in foreign policy, his white house was RADICALLY neocon
 
global warming is so dead as an issue, rarely has a platform so high fallen with such hubris so fast

when's the last time someone around here pushed it, how far did it go?

did you see what happened in the copenhagen cold?


It's not about global warming. It's about obliterating natural resources until there are none left. Global Warming hadnothing to do with past "Progress Traps." We have a human history of doing this over and over from culture to culture and from region to region. When oil runs out where will you get your plastics? When we kill off all the trees how will you build your homes or heat them?

There's a great book on this called the "Short History of Human Progress.' It goes back thousands of years and shows this trap of progress from era to era across the world. With you defaulting to denials of Global Warming, as if it had anything to do with what I stated, you prove how radical you are in your blindness. You may as well kill for God.


whoa

i guess it's just a matter of priorities

y'know, in times like these

Our priorities are a joke. In the end, those priorities are extremely short term.
 
Last edited:
Jobs recovery is stronger than past recessions - Sep. 2, 2010

Also from the article:



Now I would like to ask the folks out there in the audience this question:

If a second stimulus is needed to avoid a secondary and possibly more severe recession, would you be in favour of it?

Although the question is irrelevent as the White House has said there will be no second stimulus.

I think many people out there seriously underestimate just how severe this recession is, and that there is no magic fix for it.

Would you explain to me how the job creation that has led to a reduction in the number of people employed can be called a recovery and the strongest job recovery in decades?

Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
1980 99879 99995 99713 99233 98945 98682 98796 98824 99077 99317 99545 99634
1981 99955 100191 100571 101056 101048 100298 100693 100689 100064 100378 100207 99645
1982 99692 99762 99672 99576 100116 99543 99493 99633 99504 99215 99112 99032
1983 99161 99089 99179 99560 99642 100633 101208 101608 102016 102039 102729 102996
1984 103201 103824 103967 104336 105193 105591 105435 105163 105490 105638 105972 106223
1985 106302 106555 106989 106936 106932 106505 106807 107095 107657 107847 108007 108216
1986 108887 108480 108837 108952 109089 109576 109810 110015 110085 110273 110475 110728
1987 110953 111257 111408 111794 112434 112246 112634 113057 112909 113282 113505 113793
1988 114016 114227 114037 114650 114292 114927 115060 115282 115356 115638 116100 116104
1989 116708 116776 117022 117097 117099 117418 117472 117655 117354 117581 117912 117830
1990 119081 119059 119203 118852 119151 118983 118810 118802 118524 118536 118306 118241
1991 117940 117755 117652 118109 117440 117639 117568 117484 117928 117800 117770 117466
1992 117978 117753 118144 118426 118375 118419 118713 118826 118720 118628 118876 118997
1993 119075 119275 119542 119474 120115 120290 120467 120856 120554 120823 121169 121464
1994 121966 122086 121930 122290 122864 122634 122706 123342 123687 124112 124516 124721
1995 124663 124928 124955 124945 124421 124522 124816 124852 125133 125388 125188 125088
1996 125125 125639 125862 125994 126244 126602 126947 127172 127536 127890 127771 127860
1997 128298 128298 128891 129143 129464 129412 129822 130010 130019 130179 130653 130679
1998 130726 130807 130814 131209 131325 131244 131329 131390 131986 131999 132280 132602
1999 133027 132856 132947 132955 133311 133378 133414 133591 133707 133993 134309 134523
2000 136559 136598 136701 137270 136630 136940 136531 136662 136893 137088 137322 137614
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 143142 143444 143765 143794 144108 144370 144229 144631 144797 145292 145477 145914
2007 146032 146043 146368 145686 145952 146079 145926 145685 146193 145885 146483 146173
2008 146421 146165 146173 146306 146023 145768 145515 145187 145021 144677 143907 143188
2009 142221 141687 140854 140902 140438 140038 139817 139433 138768 138242 138381 137792
2010 138333 138641 138905 139455 139420 139119 138960 139250

What I see here are 139.250 million people employed this August vs. 139.433 million in August 2009. Compare that to the 142.2 million employed when Obama took office. How can anyone say that the economy is headed in the right direction unless the goal was to destroy the job market and the economy?
 
It's not about global warming. It's about obliterating natural resources until there are none left. Global Warming hadnothing to do with past "Progress Traps." We have a human history of doing this over and over from culture to culture and from region to region. When oil runs out where will you get your plastics? When we kill off all the trees how will you build your homes or heat them?

these days, you sound like a birther

carry on
 
Would you explain to me how the job creation that has led to a reduction in the number of people employed can be called a recovery and the strongest job recovery in decades?

Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
1980 99879 99995 99713 99233 98945 98682 98796 98824 99077 99317 99545 99634
1981 99955 100191 100571 101056 101048 100298 100693 100689 100064 100378 100207 99645
1982 99692 99762 99672 99576 100116 99543 99493 99633 99504 99215 99112 99032
1983 99161 99089 99179 99560 99642 100633 101208 101608 102016 102039 102729 102996
1984 103201 103824 103967 104336 105193 105591 105435 105163 105490 105638 105972 106223
1985 106302 106555 106989 106936 106932 106505 106807 107095 107657 107847 108007 108216
1986 108887 108480 108837 108952 109089 109576 109810 110015 110085 110273 110475 110728
1987 110953 111257 111408 111794 112434 112246 112634 113057 112909 113282 113505 113793
1988 114016 114227 114037 114650 114292 114927 115060 115282 115356 115638 116100 116104
1989 116708 116776 117022 117097 117099 117418 117472 117655 117354 117581 117912 117830
1990 119081 119059 119203 118852 119151 118983 118810 118802 118524 118536 118306 118241
1991 117940 117755 117652 118109 117440 117639 117568 117484 117928 117800 117770 117466
1992 117978 117753 118144 118426 118375 118419 118713 118826 118720 118628 118876 118997
1993 119075 119275 119542 119474 120115 120290 120467 120856 120554 120823 121169 121464
1994 121966 122086 121930 122290 122864 122634 122706 123342 123687 124112 124516 124721
1995 124663 124928 124955 124945 124421 124522 124816 124852 125133 125388 125188 125088
1996 125125 125639 125862 125994 126244 126602 126947 127172 127536 127890 127771 127860
1997 128298 128298 128891 129143 129464 129412 129822 130010 130019 130179 130653 130679
1998 130726 130807 130814 131209 131325 131244 131329 131390 131986 131999 132280 132602
1999 133027 132856 132947 132955 133311 133378 133414 133591 133707 133993 134309 134523
2000 136559 136598 136701 137270 136630 136940 136531 136662 136893 137088 137322 137614
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 143142 143444 143765 143794 144108 144370 144229 144631 144797 145292 145477 145914
2007 146032 146043 146368 145686 145952 146079 145926 145685 146193 145885 146483 146173
2008 146421 146165 146173 146306 146023 145768 145515 145187 145021 144677 143907 143188
2009 142221 141687 140854 140902 140438 140038 139817 139433 138768 138242 138381 137792
2010 138333 138641 138905 139455 139420 139119 138960 139250

What I see here are 139.250 million people employed this August vs. 139.433 million in August 2009. Compare that to the 142.2 million employed when Obama took office. How can anyone say that the economy is headed in the right direction unless the goal was to destroy the job market and the economy?

And please note from your own statistics:
Reagan: February, 1981 - 100,191 August, 1982 - 99,633
Bush: February, 2001 - 137,612 August, 2002 - 136,705
Obama: February, 2009 - 141,687 August, 2010 - 139,250

Huh? All three of them in a recovery from a recession and all three of them at simultaneous points in their terms had all lost jobs. Huh? Wow! Who knew that jobs lag during a recovery? I'd never have expected that. Nor would I have argued that!

Oh, wait. It's what I've been saying to all of you.

The biggest criticism that I can levy at Obama was claiming that the stimulus would prevent unemployment from rising. Now, it did save some jobs (using CBO numbers) but it wasn't going to be enough to prevent this from happening. Neither were Reagan's efforts; nor Bush's efforts.

This is the natural part of a post-recession process. I ask you, once again, find me a recession that didn't result in job losses even well into the recovery? Find one for me.
 
And please note from your own statistics:
Reagan: February, 1981 - 100,191 August, 1982 - 99,633
Bush: February, 2001 - 137,612 August, 2002 - 136,705
Obama: February, 2009 - 141,687 August, 2010 - 139,250

Huh? All three of them in a recovery from a recession and all three of them at simultaneous points in their terms had all lost jobs. Huh? Wow! Who knew that jobs lag during a recovery? I'd never have expected that. Nor would I have argued that!

Oh, wait. It's what I've been saying to all of you.

The biggest criticism that I can levy at Obama was claiming that the stimulus would prevent unemployment from rising. Now, it did save some jobs (using CBO numbers) but it wasn't going to be enough to prevent this from happening. Neither were Reagan's efforts; nor Bush's efforts.

This is the natural part of a post-recession process. I ask you, once again, find me a recession that didn't result in job losses even well into the recovery? Find one for me.

Interesting how you interpret the numbers. I see job losses since he took office and I see losses every month this year vs. last year. Reagan loses 500k his first year, Bush lost 900k his first year, and Obama lost 2.4 million his first year yet Obama supporters call that a the strongest job market in decades and that is after signing a stimulus plan that was supposed to cap unemployment at 8%.

There is no question that unemployment is a lagging indicator but the problem is the economy plan Obama has in place to create jobs, massive govt. growth and spending, whereas both Bush and Reagan promoted the private sector. There is no question which programs grow jobs and which do not. Obama economic plan is a failure and the only similarity between Reagan, Bush, and Obama is that all three lost jobs but that is where the similarities end.
 
Interesting how you interpret the numbers. I see job losses since he took office and I see losses every month this year vs. last year. Reagan loses 500k his first year, Bush lost 900k his first year, and Obama lost 2.4 million his first year yet Obama supporters call that a the strongest job market in decades and that is after signing a stimulus plan that was supposed to cap unemployment at 8%.

There is no question that unemployment is a lagging indicator but the problem is the economy plan Obama has in place to create jobs, massive govt. growth and spending, whereas both Bush and Reagan promoted the private sector. There is no question which programs grow jobs and which do not. Obama economic plan is a failure and the only similarity between Reagan, Bush, and Obama is that all three lost jobs but that is where the similarities end.

But, how am I supposed to know that Reagan and Bush policies worked if I'm in the present?

If I were unemployed under Reagan, am I supposed to just sit by and be reassured, that four years later, the jobless rate would return to the same level it was when he took office?

Or, as you're doing - should I have said - YOU SUCK AND YOUR POLICIES SUCK because RIGHT NOW you have lost jobs under your presidency. Should we have voted against Reagan? Bush? (I wish, but that's beside the point).

You're saying that we shouldn't have judged them during their terms by the numbers you're using to judge Obama now.

I'm all right with you hating him and his policies. By the evidence you're providing is precisely the evidence that suggests that we should have thrown out Reagan and Bush during their economic recoveries.
 
By historical standards, the labor market is recovering nicely -- job growth has started earlier than in past recessions.

This is a disingenuousness claim at best, because the unemployment rate just went back up to 9.6 which means Obama's stimulus plan has served no purpose other than to send the deficit into the stratosphere for nothing.

His plans have failed at every turn like that utterly stupid Cash for Clunkers debacle that cost us tax payers $28.000 per car sold and most of those were for Toyotas, and the dumb ass idea took perfectly serviceable late model cars off the road and put them in the junk yard years ahead of time and killing the used car market that mifg have done some good had this been a well thought out program.

This is only one example from the Amateur in Chief's less than brilliant Administration and don't get me started on all the damage to come from the Kill Granny I don't care about your health Obama plan and Crap and the Trade B.S.
 
But, how am I supposed to know that Reagan and Bush policies worked if I'm in the present?

If I were unemployed under Reagan, am I supposed to just sit by and be reassured, that four years later, the jobless rate would return to the same level it was when he took office?

Or, as you're doing - should I have said - YOU SUCK AND YOUR POLICIES SUCK because RIGHT NOW you have lost jobs under your presidency. Should we have voted against Reagan? Bush? (I wish, but that's beside the point).

You're saying that we shouldn't have judged them during their terms by the numbers you're using to judge Obama now.

I'm all right with you hating him and his policies. By the evidence you're providing is precisely the evidence that suggests that we should have thrown out Reagan and Bush during their economic recoveries.

Because the numbers show that they worked, economic growth in bea.gov and U.S. Treasury in showing growth of revene to the govt. If you were unemployed under Reagan you had the knowledge of an economic policy that promoted private sector growth and that you wouldn't be penalized for taking the risk. same with Bush, not so with Obama.

I don't hate Obama, but his policies are another story. As for throwing out either Reagan or Bush, why would I do that knowing what their economic policy was, pro growth, pro private sector vs. Obama's pro govt, pro union, and anti private sector. The malaise now says it all, not the case when Reagan or Bush announced their economic plans, but we are getting off track here again as once again another liberal diverts from the thread topic.

I want to know how anyone can post this is the strongest job growth in decades when the actual numbers prove differently?
 
these days, you sound like a birther

carry on

Earlier you used "bluebook" and now you use "birther." I don't know what you mean by "bluebook," but I'm guessing "birther" means woman? It would be easier to discuss these things if you maintained a measure of maturity and rationality rather than the school yard "nu-uh" mentality and fanaticism. Thus far, you haven't offerred anything worthy of a post for anybody to read. But I won't cut you off. I'm thinking positive and leaving the door open for you to come through with something of worth.
 
Last edited:
Because the numbers show that they worked, economic growth in bea.gov and U.S. Treasury in showing growth of revene to the govt. If you were unemployed under Reagan you had the knowledge of an economic policy that promoted private sector growth and that you wouldn't be penalized for taking the risk. same with Bush, not so with Obama.

I don't hate Obama, but his policies are another story. As for throwing out either Reagan or Bush, why would I do that knowing what their economic policy was, pro growth, pro private sector vs. Obama's pro govt, pro union, and anti private sector. The malaise now says it all, not the case when Reagan or Bush announced their economic plans, but we are getting off track here again as once again another liberal diverts from the thread topic.

I want to know how anyone can post this is the strongest job growth in decades when the actual numbers prove differently?

I've already called the title histrionic, so I'm not one of those, so please don't lump me in with them.

My point about Reagan and Bush is this: place yourself in 1982 and tell me that Reagan's policies were working. You do realize that at this point in his term, Regan's unemployment rate was 10.1% and was on it's way to a peak of 10.8% in December of that year? How could you, in August, 1982 after watching unemployment climb and climb under Reagan say that you supported his policies at that time based on the evidence OF THAT TIME. You had no evidence that anything he was doing was working when unemployment continued to go up and up and would continue upward for many more months.

You can only say, in retrospect, that they did anything.

Now, your first paragraph - fair enough. You can like their policies and dislike Obama's.

But the point of the OP was this: the unemployment rate is down from a peak of 10.1% to 9.6%. Under Bush and Reagan, it would be nearly another year before jobs caught up to the recovery and the unemployment rate would begin to drop.

That's not trying to divert from the topic - which is about comparing Obama's recovery to past recoveries; it's pointing out that the unemployment rate under Obama is declining earlier in his recovery than it did under Reagan and Bush. You can hate that (and I'm aware that unemployment rate isn't totally accurate), but it's factual. I will grant you that it's not guaranteed to stay that way.

But in August, 1982, you couldn't have known for a fact that Reagan's policies were going to work - especially since unemployment would continue to rise for another several months and wouldn't reach matching levels for nearly three years.

I don't share your views and that's fine. What I'm trying to get people to do is to point to facts. Yes, employment since Obama took office. But it did so under Reagan and Bush. The decline in the unemployment rate began earlier under Obama's term than it did under Reagan and Bush. That's factual. Again, the title of the article is hyperbolic. I said that in an earlier post.

Here's a chart about private-sector job growth since the Great Recession began:

privatejobs_aug10.jpg


The Washington Monthly

They are different if you count government jobs:

jobs_aug10.jpg


Additionally, this past quarter's drop in productivity suggests that companies NEED to begin hiring more workers to maintain productivity.

Productivity decline suggests hiring needed | OregonLive.com

The Buzz: Productivity drop shows companies need to hire - Yahoo! Finance

As we all know - they have the cash to do it.

Corporate Profits Back Up to Nearly Record Highs

And if things are sooooooo bad for business, why are profits back up to record highs - both by basic numbers and as a percentage of GDP?
 
FilmFestGuy;1058963951]I've already called the title histrionic, so I'm not one of those, so please don't lump me in with them.

My point about Reagan and Bush is this: place yourself in 1982 and tell me that Reagan's policies were working. You do realize that at this point in his term, Regan's unemployment rate was 10.1% and was on it's way to a peak of 10.8% in December of that year? How could you, in August, 1982 after watching unemployment climb and climb under Reagan say that you supported his policies at that time based on the evidence OF THAT TIME. You had no evidence that anything he was doing was working when unemployment continued to go up and up and would continue upward for many more months.

I lived and worked during the Reagan years, I was 34-42 during the era so I have a very good perspective of what happened and the attitude of the country. I watched the Unemployment climb and watched the Congress argue the Reagan tax cuts that didn't get passed until August 1981. the 10-10-5% cuts led to the cries of the Democrats about massive debt when the reality was they doubled the govt. revenue and led to a massive economic expansion. Think the Obama policies will do the same?

Obama economic plan went into effect Feb. 2, 2009 due to the Democrat Congress and here we are almost 2 years later with the claim of strongest job creation in decades. That is quite a stretch and distortion.

You can only say, in retrospect, that they did anything.

I really don't have a lot of use for your charts because they aren't supported by the only source credible when it comes to job creation and unemployment, the Bureau of Labor Statistics. I posted the results that shows employment down by over 3 million and unemployment up to almost 16 million. I don't call that a success story

the rest of your post has nothing to do with the thread topic even though it presents a distorted view of the Obama record. No business is going to hire with the uncertainty as to the costs of the Obama Agenda. We know what the cost of the Reagan and Bush agendas were for private business, nothing and that boosted incentive and job growth.

Businesses aren't going to hire and since payroll is the largest expense a business has their profits are going to be strong. For every dollar of expense cut that is a dollar of profit generated, for every dollar of revenue generated that is about about .05-35 cents in profit.
 
Back
Top Bottom