• 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.
Since the end of the recession, there has been a net gain of 639,000 jobs according to payroll data.

June, 2009: 130,493,000
Aug: 2011: 131,132,000


Bureau of Labor Statistics Data

Which hasn't kept up with population growth and thus why Obama has a NET job loss since taking office. That is a fact which is what it is, nothing you say is going to change that.

Congratulations, "your" president added 4 trillion to the debt to create a net job loss in 2011 from when he took office
 
Which hasn't kept up with population growth and thus why Obama has a NET job loss since taking office. That is a fact which is what it is, nothing you say is going to change that.

Congratulations, "your" president added 4 trillion to the debt to create a net job loss in 2011 from when he took office

Huh, you didn't seem to think that was an issue in Texas when we talked about rising unemployment there. I guess it only matters if you're talking about Obama.
 
Huh, you didn't seem to think that was an issue in Texas when we talked about rising unemployment there. I guess it only matters if you're talking about Obama.

TX has more people working today than when Obama took office and when the recession started. Your point?
 
Which hasn't kept up with population growth and thus why Obama has a NET job loss since taking office.

I do not believe anyone made the claim that job growth has kept up with population growth, and therefore your reply is a fallacy.

From wiki:

A straw man is a component of an argument and is an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position. To "attack a straw man" is to create the illusion of having refuted a proposition by replacing it with a superficially similar yet unequivalent proposition (the "straw man"), and refuting it, without ever having actually refuted the original position.
 
TX has more people working today than when Obama took office and when the recession started. Your point?

So does the U.S., since Obama took office. That's my point.
 
Which hasn't kept up with population growth and thus why Obama has a NET job loss since taking office. That is a fact which is what it is, nothing you say is going to change that.

Congratulations, "your" president added 4 trillion to the debt to create a net job loss in 2011 from when he took office
You're still lying. Obama did not add 4 trillion in debt. Bush's Great Recession did.
 
I do not believe anyone made the claim that job growth has kept up with population growth, and therefore your reply is a fallacy.

From wiki:

A lie? there hasn't been a net job loss since Obama took office?
 
TX has more people working today than when Obama took office and when the recession started. Your point?
Ummm, not enough to keep up with population growth, just like with Obama.
 
A lie? there hasn't been a net job loss since Obama took office?
Only because we were hemorrhaging jobs to the tune of about 700,000 per month until the recession ended. How on Earth is that Obama's fault?
 
As stated the confidence by the consumer and business has been shattered by the Obama Administration and will not hire people and here is a reason why

Regulation Nation: Drowning In Rules, Businesses Brace For Cost And Time For Compliance | Fox News

No offense, but confidence was shattered by the recession that predated Obama. Did you really think it was this? "Obama administration regulations on new business rose to 3,573 final rules in 2010, up from 3,503..."? Increasing regulations by 2% really shattered the businesses community's confidence? I had no idea our entrepeneurs were such wilting violets.
 
Only because we were hemorrhaging jobs to the tune of about 700,000 per month until the recession ended. How on Earth is that Obama's fault?

So the answer is YES, 2 1/2 years after taking office and 2 years after the end of the recession there still is a net job loss from when he took office. Thank you
 
So the answer is YES, 2 1/2 years after taking office and 2 years after the end of the recession there still is a net job loss from when he took office. Thank you
Which begs the question why you're blaming Obama for the 12 million jobs lost to underemployment during Bush's Great Recession?
 
Last edited:
Which begs the question why you're blaming Obama for the 12 million jobs jobs lost to underemployment during Bush's Great Recession?

Obama takes office with 11.9 million unemployed at the end of January 2009 and today that number is 13.9 million or a 2 million increase so the answer is yes there has been a net job loss. Add in discouraged workers and you get 12.6 million unemployed at the end of January 2009 and 14.9 million today or 2.3 million increase. Yep, those results are a disaster.
 
Obama takes office with 11.9 million unemployed at the end of January 2009 and today that number is 13.9 million or a 2 million increase so the answer is yes there has been a net job loss. Add in discouraged workers and you get 12.6 million unemployed at the end of January 2009 and 14.9 million today or 2.3 million increase. Yep, those results are a disaster.
Again, are you blaming Obama for that as of February 1st, 2009?
 
Obama took office and has a net job loss 2 1/2 years later after spending a trillion dollars on stimulus, live with it

I can live with it, given the fact that Bush lost more jobs in the preceding four months than Obama lost in the following 30.
 
I can live with it, given the fact that Bush lost more jobs in the preceding four months than Obama lost in the following 30.

Bush isn't in office and Obama has a net job loss but of course you can live with it because it doesn't affect you. Why do you care about 25 million unemployed and under employed Americans and a net job loss. You have that typical liberal compassion where you defend liberalism regardless of the results.
 
Bush isn't in office and Obama has a net job loss but of course you can live with it because it doesn't affect you. Why do you care about 25 million unemployed and under employed Americans and a net job loss. You have that typical liberal compassion where you defend liberalism regardless of the results.

I can live with it because I know that he's doing the best he can with the lousy cards that Bush dealt him, and because I know that your side would have done far worse if they'd had the opportunity to screw it up even more.
 
Obama took office and has a net job loss 2 1/2 years later after spending a trillion dollars on stimulus, live with it
Why are you so afraid to answer a "yes" or "no" question? Do you blame Obama for all jobs lost starting from February 1st, 2009?
 
Obama took office and has a net job loss 2 1/2 years later after spending a trillion dollars on stimulus, live with it

Number of people employed in February 2009: 140,105,000

Number of people employed in August 2011: 140,335,000

140,335,000{now} - 140,105,000{then} = + 230,000

source
 
Why are you so afraid to answer a "yes" or "no" question? Do you blame Obama for all jobs lost starting from February 1st, 2009?

No, I blame Obama for the economic results of 2010 and 2011 as it was his economic policy that generated those results. Discouraged workers are his responsibility and the loss in consumer and business confidence is his responsibility. This is the Obama economy and the results are a disaster
 
Moderator's Warning:
Some of you are riding the edge of personal attacks or baiting today... keep it civil, discuss the issue and keep it impersonal, please.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom