• 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!

Employers add no net jobs in Aug.; rate unchanged

Status
Not open for further replies.
Bush's averages don't mean jack. What matters is that he took us on a journey from budget surplus and relative prosperity to massive deficits and the worst recession in three generations.

Bush, Bush, Bush....Do you have no other arguement?
 
Unemployment numbers by month. 2 Million? Hmmmm

2008 7628 7435 7793 7631 8397 8560 8895 9509 9569 10172 10617 11400
2009 11919 12714 13310 13816 14518 14721 14534 14993 15159 15612 15340 15267
Please look at the employment numbers.
 
You've been told this before, but whatever you can claim as a success for Bush was caused by the housing bubble, there is no way around that fact.

What about the Obama campaign promise to address companies that send jobs overseas? For someone so quick to call others out, you're not quite as quick to respond.
 
No, just getting it wrong. It takes about 150,000 jobs to keep the rate the same. So clearly, there was a gain of jobs in August. Just not enough to lower the unemployment rate.

Well, I don't know about you, but I am starting to question all these numbers from different sources. They seem way too easily manipulated to fit arguments. You know what British Prime Minister Benjamin Disraeli in the 1800s said right? "There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics."

I don't think any of us have been told the real truth for quite a while now.

j-mac
 
You've been told this before, but whatever you can claim as a success for Bush was caused by the housing bubble, there is no way around that fact.

Excuses, excuses, excuses, Clinton success due to the dot.com bubble and so on. Fact is Obama knew what he was getting or should have and has made things worse. Still waiting for a side by side comparison between Bush and Obama results but doubt I will ever see them from you or any other Obama supporter. You prefer to focus on the last half of 2008 and ignore the first 2 1/2 years of Obama but that doesn't stop you from placing blame. Try doing that in the real job market and see how far it gets you. Leaders accept responsibility and that is something liberals don't understand.
 
Oh, lets not forget that the BLS also revised the job creation numbers for June and July down by 58,000 jobs...

So in reality, we didn't create 0 jobs, we actually lost 58,000 jobs
 
Please look at the employment numbers.

You mean these?

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

Or how about the employment today vs. when he took office?

2011 139323 139573 139864 139674 139779 139334 139296 139627
 
Let's hear it libs, how the economy is getting better.....Ha! what a joke....:roll:

Then there is this little ditty.....



That 16% must largely be in these forums from what I see of the posting from liberals, and liberals that are ashamed to admit they are liberals in here...:lol:

j-mac

Quick, cut their taxes and give them a **** ton of tax payer money! That will spur jobs....oh wait.
 
Quick, cut their taxes and give them a **** ton of tax payer money! That will spur jobs....oh wait.

How is cutting taxes giving anything to anyone? Do you realize how foolish that sounds. Allowing people to keep more of what they earn isn't giving them anything
 
Bush's averages don't mean jack. What matters is that he took us on a journey from budget surplus and relative prosperity to massive deficits and the worst recession in three generations.

Keep buying the rhetoric and ignoring reality. That will carry you far in real life. There was no surplus no matter how many times you claim there was one.
 
How is cutting taxes giving anything to anyone? Do you realize how foolish that sounds. Allowing people to keep more of what they earn isn't giving them anything

The person who sounds foolish is you. I guess it was too much to ask you to read? Maybe a bit? What did I say, read it slowly and sound out the letters, it will help you. "cut there taxes and give them a **** ton of tax payer money!" See that? Does it say "cut their taxes which is tantamount to giving them a **** ton of tax payer money!"? No...it says and, the and means that the two separate things are included. Both tax cuts and increased subsidies. Get it? Before you run off and want to try to call people foolish, stop for a few minutes, re-read the text and make sure you're not the one who will end up looking foolish.
 
A picture is worth a thousand words...

fail-9.1.jpg
 
The person who sounds foolish is you. I guess it was too much to ask you to read? Maybe a bit? What did I say, read it slowly and sound out the letters, it will help you. "cut there taxes and give them a **** ton of tax payer money!" See that? Does it say "cut their taxes which is tantamount to giving them a **** ton of tax payer money!"? No...it says and, the and means that the two separate things are included. Both tax cuts and increased subsidies. Get it? Before you run off and want to try to call people foolish, stop for a few minutes, re-read the text and make sure you're not the one who will end up looking foolish.

No try to comprehend what you posted and the definition of subsidies most of which is allowing them to keep more of their money. Tax subsidies means paying less in taxes not giving them anything in most cases. Very little taxpayer money goes to anyone in the form or cash subsidies especially to the oil companies so not sure who you are referring to Obviously you buy what you are told and ignore reality. Maybe you ought to type less and think and research more.
 
No try to comprehend what you posted and the definition of subsidies most of which is allowing them to keep more of their money. Tax subsidies means paying less in taxes not giving them anything in most cases. Very little taxpayer money goes to anyone in the form or cash subsidies especially to the oil companies so not sure who you are referring to Obviously you buy what you are told and ignore reality. Maybe you ought to type less and think and research more.

Nice attempt to back track, but it doesn't count. I said cut taxes and give them a bunch of tax payer money (actually I said **** ton, but same sentiment). That's what is written. Quite playing the fool more than you have to.

BTW, what was the bailout packages to the banks, wallstreet, and some of the auto manufacturers? Were those just "tax cuts"?
 
Last edited:
No, what we are seeing is the failed ideology trying to blame supply side for their own failures which is what liberals always do. It is pure liberal arrogance to claim that the previous group of liberals didn't spend enough. This country wasn't built on the liberal ideology and liberals thus have no one to blame but themselves and we know that will never happen.

Do you believe supply side economics to be a sound economic system?
 
Nice attempt to back track, but it doesn't count. I said cut taxes and give them a bunch of tax payer money (actually I said **** ton, but same sentiment). That's what is written. Quite playing the fool more than you have to.

BTW, what was the bailout packages to the banks, wallstreet, and some of the auto manufacturers? Were those just "tax cuts"?

No, nor were they subsidies. I stand by my statement and it appears to be you that is backtracking, tax subsidies means paying less in taxes not getting a check from the taxpayers.
 
Do you believe supply side economics to be a sound economic system?

Yes, the only one that makes any sense and the one that made this the greatest economic power in the world.
 
A picture is worth a thousand words...

View attachment 67115424

Unemployment rate by month

Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
2001 4.2 4.2 4.3 4.4 4.3 4.5 4.6 4.9 5.0 5.3 5.5 5.7
2002 5.7 5.7 5.7 5.9 5.8 5.8 5.8 5.7 5.7 5.7 5.9 6.0
2003 5.8 5.9 5.9 6.0 6.1 6.3 6.2 6.1 6.1 6.0 5.8 5.7
2004 5.7 5.6 5.8 5.6 5.6 5.6 5.5 5.4 5.4 5.5 5.4 5.4
2005 5.3 5.4 5.2 5.2 5.1 5.0 5.0 4.9 5.0 5.0 5.0 4.9
2006 4.7 4.8 4.7 4.7 4.6 4.6 4.7 4.7 4.5 4.4 4.5 4.4
2007 4.6 4.5 4.4 4.5 4.4 4.6 4.7 4.6 4.7 4.7 4.7 5.0
2008 5.0 4.8 5.1 4.9 5.4 5.6 5.8 6.1 6.2 6.6 6.8 7.3
2009 7.8 8.2 8.6 8.9 9.4 9.5 9.5 9.7 9.8 10.1 9.9 9.9
2010 9.7 9.7 9.7 9.8 9.6 9.5 9.5 9.6 9.6 9.7 9.8 9.4
2011 9.0 8.9 8.8 9.0 9.1 9.2 9.1 9.1
 
Now you have done it, posted actual data and facts, something liberals don't want to see, want to run from. How about it Adam, Pb, Sheik? More rhetoric? More distortions? More defense of the indefensible?

You are the king of distortions and the causation vs. correlation logical fallacy. I'm not surprised that you loved Grim's graphic; it fits perfectly with your flawed way of thinking and inability to comprehend reality.
 
Nice attempt to back track, but it doesn't count. I said cut taxes and give them a bunch of tax payer money (actually I said **** ton, but same sentiment). That's what is written. Quite playing the fool more than you have to.

BTW, what was the bailout packages to the banks, wallstreet, and some of the auto manufacturers? Were those just "tax cuts"?

No, they were taking money from taxpayers to give to these entities.
 
No, nor were they subsidies. I stand by my statement and it appears to be you that is backtracking, tax subsidies means paying less in taxes not getting a check from the taxpayers.

I only used subsidiaries in the follow up to show you that I was conveying two ideas. There are lots of tax handouts, including the ones I listed in that quote there. Sorry fool, you ran your mouth without comprehending what you were running your mouth over. Be more careful in the future.
 
No, they were taking money from taxpayers to give to these entities.

but....but....Conservative says there's no such thing! Those....those are just tax cuts.
 
You are the king of distortions and the causation vs. correlation logical fallacy. I'm not surprised that you loved Grim's graphic; it fits perfectly with your flawed way of thinking and inability to comprehend reality.

I posted the actual data. I wonder how you can allow Bush to be blamed for the economic conditions then with your entire causation vs correlation argument. It works both ways. The numbers are what they are. You don't like them take that up with BLS.
 
but....but....Conservative says there's no such thing! Those....those are just tax cuts.

Subsidies aren't bailouts. Bailouts take money from the taxpayers and gives it to companies like AIG, Freddie, Fannie, GM/Chrysler. Tax subsidies allow companies to keep more of what they earn. Learn the difference.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom