• 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!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Obama Administration - 30 Months of Comment on Employment - FUNNY yet sad!

Meathead

Meathead

Banned
Joined
Dec 2, 2011
Messages
1,880
Reaction score
474
Location
Prague, Czech Rep.
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
When the Bureau of Labor Statistics announced the nation's latest national employment figures Friday, the Obama administration stressed that people should not "read too much" into the data.

Mitt Romney's campaign pounced, and flagged the fact that the White House has repeated that same line nearly every month since November 2009.

See below for the roundup of articles from WhiteHouse.gov that Romney's campaign posted on its site. In many of the posts, the authors for the administration do acknowledge that they repeat themselves:

Obama administration repeats same jobs line
 
Meathead said:
When the Bureau of Labor Statistics announced the nation's latest national employment figures Friday, the Obama administration stressed that people should not "read too much" into the data.

Mitt Romney's campaign pounced, and flagged the fact that the White House has repeated that same line nearly every month since November 2009.
Click to expand...

Romney's not gonna run the Roll-Over campaign of John McCain. See ya'll in the fall, boys :).
 
Obviously Obama is correct. The initial jobless numbers have a margin of error over 50%. Can you imagine anyone getting all excited about, e.g. an election poll that had a margin of error of over 50%?
 
AdamT said:
Obviously Obama is correct. The initial jobless numbers have a margin of error over 50%. Can you imagine anyone getting all excited about, e.g. an election poll that had a margin of error of over 50%?
Click to expand...
Thirty months of "initial jobless numbers"?!

Did you get the "over 50%" bit the same place you got the initial numbers?
 


Those rates and figures...they are only important when its the OTHER guy. though I must agree...that 8.2% unemployment figure is TOTALLY misleading...the actual unemployemnt figure is actually near 15% while the REPORTED unemployment figure for black Americans is 14.4%, with 100's of thousands of people simply dropping from the polling altogether simply because they are no longer eligible for benefits.

Better stick to talking about Romney...
 
AdamT said:
Yeah, amazingly every initial report is an initial report.

50% is actually a bit conservative for a report of 80,000 jobs. I got that bit here: Three Questions After the June Jobs Report - NYTimes.com
Click to expand...
Let me see if I understand you. You're saying that 30 months of employment figures are at least 50% off, and because of this we should pay little heed to unemployment rates?

You probably think the private sector is doing just fine too. Anyway, I still have no idea where you came up with the over 50% bit.
 
Meathead said:
When the Bureau of Labor Statistics announced the nation's latest national employment figures Friday, the Obama administration stressed that people should not "read too much" into the data.

Mitt Romney's campaign pounced, and flagged the fact that the White House has repeated that same line nearly every month since November 2009.

See below for the roundup of articles from WhiteHouse.gov that Romney's campaign posted on its site. In many of the posts, the authors for the administration do acknowledge that they repeat themselves:

Obama administration repeats same jobs line
Click to expand...

i missed it
what is romney's plan to put more people to work?
 
Meathead said:
Let me see if I understand you. You're saying that 30 months of employment figures are at least 50% off, and because of this we should pay little heed to unemployment rates?

You probably think the private sector is doing just fine too. Anyway, I still have no idea where you came up with the over 50% bit.
Click to expand...

No, I'm saying that each initial report is subject to a huge margin of error. The reports are revised multiple times over succeeding months as more information is collected. So over time the numbers become more reliable (not sure what the final margin of error is, though). So, it's appropriate to remind people each time that the initial report is released that the initial reports are subject to major revisions and therefore should be taken with a grain (or a full shaker) of salt.
 
Meathead said:
Thirty months of "initial jobless numbers"?!

Did you get the "over 50%" bit the same place you got the initial numbers?
Click to expand...

He probably got it from the Obama talking point sheet of the day. Not sure how people take these posts seriously.
 
washunut said:
He probably got it from the Obama talking point sheet of the day. Not sure how people take these posts seriously.
Click to expand...

... or you could actually read the thread and thus the link I provided showing where I got it. But that would contradict your Romney talking point sheet, wouldn't it?
 
justabubba said:
i missed it
what is romney's plan to put more people to work?
Click to expand...
He could start by cutting things like Barack's beloved foodstamps, then cut the employer payroll tax and generally stimulate the private sector even though Obama thinks it's doing just fine. Radical stuff, and we have to ask ourselves why when it's so much easier to enlarge government, a la Greece.
 
Meathead said:
He could start by cutting things like Barack's beloved foodstamps, then cut the employer payroll tax and generally stimulate the private sector even though Obama thinks it's doing just fine. Radical stuff, and we have to ask ourselves why when it's so much easier to enlarge government, a la Greece.
Click to expand...
And how precisely would either one of those actions spur job creation, or economic growth in general for that matter? The only significant contribution your former proposal would make would be directed towards the national debt.
 
Last edited:
Hare said:
And how precisely would either one of those actions spur job creation, or economic growth in general for that matter?
Click to expand...
Incentive for the unemployed to look for work instead of looking for handouts, and employers to employ. Pretty basic stuff
 
Meathead said:
He could start by cutting things like Barack's beloved foodstamps, then cut the employer payroll tax and generally stimulate the private sector even though Obama thinks it's doing just fine. Radical stuff, and we have to ask ourselves why when it's so much easier to enlarge government, a la Greece.
Click to expand...

It's much more than just that. Which country has had a growth rate of 5 to 9 percent the last 15 years? The answer is China.

If we want economic growth like China, we have to be like China. We need to make major changes to our environmental and labor laws.
 
Meathead said:
Incentive for the unemployed to look for work instead of looking for handouts,

and employers to employ. Pretty basic stuff
Click to expand...
Hate to break it to you, but foodstamps are hardly a new concept, and we've experienced prolonged periods of the labor market operating near full capacity while they have been in circulation. The large amounts of unemployed individuals are due overwhelmingly to the simple lack of job opportunities, not a sudden and drastic spike in the amount of lazy folks.

As if payroll taxes are holding back employment. Not to mention that eliminating said taxes would be the quickest possible way to multiply our debt several times over.
 
Hare said:
....due overwhelmingly to the simple lack of job opportunities,...
Click to expand...

There are plenty of job opportunities...in China.

Why do you think we're moving American jobs to China as fast as we can?
 
justabubba said:
i missed it
what is romney's plan to put more people to work?
Click to expand...

Whatever it is it would be better then Hussein Obama's.......Do you really think he would announce it now so that Huseen can copy it?
 
johnny_rebson said:
There are plenty of job opportunities...in China.

Why do you think we're moving American jobs to China as fast as we can?
Click to expand...

Corporations here are the highest taxed in the world....That is why they move.
 
Navy Pride said:
Whatever it is it would be better then Hussein Obama's.......Do you really think he would announce it now so that Huseen can copy it?
Click to expand...




You have a point there, he already copied RomneyCare into ObamaCare.
 
Navy Pride said:
Corporations here are the highest taxed in the world....That is why they move.
Click to expand...

Yep, I wonder why companies like GE don't entirely leave the US because of the taxes they have to pay.

I still think more move jobs overseas because of our environmental and labor laws.

Changing our environmental and labor laws so they are more like China must be a top priority.
 
Navy Pride said:
Whatever it is it would be better then Hussein Obama's.......Do you really think he would announce it now so that Huseen can copy it?
Click to expand...

thanks for the post and the admission that romney has no plan to put America to work
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom