Obama Heralds 1.1M Private Sector Jobs Created Since Jan.

Kushinator · Nov 27, 2010

Conservative said:
One taxpayer paying $1 or two taxpayers paying .50(FIFTY CENTS) each, sorry, forgot who I was dealing with.

This is a ridiculous argument. Can you show that tax cuts were responsible for a doubling of the workforce? If not, then your example is not bounded in reality.

in 2008 Consumption was over 10.1 trillion dollars out of a 14.3 trillion economy showing the power of the consumer and the benefits of higher take home pay thanks to the Bush tax cuts.

What the **** are you talking about, power of the consumer? Are you magically forgetting that economy slid into the worst recession since WWII following the actions (which you label as an absolute positive) of the Bush administration? Not that i am attributing Bush policies as a cause of the recession, only that this occured in accordance of his policies.

Saving money reduces demand on govt. services but saving money does create interest or dividends which are taxable.

Paying down debt is equivalent to saving money. In a consumer driven economy that is heavily indebted, interest payments will overtake income earned through saving (interest payments from a bank). Any consumer who took the proceeds from any tax cut, and spent them on equities will most likely be regretting that investment now. Investing does not equal saving.

You continue to spout the same rhetoric while ignoring the points made.

My so called "rhetoric" was in response to your so called "points made". Tax cuts only lead to economic growth if the money is spent on domestic goods/services. If the money is saved, it does not flow into the economy in the near term, which leads to deficits if spending is not cut in accordance with tax cuts.

You simply cannot admit that you are wrong and the points I have made are valid.

The validity of your points require heroic assumptions on saving and spending. You have to ignore time, leakage (do you even know what it is?), government spending, deficits, etc..., to come to those conclusions.

Do you honestly believe any valid economic analysis ignores important factors?

Liberals always ignore posts that refute their rhetoric and make them look bad. Facts definitely make you look bad.

For the nth time, stop trying to turn this into a discussion about me. We are discussing topics, not each other.

Conservative · Nov 27, 2010

Goldenboy219;1059125530]This is a ridiculous argument. Can you show that tax cuts were responsible for a doubling of the workforce? If not, then your example is not bounded in reality.

You really need to learn to read, but no the workforce didn't double but there were almost 18 million jobs created. Can you show me that the tax cuts didn't affect the creation of those jobs?

What the **** are you talking about, power of the consumer? Are you magically forgetting that economy slid into the worst recession since WWII following the actions (which you label as an absolute positive) of the Bush administration? Not that i am attributing Bush policies as a cause of the recession, only that this occured in accordance of his policies.

Instead of burying your head in an economics book you probably should have put it into a civics book and a history book. The recession of 1981-82 was worse than the 2007-2009 recession as I lived and worked during both. Home buyers loved the 20+ misery index and paying 18% for a home mortgage. There was no comparison between the recession nor in the economic policies that got us out of the 81-82 recession. Interesting fact that you want to ignore, 4 million jobs lost since Obama took office and 3 trillion added to the debt.

Paying down debt is equivalent to saving money. In a consumer driven economy that is heavily indebted, interest payments will overtake income earned through saving (interest payments from a bank). Any consumer who took the proceeds from any tax cut, and spent them on equities will most likely be regretting that investment now. Investing does not equal saving.

Paying down debt helps both the consumer and the company. Consumers have more money, higher savings and companies have more cash and less accounts receivable. It is a win-win situation. Investment income is taxable and increases govt. revenue so not sure you understand that concept.

My so called "rhetoric" was in response to your so called "points made". Tax cuts only lead to economic growth if the money is spent on domestic goods/services. If the money is saved, it does not flow into the economy in the near term, which leads to deficits if spending is not cut in accordance with tax cuts.

There was economic growth after the Bush and Reagan Tax cuts and there was job creation. You really don't seem to understand how our economy works and totally ignore corporate activity as you focus purely on individual activity. It really doesn't serve much purpose here for me to try and convince you one that I don't care how much you make and hope it is millions, nor that there is value in keeping more of what you earn. You have been brainwashed.

The validity of your points require heroic assumptions on saving and spending. You have to ignore time, leakage (do you even know what it is?), government spending, deficits, etc..., to come to those conclusions.

I prefer logic and common sense as well as historical data. Explain to me how govt. revenue grew AFTER the Reagan and Bush tax cuts. Your argument to tie taxes to spending is bogus. If less money is coming in, stop spending. Problem is more money was coming in and the govt. spent it. I have given you the sites to check on revenue and expenses. You choose your economics textbook.

For the nth time, stop trying to turn this into a discussion about me. We are discussing topics, not each other.

You are the one that wants to divert from the thread topic and thus it has become about you, your textbook education and lack of personal business experience. The facts that you continue to ignore are the 4 million jobs lost, 16 million total unemployed, and 3 trillion added to the debt all leading to the shellacking Obama took on Nov. 2. You really need to get out into the real world more.

Donc · Nov 27, 2010

From BLS.gov in case anyone is interested.:2wave:

TOTAL NONFARM ALL EMPLOYEES (in thousands), NOT SEASONALLY ADJUSTED

Jan of 2001=130433

Jan of=2002=128602

Jan of=2003=128248

Jan of=2004=128365

Jan of=2005=130369

Jan of=2006= 132961

Jan of=2007= 134952

Jan of=2008=135840

pbrauer · Nov 27, 2010

donc said:
From BLS.gov in case anyone is interested.:2wave:

TOTAL NONFARM ALL EMPLOYEES (in thousands), NOT SEASONALLY ADJUSTED

Jan of 2001=130433

Jan of=2002=128602

Jan of=2003=128248

Jan of=2004=128365

Jan of=2005=130369

Jan of=2006= 132961

Jan of=2007= 134952

Jan of=2008=135840

And during that period, the population grew at about 10%

Conservative · Nov 27, 2010

donc said:
From BLS.gov in case anyone is interested.:2wave:

TOTAL NONFARM ALL EMPLOYEES (in thousands), NOT SEASONALLY ADJUSTED

Jan of 2001=130433

Jan of=2002=128602

Jan of=2003=128248

Jan of=2004=128365

Jan of=2005=130369

Jan of=2006= 132961

Jan of=2007= 134952

Jan of=2008=135840

Thought this was 2010, wonder why you didn't post those numbers, further why not seasonally adjusted, you have a problem with construction workers although it really doesn't matter, the Obama record is bad regardless of the chart.

Here is the seasonally adjusted numbers showing 4 million lost jobs.

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 139391 139061

Conservative · Nov 27, 2010

pbrauer said:
And during that period, the population grew at about 10%

Guess the population hasn't grown the past two years since we lost 4 million jobs.

Donc · Nov 27, 2010

Conservative said:
Thought this was 2010, wonder why you didn't post those numbers, further why not seasonally adjusted, you have a problem with construction workers although it really doesn't matter, the Obama record is bad regardless of the chart.

Here is the seasonally adjusted numbers showing 4 million lost jobs.

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 139391 139061

When you posted this in post #177(almost 18 million jobs created. Can you show me that the tax cuts didn't affect the creation of those jobs) it got me wondering where the “18 million jobs”were.

pbrauer · Nov 27, 2010

Conservative said:
Guess the population hasn't grown the past two years since we lost 4 million jobs.

The jobs were lost due to a deep recession that started in the Bush administration. An even he acknowledged in his book Decision Points the recession was caused by Wall Street.

Conservative · Nov 27, 2010

donc said:
When you posted this in post #177(almost 18 million jobs created. Can you show me that the tax cuts didn't affect the creation of those jobs) it got me wondering where the “18 million jobs”were.

Do the math, December 1980 to December 1989 when the Reagan economic policy expired.

Conservative · Nov 27, 2010

pbrauer said:
The jobs were lost due to a deep recession that started in the Bush administration. An even he acknowledged in his book Decision Points the recession was caused by Wall Street.

You mean the deep recession that ended in June 2009, four months after Obama took office? Shouldn't the population growth have created some jobs after the end of the recession instead of losing jobs every month of 2010 vs. 2009?

Conservative · Nov 27, 2010

pbrauer said:
The jobs were lost due to a deep recession that started in the Bush administration. An even he acknowledged in his book Decision Points the recession was caused by Wall Street.

A deep recession today is the inability to get an IPhone or IPad. a Deep recession in 1981-82 was paying over 17% for a mortgage and having over 10% unemployment. There weren't enough UHauls in country to handle the moves from reposessed homes.

Donc · Nov 27, 2010

Conservative said:
Do the math, December 1980 to December 1989 when the Reagan economic policy expired.

What post was Reagan mentioned?

Conservative · Nov 27, 2010

donc said:
What post was Reagan mentioned?

Earllier in this thread as I explained to Golden Boy about the tax cuts of Reagan and Bush and how both created jobs and grew govt. revenue. Bush's job creation was 8.5 million until May of 2008 and then 2 million jobs were lost June-December for a net of 6.5 gain. Obama has a net job loss of 4 million in less than two years and an economic policy that doesn't promote job creation and private sector growth.

Donc · Nov 27, 2010

Conservative said:
Earllier in this thread as I explained to Golden Boy about the tax cuts of Reagan and Bush and how both created jobs and grew govt. revenue. Bush's job creation was 8.5 million until May of 2008 and then 2 million jobs were lost June-December for a net of 6.5 gain. Obama has a net job loss of 4 million in less than two years and an economic policy that doesn't promote job creation and private sector growth.

There ya go again, comparing an eight-year presidency with one that’s less than two years.

Conservative · Nov 27, 2010

donc said:
There ya go again, comparing an eight-year presidency with one that’s less than two years.

In less than 2 years the economic policy of Obama has lost 4 million jobs and added 3 trillion to the debt. His economic policy went into effect in February 2009 and Reagan's didn't get his passed until the fall of 1981. Reagan and Bush's policy was pro growth and pro private sector, Obama's is pro public sector growth and massive expansion of entitlements. The American people spoke on Nov. 2. Reagan lost 26 House seats in 1982 in the midst of a much worse economic recession whereas Obama has lost a minimum of 63 seats. The American people know the difference but still there are those like you that will never get it. Why such passion for the Obama economic policy?

Donc · Nov 27, 2010

Conservative said:
In less than 2 years the economic policy of Obama has lost 4 million jobs and added 3 trillion to the debt. His economic policy went into effect in February 2009 and Reagan's didn't get his passed until the fall of 1981. Reagan and Bush's policy was pro growth and pro private sector, Obama's is pro public sector growth and massive expansion of entitlements. The American people spoke on Nov. 2. Reagan lost 26 House seats in 1982 in the midst of a much worse economic recession whereas Obama has lost a minimum of 63 seats. The American people know the difference but still there are those like you that will never get it. Why such passion for the Obama economic policy?

There is a lot of parallel with Regan’s first two years, with the exception on an unneeded war hanging over Obamas head. Reagan had over ten percent unemployed so does Obama. Reagan took a drubbing in his first midterms Obama took a bigger one in his midterms.

The big diff is that we have sent most of our manufacturing offshore and most of the stimulus, as pitiful an amount as it was, stimulated people in China ,India Bangalish…wherever. What we should do is take about twice the original amount and put it into stimulating our own decaying infrastructure.

Now your turn, get all fiscal conservative for me while you turned a blind eye to the last Presidency and wave the pom poms for the original deficit hawk, the gipper. :mrgreen:

Conservative · Nov 27, 2010

donc said:
There is a lot of parallel with Regan’s first two years, with the exception on an unneeded war hanging over Obamas head. Reagan had over ten percent unemployed so does Obama. Reagan took a drubbing in his first midterms Obama took a bigger one in his midterms.

The big diff is that we have sent most of our manufacturing offshore and most of the stimulus, as pitiful an amount as it was, stimulated people in China ,India Bangalish…wherever. What we should do is take about twice the original amount and put it into stimulating our own decaying infrastructure.

Now your turn, get all fiscal conservative for me while you turned a blind eye to the last Presidency and wave the pom poms for the original deficit hawk, the gipper. :mrgreen:

There may be comparison in the economic conditions but certainly no comparison in the economic policy and that is all that matters. Reagan and Bush were both pro private sector and pro growth, Obama is pro public sector and wealth redistribution. Obama's ecomomic policies are unsustainable and destined for failure whereas Reagan and Bush both had the support of the people with their economic plans. I am still waiting for an explanation as to how a recession that ended in June 2009 could have more unemployed today than during the 2009 recession year? Check out both Reagan and Bush's employment numbers one year after the recession ended. That tells you all you need to know about the economic plans.

I will ask you the same question that I asked Disneydude on another thread, who gave Bush the authority to run up the debt and authorized every dime he spent? How much of that debt was 2007-2008 when Democrats controlled the purse strings?

What you and others don't seem to understand is that Obama has put that spending you are condemning for Bush on steroids and already is on tract for more debt in 4 years that Bush had in 8 and that is with the Iraq War winding down. No one turned a blind eye to the last Presidency but anyone concerned about that spending cannot support what is going on now.

Donc · Nov 27, 2010

Quote conservative

What you and others don't seem to understand is that Obama has put that spending you are condemning for Bush on steroids and already is on tract for more debt in 4 years that Bush had in 8 and that is with the Iraq War winding down. No one turned a blind eye to the last Presidency but anyone concerned about that spending cannot support what is going on now.

Looks like you got your crystal ball out of hock again but its still conjecture on your part what the budget will look like six years from now when Obamas two terms are up. :2wave:

Conservative · Nov 27, 2010

donc said:
Looks like you got your crystal ball out of hock again but its still conjecture on your part what the budget will look like six years from now when Obamas two terms are up. :2wave:

What is it in the Obama economic plan that is similar to Reagans and thus will generate the same kind of results? I asked you why you support what Obama is doing and this is what I get? How about a little intellectual honesty for maybe the first time in your life?

Donc · Nov 28, 2010

QUOTE

Conservative

What is it in the Obama economic plan that is similar to Reagans and thus will generate the same kind of results?

They both had deficits bigger than all the previous deficits put together. :mrgreen:

I asked you why you support what Obama is doing and this is what I get?

Yep,like bugs says… TTTHAATS ALL FOLKS.

How about a little intellectual honesty for maybe the first time in your life?

Ah yes it’s a real treat to be inferred to as intellectual dishonest by someone that post something like this “The recession of 1981-82 was worse than the 2007-2009 recession as I lived and worked during both.”

The worst recession in modern history was the 1973-1975 recession.

The one were in now is worse than the one you referred to. Now letslet the rest of the forum judge who is “intellectual dishonest’.

You’re a real hoot conservative, post a string of bull**** and have the balls to call someone else “intellectual dishonest”.:roll:

Conservative · Nov 28, 2010

donc said:
They both had deficits bigger than all the previous deficits put together. :mrgreen:

Yep,like bugs says… TTTHAATS ALL FOLKS.

Ah yes it’s a real treat to be inferred to as intellectual dishonest by someone that post something like this “The recession of 1981-82 was worse than the 2007-2009 recession as I lived and worked during both.”

The worst recession in modern history was the 1973-1975 recession.

The one were in now is worse than the one you referred to. Now letslet the rest of the forum judge who is “intellectual dishonest’.

You’re a real hoot conservative, post a string of bull**** and have the balls to call someone else “intellectual dishonest”.:roll:

That's all Folks, the party is over, no intellectual honesty here as no response to the post. This one worse than 81-82? By what standards? Interest rates? Inflation? Unemployment? Becareful, your partisanship and political ideology is showing. Did you get your IPhone or IPad?

randel · Nov 28, 2010

Conservative said:
There may be comparison in the economic conditions but certainly no comparison in the economic policy and that is all that matters. Reagan and Bush were both pro private sector and pro growth, Obama is pro public sector and wealth redistribution. Obama's ecomomic policies are unsustainable and destined for failure whereas Reagan and Bush both had the support of the people with their economic plans. I am still waiting for an explanation as to how a recession that ended in June 2009 could have more unemployed today than during the 2009 recession year? Check out both Reagan and Bush's employment numbers one year after the recession ended. That tells you all you need to know about the economic plans.

I will ask you the same question that I asked Disneydude on another thread, who gave Bush the authority to run up the debt and authorized every dime he spent? How much of that debt was 2007-2008 when Democrats controlled the purse strings?

What you and others don't seem to understand is that Obama has put that spending you are condemning for Bush on steroids and already is on tract for more debt in 4 years that Bush had in 8 and that is with the Iraq War winding down. No one turned a blind eye to the last Presidency but anyone concerned about that spending cannot support what is going on now.

what is with your continued fascination with steroids?

Conservative · Nov 28, 2010

randel said:
what is with your continued fascination with steroids?

Best term I could think of to define the Obama spending

Grant · Nov 28, 2010

Goldenboy219 said:
There is a major difference between a recession that resulted from curbing inflation, and a recession that rendered the global financial system insolvent without bailouts. China enacted a stimulus package that was nearly 10% of GDP, and they were not nearly as shaken as the US.

Private insurance companies can easily compete with a public option because they have the ability to offer policies tailored to the individual, and from that they derive a great deal of value. As it stands, 62% of bankruptcies in the U.S. are health care related. Physical and mental health is a critical component to a productive workforce, and this extends beyond the job, e.g. employee dependents. The average cost of an independent health care plan for a family of 4 is around $16,000, and that excludes medical deductibles, out of pocket expenses, etc....

Our health care system operates on the basis of unsustainable price increases.

Obama has been just great for Canada, so credit where it's due.

By not drilling for oil it not only assures us of a long term sales, but Alberta is sucking all the oil out from under the northern United States, as in Montana. And on 'taxing the rich" , doctors and entrepreneurs also fall under that category, and Canada is getting them. Of course Canada's much lower corporate tax rate also helps.

Until the United States realizes what made their country great, and it was not socialism by the way, they will continue to flounder, and eventually go the way of western Europe.

More doctors returning to Canada than leaving, first time in 30 years | Physicians for a National Health Program

Grant · Nov 28, 2010

Grant said:
Obama has been just great for Canada, so credit where it's due.

By not drilling for oil it not only assures us of a long term sales, but Alberta is sucking all the oil out from under the northern United States, as in Montana. And on 'taxing the rich" , doctors and entrepreneurs also fall under that category, and Canada is getting them. Of course Canada's much lower corporate tax rate also helps.

Until the United States realizes what made their country great, and it was not socialism by the way, they will continue to flounder, and eventually go the way of western Europe.

More doctors returning to Canada than leaving, first time in 30 years | Physicians for a National Health Program

That was actually an older story about Canadian doctors returning to Canada. Here's a later one about American doctors moving to Canada. The last line in the story pretty much sums it up.

Doctor drain turns to gain: Physicians move north

Obama Heralds 1.1M Private Sector Jobs Created Since Jan.

I'm not-low all the time