• 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.
Look at the revised numbers that came out today. Employment growth has been very weak for several months, before the debt ceiling debate got ugly.

The problem that most either don't understand or don't like because it does not fit a neat political narrative is that there is a structural problem in our economy that has been glossed over for more than a decade. There seems to be no real talk about how to stem the loss of manufacturing jobs in an era of Free Trade.

Short term fixes like the make work jobs coming out of the stimulus package can help in the short term. But as we are seeing now what happens when that spigot dries up. Not only do we lose those jobs but we have not created anything that has sustaining value.

Why do we insist on short term answers for long term problems?

Because, as President, everything is short term.
 
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.

A budget surplus huh? I guess you haven't been around long enough to see how badly THAT has been debunked.

Hint: You might not want to mention it anymore. It kinda makes you look like an idiot.
 
n

According to an old study done by Alexander Tytler, an 18th century Scottish thinker, the average age of the world’s great civilizations is about 200 years. They go, he said, “from bondage to spiritual faith, from spiritual faith to great courage, from courage to liberty, from liberty to abundance, from abundance to complacency, from complacency to apathy, from apathy to dependence, and from dependence back into bondage.”

And John Glubb, a British historian and soldier, published "The Fate of Nations," his own analysis of the decline syndrome. He gave a slightly longer lifespan – 250 years – but laid out a life cycle similar to the one portrayed by Tytler, ending with an age of decadence brought on by “selfishness, love of money, and the loss of a sense of duty,” and marked by “defensiveness, pessimism, materialism, frivolity, an influx of foreigners, the welfare state, and the weakening of religion.”

More at America Is Not The Titantic | FoxNews.com

I'm not sure if I buy that. History just doesn't follow such neat patterns.
 
And what Obama inherited: economy shedding 700,000+ jobs per month, GDP shrinking at 6+% per year, financial institutions teetering on the edge of collapse, trillion+ deficit.... Nice improvement.

A good leader takes a challenge and the hand dealt him and corrects the problem, Obama is no leader and your support for him shows that you don't understand leadership at all.
 
A good leader takes a challenge and the hand dealt him and corrects the problem, Obama is no leader and your support for him shows that you don't understand leadership at all.

The GDP is in positive territory right now.
 
Those aren't my numbers, those are bls numbers and show the net private sector job losses since Obama took office in January 2009. If you spend a trillion dollars shouldn't you generate better results? Let me know when he gets back to the same number he inherited

You like to put so much emphasis on state's rights and your state's ability to create jobs. Let's see just what federal Stimulus funds have done in your own backyard in the great state of Texas. From Recovery.gov (for Texas):

No. Contracts awards: 2,609
Total Contract funds awards: $2.59B
No. Jobs Reported: 2,324

No. Grants awards: 13, 247
Total Contract funds awards: $14.32B
No. Jobs Reported: 42,398

No. Loans awards: 60
Total Contract funds awards: $1.99M
No. Jobs Reported: 737

Total federal funds awards: $17.1B
Total No. Jobs Reported: 45,459

So, for $17B in federal Stimulus dollars awarded to the great state of Texas, your state could only manage to "save or create" 45,459 jobs?

Wanna compare other states? Just go to Recovery.gov and click on your state and compare figures.
 
Given that, how do you explain the market being up under Obama?

DJIA: +36%
NASDAQ: +63%
S&P500: +38%

Seems to me the market had a lot of confidence in Obama's policies until the GOP proved they were serious about preventing Obama from doing anything to improve the economy.

Well recently that doesn't hold up, and that translates into no net new jobs since Obama came along.
Dow

11,240.26

-253.31

-2.20%

Nasdaq

2,480.33

-65.71

-2.58%

S&P 500

1,173.97

-30.45

-2.53%

10 Yr Bond(%)

1.9960%

-0.15
 
You like to put so much emphasis on state's rights and your state's ability to create jobs. Let's see just what federal Stimulus funds have done in your own backyard in the great state of Texas. From Recovery.gov (for Texas):

No. Contracts awards: 2,609
Total Contract funds awards: $2.59B
No. Jobs Reported: 2,324

No. Grants awards: 13, 247
Total Contract funds awards: $14.32B
No. Jobs Reported: 42,398

No. Loans awards: 60
Total Contract funds awards: $1.99M
No. Jobs Reported: 737

Total federal funds awards: $17.1B
Total No. Jobs Reported: 45,459

So, for $17B in federal Stimulus dollars awarded to the great state of Texas, your state could only manage to "save or create" 45,459 jobs?

Wanna compare other states? Just go to Recovery.gov and click on your state and compare figures.

Wasn't that the purpose of the stimulus? Trouble is not enough of it went to those so called "shovel" ready jobs. Since TX has created most of the jobs over the past decade, 45k isn't a lot. The Stimulus saved nothing in this state so not sure what your point is? Stimulus 830 billion dollars and 17 billion of it went to TX, wow, thank you, Obama!

By the way, the cost per job is 376,000. Great use of taxpayer dollars.
 
Last edited:
n

According to an old study done by Alexander Tytler, an 18th century Scottish thinker, the average age of the world’s great civilizations is about 200 years. They go, he said, “from bondage to spiritual faith, from spiritual faith to great courage, from courage to liberty, from liberty to abundance, from abundance to complacency, from complacency to apathy, from apathy to dependence, and from dependence back into bondage.”

And John Glubb, a British historian and soldier, published "The Fate of Nations," his own analysis of the decline syndrome. He gave a slightly longer lifespan – 250 years – but laid out a life cycle similar to the one portrayed by Tytler, ending with an age of decadence brought on by “selfishness, love of money, and the loss of a sense of duty,” and marked by “defensiveness, pessimism, materialism, frivolity, an influx of foreigners, the welfare state, and the weakening of religion.”

More at America Is Not The Titantic | FoxNews.com

I obviously can't tell much just from the summery in the article, but I can't say I agree. For example, Godlessness is listed as a factor: Britain was more Godless during the enlightenment, at the apex of its empire, than any other time. People always make these narratives as a way to support whatever current political position they favor. I can give you much better books if you're interested in patterns in history.
 
Well recently that doesn't hold up, and that translates into no net new jobs since Obama came along.
Dow

11,240.26

-253.31

-2.20%

Nasdaq

2,480.33

-65.71

-2.58%

S&P 500

1,173.97

-30.45

-2.53%

10 Yr Bond(%)

1.9960%

-0.15
But that's just one day. Overall, under Obama, the DJIA is up 36%, NASDAQ is up 63%, and the S&P500 is up 38%. Since you acknowledge the president's policies affect the stock market, I assume you credit those market gains, at least in part, to Obama's polices. I can't imagine you only attribute market losses to the president but not market gains.

Not to mention, how do you suppose that reflects on Bush? On his watch, the Dow dropped 25%, NASDAQ dropped 48%, and the S&P500 dropped 40%.
 
Last edited:
Wasn't that the purpose of the stimulus? Trouble is not enough of it went to those so called "shovel" ready jobs. Since TX has created most of the jobs over the past decade, 45k isn't a lot. The Stimulus saved nothing in this state so not sure what your point is? Stimulus 830 billion dollars and 17 billion of it went to TX, wow, thank you, Obama!

By the way, the cost per job is 376,000. Great use of taxpayer dollars.
So now you're calling yourself a liar? You've been saying each job cost $228,000. No more money has been spent, the number of jobs saved/created has not changed ... you just feel like changing the number?

I suppose, why not, eh? Afterall, everyone here earlier today saw you making up all sorts of numbers.
 
I obviously can't tell much just from the summery in the article, but I can't say I agree. For example, Godlessness is listed as a factor: Britain was more Godless during the enlightenment, at the apex of its empire, than any other time

this is way off base. At the apex of the British Empire (19th century realm) there was a series of massive religious movements that (among other things) helped spawn the apex of the British Empire, and led the Empire to then become the first major world civilization to give up and seek to stamp out slavery. The British godlessness of today far surpasses any previous period - and it's growth has coincided with their decline.
 
But that's just one day. Overall, under Obama, the DJIA is up 36%, NASDAQ is up 63%, and the S&P500 is up 38%.


yup. it's nice to pick up right before we bottom out.

However, Obama isn't held responsible for the initial market crash and recession. he's held responsible for the utter failure of our economy to recover.

EmployRecessJune2011-small.jpg
 
yup. it's nice to pick up right before we bottom out.

However, Obama isn't held responsible for the initial market crash and recession. he's held responsible for the utter failure of our economy to recover.

EmployRecessJune2011-small.jpg
Well either Obama's policies affect the market or they don't. One cannot rationally posit that the only time the president's policies affect the market is when the market is dropping. It makes no sense at all to say the market is dropping because of his policies ... and, oh yeah, by the way, the huge market increases since his stimulus plan are unrelated to Obama's policies.

Councilman was suggesting the recent market loses are due to Obama's policies ... then what does he think about the market being up 36% to 63%, depending on the index?
 
Last edited:
this is way off base. At the apex of the British Empire (19th century realm) there was a series of massive religious movements that (among other things) helped spawn the apex of the British Empire, and led the Empire to then become the first major world civilization to give up and seek to stamp out slavery. The British godlessness of today far surpasses any previous period - and it's growth has coincided with their decline.

If you look at when the empire really started, in the 1700's, Enlightenment thought was raging across England. Gibbons even went so far as to attribute the decline of the Roman Empire to being too Christian, as opposed to the more humanistic british empire. While there were religious movements, they weren't as severe as the puritan movements in the 1600s had been. I'd say they were more religous before Empire, and during Empire they were largely humanistic in their government, even if they were still religious as people and are still technically a quasi-theocracy.
 
If you look at when the empire really started, in the 1700's, Enlightenment thought was raging across England. Gibbons even went so far as to attribute the decline of the Roman Empire to being too Christian, as opposed to the more humanistic british empire. While there were religious movements, they weren't as severe as the puritan movements in the 1600s had been. I'd say they were more religous before Empire, and during Empire they were largely humanistic in their government, even if they were still religious as people and are still technically a quasi-theocracy.

Cannot wait until you get out into the real world and test all those theories you are learning in school. Let me remind you, Obama has a net job loss declining labor force, fewer jobs today than when he took office and yet he still blames someone else. I welcome any liberal to post side by side records of Bush vs. Obama using actual numbers not percentage change as percentage change is dependent on the base number. Let me start, Bush had a net job gain, growing labor force, more working Americans, a lower misery index, lower deficits, 4.5 trillion GDP growth, and left the country with a triple A credit rating. Your turn
 
Wasn't that the purpose of the stimulus? Trouble is not enough of it went to those so called "shovel" ready jobs. Since TX has created most of the jobs over the past decade, 45k isn't a lot. The Stimulus saved nothing in this state so not sure what your point is? Stimulus 830 billion dollars and 17 billion of it went to TX, wow, thank you, Obama!

By the way, the cost per job is 376,000. Great use of taxpayer dollars.

My point is very simple.

You claim the Stimulus did nothing to stimulate economic growth and development either in your state or across the country. You, like so many others, also claim that government should get out of the way and allow the private sector to do what it does within a free market system without interference.

Have you every heard of a company called Texas Engineering Experiement Station (TEES)? It's an engineering research agency out of Texas. Here's what written on their "About Us" webpage:

We partner with industries, communities and academic institutions to solve problems to help improve the quality of life, promote economic development and enhance the educational systems of Texas. We also promote new technology education and investigate problems in health and the environment. We serve as a catalyst for collaborations that position Texas to be especially competitive for federal dollars and play a major role in strengthening research leadership across the state.

Since the agency's inception in 1914, our purpose has been to conduct research to produce answers to urban difficulties and thus enhance the quality of life in Texas. Our researchers

•Perform quality research driven by current public needs.
•Leverage money we receive from the state to secure federal funding.
•Help academic institutions grow their research capacity.
•Improve the state's workforce by attracting more citizens to higher education through research opportunities.
•Help encourage graduate studies by providing exciting and challenging research opportunities to students.

It's what we do.

Our mission is to perform engineering and technology-oriented research and development for the enhancement of the educational systems and the economic development of the state of Texas and the nation.

That means that we perform relevant research driven by current public needs: that is, research that benefits the needs of the citizens of Texas and the world. And as an institute of higher education, we work to improve student performance in math, science and technology.

:shock: What's this!?! A private R&D engineering company that purposely seeks out state and "federal funding" to help promote education and stimulate job growth? Unheard of!...not in the great state of Texas. They're "self-sustaining" and would never seek federal dollars.

Of course, I'm mocking you, but my point is there ARE private companies out there who do seek federal aid in order to conduct research and development to help move this country forward. Anyone who thinks this doesn't happen or even believes it should stop completely is just not acknowledging what is and has been a "partnership in this country's continuing growth and development over the centuries" - that the federal government does play a role in job growth and creation in this country. It may be through indirect means, i.e., federal grants and loans such as the $1.93M this company has received via Stimulus funds (which has managed to create 173 jobs, BTW, not large numbers for sure, but it is a R&D firm...), but it has a place and clearly this company routinely goes out of its way to secure state and federal funding. I just think it's laughable when people such as yourself decree that the federal government should just step aside, get out of the way of the private secton, when here is a perfect example of how a private company routinely seeking federal funding - stimulus dollars no less...in the millions - to help stimulus the local, state and national economy. But let you tell it, the federal government has no place in the private sector.
 
Last edited:
My point is very simple.

You claim the Stimulus did nothing to stimulate economic growth and development either in your state or across the country. You, like so many others, also claim that government should get out of the way and allow the private sector to do what it does within a free market system without interference.

Have you every heard of a company called Texas Engineering Experiement Station (TEES)? It's an engineering research agency out of Texas. Here's what written on their "About Us" webpage:



:shock: What's this!?! A private R&D engineering company that purposely seeks out state and "federal funding" to help promote education and stimulate job growth? Unheard of!...not in the great state of Texas. They're "self-sustaining" and would never seek federal dollars.

Of course, I'm mocking you, but my point is there ARE private companies out there who do seek federal aid in order to conduct research and development to help move this country forward. Anyone who thinks this doesn't happen or even believes it should stop completely is just not acknowledging what is and has been a "partnership in this country's continuing growth and development over the centuries" - that the federal government does play a role in job growth and creation in this country. It may be through indirect means, i.e., federal grants and loans such as the $1.93M this company has received via Stimulus funds (which has managed to create 173 jobs, BTW, not large numbers for sure, but it is a R&D firm...), but it has a place and clearly this company routinely goes out of its way to secure state and federal funding. I just think it's laughable when people such as yourself decree that the federal government should just step aside, get out of the way of the private secton, when here is a perfect example of how a private company routinely seeking federal funding - stimulus dollars no less...in the millions - to help stimulus the local, state and national economy. But let you tell it, the federal government has no place in the private sector.

Sounds like BS to me...I say cut it off. If the idea is good enough to survive on its own then it is worth while.


j-mac
 
Well either Obama's policies affect the market or they don't. One cannot rationally posit that the only time the president's policies affect the market is when the market is dropping

well that is correct. however, to argue that the economy has recovered because the stock market has partially recovered is crap. by the historical standard, we should be reducing unemployment by leaps and bounds, and growing at about 7-8% annual right now; but we are nowhere near accomplishing either of these things. that is largely the result of the policies pursued by this administration, and it is that for which he is held responsible.

It makes no sense at all to say the market is dropping because of his policies ... and, oh yeah, by the way, the huge market increases since his stimulus plan are unrelated to Obama's policies.

not really. the market hit rock bottom and recovered.... somewhat. those "huge gains" you are referring to only exist because you are taking that particular low point as your starting metric; you are fudging your numbers. compare them to where they should be historically and you will note that in fact our "market gains" are nothing to brag about - especially given our post-downgrade slump.

Councilman was suggesting the recent market loses are due to Obama's policies ... then what does he think about the market being up 36% to 63%, depending on the index?

my bet would be that he thinks the same thing I do - that there was a massive panic after the financials tanked, but that those sectors that were still healthy merely became awesome buying opportunities. The same thing just happened again in miniature - plenty of healthy companies out there just had their stock price drop along with the market, and P/E ratio's still say it's a good time to buy.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom