• 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!

White House Tax Plan Would Ask More of Millionaires

Status
Not open for further replies.
Yep, that is why his approval rating is so low and the unemployment rate is so high. I know how much he appreciates having people like you supporting his lies and distortions. Keep buying the rhetoric. If 400,000 jobs were created why didn't the unemployment rate drop?

Do you not understand math at all? 400k jobs out of the 25 million unemployed.
 
Based on what I've experienced yes.

Most people who remain unemployed, are the least employable, for a variety of reasons.
Second, unemployment payments have been cited in a number of potential job offers we have made, as being preferred at that time to taking a job they arent' jazz'd about.
Some people are intentionally unemployed. Who really wants to work anyway? Sure a percentage of people love their job, but once you get over the stigma of not working...the lack of "going to work every day" in my experience, is a sweet delight.

And can you blame them? Pay me not to work rather than take a hard job....that's not an easy choice for everyone.

It used to be a desperate choice when people had more personal pride and being independent and self reliant were considered to be virtues. Men were actually men.

Now too many of them are like spoiled children, and the blame for that can be spread around in many areas..
 
Do you not understand math at all? 400k jobs out of the 25 million unemployed.

Wrong, the discouraged workers were over 1 million again and the U-6 rate went to 16.5% from 16.2%. That is total and complete failure.
 
Last edited:
Yep, that is why his approval rating is so low and the unemployment rate is so high. I know how much he appreciates having people like you supporting his lies and distortions. Keep buying the rhetoric. If 400,000 jobs were created why didn't the unemployment rate drop?
I gave you the link the BLS -- tell them their numbers are wrong ...

Series title: (Seas) Employment Level
Labor force status: Employed
Type of data: Number in thousands

Year
JanFebMarAprMayJunJulAugSep
2011
117(1)
250(1)
291
-190
105
-445
-38
331
398


Bureau of Labor Statistics Data



And I'm still waiting for you to tell me the name of that book so I can download it and see for myself if your post is accurate or not.
 
Wrong, the discouraged workers were over 1 million again and the U-6 rate went to 16.5% from 16.2%. That is total and complete failure.
"Total and complete failure?" But after 32 months in office, he's still doing better than every Republican president. If Obama is a "total and complete failure," what does that say about the GOP?


Here's a list of presidents, along with the percentage of increase, or decrease, of the U3 unemployment rate after 32 months in office...

Nixon
+77%
Bush
+45%
Eisenhower
+41%
Ford*
+36%
GHW Bush
+28%
Reagan
+23%
Obama
+17%
Kennedy
-17%
Carter
-21%
Clinton
-23%
Johnson
-33%


* = Ford was in office 29 months

Bureau of Labor Statistics Data

 
I gave you the link the BLS -- tell them their numbers are wrong ...

Series title: (Seas) Employment Level
Labor force status: Employed
Type of data: Number in thousands

Year
JanFebMarAprMayJunJulAugSep
2011
117(1)
250(1)
291
-190
105
-445
-38
331
398


Bureau of Labor Statistics Data



And I'm still waiting for you to tell me the name of that book so I can download it and see for myself if your post is accurate or not.

So then why did the unemployment rate stay at 9.1%? don't you think that 400K job creation would lower the rate? You don't have a clue at what numbers you are looking at but that isn't surprising. You want badly to believe in the Obama rhetoric. Wonder if that is the way you operate in real life?
 
"Total and complete failure?" But after 32 months in office, he's still doing better than every Republican president. If Obama is a "total and complete failure," what does that say about the GOP?


Here's a list of presidents, along with the percentage of increase, or decrease, of the U3 unemployment rate after 32 months in office...

Nixon
+77%
Bush
+45%
Eisenhower
+41%
Ford*
+36%
GHW Bush
+28%
Reagan
+23%
Obama
+17%
Kennedy
-17%
Carter
-21%
Clinton
-23%
Johnson
-33%


* = Ford was in office 29 months

Bureau of Labor Statistics Data


Love your percentage change numbers, tell that to the over 25 million unemployed and under employed Americans and then tell the polling placed they have their job approval ratings wrong. Thanks for the laugh
 
The real outrage is when you come to realize this business continues, no matter who you vote into the various offices.

I agree. Again, this is not a statement criticizing a particular president or party but a blanket indictment of the corruption of military spending.
 
So then why did the unemployment rate stay at 9.1%? don't you think that 400K job creation would lower the rate? You don't have a clue at what numbers you are looking at but that isn't surprising. You want badly to believe in the Obama rhetoric. Wonder if that is the way you operate in real life?


400 000 divided by 25 million = 0.016

So therefore the drop wouldn't of been shown.
 
400 000 divided by 25 million = 0.016

So therefore the drop wouldn't of been shown.

The drop isn't shown because the 400K didn't happen. Unemployment rate is calculated by taking the number unemployed and dividing it by the total labor force. 400,000 jobs created would have lowered the rate but it didn't happen. Please learn how to use BLS and stop buying the lies of this Administration. Hopefully you really aren't that naive.

Unemplyment number 13992
Labor force 154 million

13992/154=9.1%
 
You know there is such hatred and ignorance about the T.E.A. Party.

Pot meet the kettle. This occupy Wall Street crowd has just started and you've already decided want they want, who they are and made a snap judgment. At least regarding the TEA party there's sufficient imformation to make a judgement. In fact the Tea Party started off strongly because people were upset about the Bailouts and other things the Tea Party was about but their approval ratings have been dropping signficantly since it's become obvious they just want less regulation and less taxes.

For someone your age to attack Reaganomics tells me a lot about you. Never in the history of this country did so many raise themselves up and prosper as they did under Reagan. Why don't you ask yourself why liberals are so anti Reagan? Reagan made people proud of themselves and their efforts thus they didn't need liberalism. No wonder liberals hate Reagan
.

I'm not anti-Reagan, I'm anti-his economic plan. By what metric are "so many" prospering? Income inequality has grown greatly, median wages have remained stagnant. I have nothing against the President. It's pretty telling when his primary opponent and future President George H.W. Bush called his economic plan "vodoo economics". Do I think his message was needed in the 80's? Probably, I think people at the time felt the same way they do now. Do I think his economic plan solved our problems? No I think Volcker decreasing inflation and the end of high oil prices are what helped the economy.
 
I suggest six months worth of benefits and force people out to work, maybe not THE job but A job. The entitlement mentality today is part of the problem.

I think sitting out of work for six months is too long,lets make a part of drawing goverment help work for everyone. Neut Gingrich said that people out of work should be going to school, I agree to an extent. Lets have placement programs focused to place people in a position to learn as they wait for openings in their choosen job fields. Going to college or even trade schools gives people an opportunity to learn one part of work, hands on experience provides the final element needed to complete any education. With many seniors now looking to retire lets start to place qualified prospective people in a hands on enviroment where they can gain from the experience and knowledge of those already employed.

College loan payments and interest should be put on hold until the graduate is working, the same benefit should be extended to trades people, those without college or trade skills should be given the help they need to acquire an education.

We need to offer a hand up not a hand out, we need to offer hope in this period of high unemployment not criticism to people who have prepared for a job that is non existant
 
iliveonramen;1059854245]Pot meet the kettle. This occupy Wall Street crowd has just started and you've already decided want they want, who they are and made a snap judgment. At least regarding the TEA party there's sufficient imformation to make a judgement. In fact the Tea Party started off strongly because people were upset about the Bailouts and other things the Tea Party was about but their approval ratings have been dropping signficantly since it's become obvious they just want less regulation and less taxes.
.\

Don't recall any arrests at T.E.A. Party rallies, please post them for me then tell me exactly what the protest Wall Street rally is supposed to accomplish? What is the alternative? You want all your money going to D.C. and let them send back to you what they think you need? If you don't want to spend your money on Wall Street, don't do it. Try that with your taxes?

I'm not anti-Reagan, I'm anti-his economic plan. By what metric are "so many" prospering? Income inequality has grown greatly, median wages have remained stagnant. I have nothing against the President. It's pretty telling when his primary opponent and future President George H.W. Bush called his economic plan "vodoo economics". Do I think his message was needed in the 80's? Probably, I think people at the time felt the same way they do now. Do I think his economic plan solved our problems? No I think Volcker decreasing inflation and the end of high oil prices are what helped the economy.

Why are you anti Reagan economic plan? You don't have any initiative or drive? You aren't seeking individual wealth creation? Stop buying and complaining about what you are reading and think about the Steve Jobs, Bill Gates, Mark Zuckerman's of the world. All it takes is incentive, hard work, creativity and risk taking. Reagan economic policies led to the creation of 17 million jobs after a net job loss during the 81-82 recession. Reagan's approval ratings are extremely high today telling you what kind of job he did. You weren't around yet didn't like his economic policies. That tells me you have been brainwashed. Think instead of feeling. Do you think Reagan would be ranked as high today as he is if his policies failed as the liberals claim? Why are liberals so anti Reagan? I gave you the answer earlier.
 
EarlzP;1059854252]I think sitting out of work for six months is too long,lets make a part of drawing goverment help work for everyone. Neut Gingrich said that people out of work should be going to school, I agree to an extent. Lets have placement programs focused to place people in a position to learn as they wait for openings in their choosen job fields. Going to college or even trade schools gives people an opportunity to learn one part of work, hands on experience provides the final element needed to complete any education. With many seniors now looking to retire lets start to place qualified prospective people in a hands on enviroment where they can gain from the experience and knowledge of those already employed.

It is now two years, not 6 months and where did that 842 billion dollar first stimulu program go? Placement programs where? Where is the incentive for business to hire people with this Administration demonizing profit and wealth creation and you supporting them? Still waiting for you to tell me what the alternative is to Capitalism?

College loan payments and interest should be put on hold until the graduate is working, the same benefit should be extended to trades people, those without college or trade skills should be given the help they need to acquire an education.

Where do college loans come from and can't you do better locally? Why is this the role of the Federal Govt?


We need to offer a hand up not a hand out, we need to offer hope in this period of high unemployment not criticism to people who have prepared for a job that is non existant

No problem offering an hand up but not a hand out, but that isn't what is happening today. The chronic unemployed aren't going back to work and will collect unemployment as long as they can. There are jobs all over the place today but not THE job and sometimes you start low and work your way up. You seem to be unable to grasp that concept
 
So then why did the unemployment rate stay at 9.1%? don't you think that 400K job creation would lower the rate? You don't have a clue at what numbers you are looking at but that isn't surprising. You want badly to believe in the Obama rhetoric. Wonder if that is the way you operate in real life?
Your insults aside, allow me to educate you ... the U3 rate is calculated by the number of those unemployed and seeking work by the number of the labor force. They size of the labor force swelled last month by 423,000, hence the unemployment rate remained unchanged at 9.1%. But gaining 400,000 in a month is a good thing, which is you're kvetching about it now because what's good for America is bad for you.

By no means does that mean we didn't gain 400,000 jobs last month, we did, even if you choose not to believe it. I even gave you the link to prove it.

I only hope you're taking notes.

Now then ... why won't you give me the title to that book you posted about? Is it because you know what you posted was complete and utter BS and you don't want me to prove it??


Hereare snippets from a book of "Impressions & Observations" ofSecretService personnel assigned to guard U.S. Presidents/First Ladies, and Vice
Presidents.

Notice the difference according to the Secret Service? Your support for Obama is misguided. He is a true community agitator

GeorgeW. and Laura Bush: The Secret Service loved him and Laura
Bush. He was also the most physically "in shape"who had a very
strict workout regimen. The Bushes made sure their entire
administrative and household staff understood to respect and be
considerate of the Secret Service. Karl Rove was the one who wasthe
most caring of the Secret Service in the administration.
She was one of the nicest First Ladies, if not the nicest; she never
had any harsh word to say about anyone.

Barack & Michelle Obama: " Clinton all over again" - hatesthe
military and looks down on the Secret Service. He is egotistical and
cunning; looks you in the eye and appears to agree with you, but turns
around and does the opposite---untrustworthy. He has temper
tantrums.
She is a complete bitch, who hates anybody who is not black; hates the
military; and looks at the Secret Service as servants.
 
Last edited:
"Total and complete failure?" But after 32 months in office, he's still doing better than every Republican president. If Obama is a "total and complete failure," what does that say about the GOP?


Here's a list of presidents, along with the percentage of increase, or decrease, of the U3 unemployment rate after 32 months in office...

Nixon
+77%
Bush
+45%
Eisenhower
+41%
Ford*
+36%
GHW Bush
+28%
Reagan
+23%
Obama
+17%
Kennedy
-17%
Carter
-21%
Clinton
-23%
Johnson
-33%


* = Ford was in office 29 months

Bureau of Labor Statistics Data



Love your percentage change numbers, tell that to the over 25 million unemployed and under employed Americans and then tell the polling placed they have their job approval ratings wrong. Thanks for the laugh
Your reluctance to address my point is duly noted.

Again, Obama's performance regarding unemployment is better than every single Republican president going back as far as the data allows -- what does that say for the GOP?

Unemployment grew faster after 32 months in office for every Republican president than it has under Obama...

... this is the moment in your life where you either address that point or you run away from it again.
 
Your insults aside, allow me to educate you ... the U3 rate is calculated by the number of those unemployed and seeking work by the number of the labor force. They size of the labor force swelled last month by 423,000, hence the unemployment rate remained unchanged at 9.1%. But gaining 400,000 in a month is a good thing, which is you're kvetching about it now because what's good for America is bad for you.

By no means does that mean we didn't gain 400,000 jobs last month, we did, even if you choose not to believe it. I even gave you the link to prove it.

I only hope you're taking notes.

Now then ... why won't you give me the title to that book you posted about? Is it because you know what you posted was complete and utter BS and you don't want me to prove it??

Now for the rest of the story, In Augst there were 977,000 discourage workers and this month that number was 1.037 million unemployed workers, U-6 went from 16.2% tp 16.5% and you call that an improvement. Obama loves having peeople like you around. Too bad you don't care how foolish he makes you look.

"Your" President will go down in history making Jimmy Carter look good and Jimmy Carter is the only one smiling these days
 
Your reluctance to address my point is duly noted.

Again, Obama's performance regarding unemployment is better than every single Republican president going back as far as the data allows -- what does that say for the GOP?

Unemployment grew faster after 32 months in office for every Republican president than it has under Obama...

... this is the moment in your life where you either address that point or you run away from it again.

Sorry, no it isn't, no President in modern history has ever had 25 plus million unemployed and under employed. Keep spinning.
 
Why do people think that if someone makes more money a year, that they have a higher debt to pay, as a "fair share"? How about simply making ALL employed, of age americans pay 1000 a year, in taxes? I'm quite certain that would end up being more than the extra couple percent form the wealthy 1%.

The only employed people who don't pay at least 1,000 dollars a year are those who make under twelve thousand year. They don't pay taxes because it's almost impossible to survive on 12 thousand a year anyway. Don't try to say that your number is just inaccurate. What you have proposed is a flat tax. A flat tax is without a doubt predatory to the poor. To say that everyone should be taxed the same percentage of their income is one thing but to assert that everyone should pay the exact same amount of money is ludicrous. Say everyone pays 5000 dollars which still probably wouldn't be enough. Then the man who makes 10,000 dollars a year is taxed at 50% of his income. The woman who makes 20,000 dollars a year is taxed at 25%. The college grad who comes out into the workplace at 45,000 a year with massive debts pays 11.1% a year. Finally the wall street executive making 450,000 dollars a year is taxed at 1.11% of his income. The more you make the less you pay in. The less you make the more you pay in. Even then a flat tax raises a lot less revenue than a progressive tax, if the top 20 percent possess 93% of the wealth and your taxing them at 10% or less, even if you tax 100% of the income of the bottom 80 percent you stand to raise no where near the same amount of money. It's just common sense. I've also noted that you don't understand why the wealthy should pay more. Other than for the reason I just mentioned it becomes necessary to point out that in 1945 the income tax rate for the top bracket was 91 percent. 1981-86 (your boy reagan) the effective income tax rate for the wealthiest of Americans was 50%. Point being the top tax bracket needs to stop whining.
 
The drop isn't shown because the 400K didn't happen.
Here ya go, Con ... here's two links for ya ...

The first one is the one you claim the BLS got wrong where they show an increase of 398,000 jobs for the month of September ...


BLS: Number in thousands Employed

The second link is to there webpage where you can easily file a complaint with them, informing them the 398,000 job increase they show for September is wrong ...

BLS: Point of Contact for Complaints Concerning Information Quality

... but be warned, Con ... they are going to expect that you can rationally explain how their 398,000 figure is wrong, and personally, I just don't see how you're up to the task.
 
Don't recall any arrests at T.E.A. Party rallies, please post them for me then tell me exactly what the protest Wall Street rally is supposed to accomplish? What is the alternative? You want all your money going to D.C. and let them send back to you what they think you need? If you don't want to spend your money on Wall Street, don't do it. Try that with your taxes?
It's like week 1. Why don't you wait a bit and see what the goals end up being. The Tea Party is almost in year 4. It takes time before movements either dissapate (which is possible) or form a true movement. I'm saying reserve judgement. You don't have to agree with them off the bat or be a supporter but why not wait to see what their goals are before assuming they are long haired hippies wanting a hand out.
Why are you anti Reagan economic plan? You don't have any initiative or drive? You aren't seeking individual wealth creation?

I think for the most part it's increased our deficits. I think for a large part it's led to a concentration of wealth to the few. Why exactly are you personalizing this, I actually work in a very good job and do very well but my problems with trickle down are the results of trickle down economics.

Stop buying and complaining about what you are reading and think about the Steve Jobs, Bill Gates, Mark Zuckerman's of the world.
Innovation doesn't stop with higher tax rates. This idea that Steve Jobs, Bill Gates, Mark Zuckerman only exist because of lower marginal tax rates and low capital gains tax is false. It's a good sales pitch but it isn't proven with reality. You would have to show an absence of innovation during times of high marginal tax rates for the wealthy which is not the case. I also find it interesting that you have pointed out very progressive innovators who I doubt would quit working if their tax rate went up 5% or so.
Reagan economic policies led to the creation of 17 million jobs after a net job loss during the 81-82 recession.
Reagan was also a very big deficit spending (Keynesian), Volcker started decreasing interests rates after finally beating inflation in 83', and oil prices dropped globally. To point to tax breaks as the reason is pretty disenginous because taxes are lower now than they were under Reagan. Clinton increased tax rates right before the boom in the 90's. You can't really claim taxes have such an effect on innovation and growth without explaining away the contradictions and other possible causes...which no one can.

Reagan's approval ratings are extremely high today telling you what kind of job he did
And FDR is a very popular President still 60 years after he was President. His economic policies were the polar opposite of Reagans in a lot of ways. Just because he's a popular President does not mean everything he did was perfect.

Think instead of feeling.

I am. You're the one with an idealized picture that doesn't meet reality. I've posted why i think the way I do.

Do you think Reagan would be ranked as high today as he is if his policies failed as the liberals claim? Why are liberals so anti Reagan?

Like I mentioned, it doesn't mean all his policies were perfect. He was the great communicator not the great economists. Liberals are anti-Reagan because he's the antithesis in economic policies to Liberalism. It's like asking why Libertarians are so anti-Roosevelt.
 
The only employed people who don't pay at least 1,000 dollars a year are those who make under twelve thousand year. They don't pay taxes because it's almost impossible to survive on 12 thousand a year anyway. Don't try to say that your number is just inaccurate. What you have proposed is a flat tax. A flat tax is without a doubt predatory to the poor. To say that everyone should be taxed the same percentage of their income is one thing but to assert that everyone should pay the exact same amount of money is ludicrous. Say everyone pays 5000 dollars which still probably wouldn't be enough. Then the man who makes 10,000 dollars a year is taxed at 50% of his income. The woman who makes 20,000 dollars a year is taxed at 25%. The college grad who comes out into the workplace at 45,000 a year with massive debts pays 11.1% a year. Finally the wall street executive making 450,000 dollars a year is taxed at 1.11% of his income. The more you make the less you pay in. The less you make the more you pay in. Even then a flat tax raises a lot less revenue than a progressive tax, if the top 20 percent possess 93% of the wealth and your taxing them at 10% or less, even if you tax 100% of the income of the bottom 80 percent you stand to raise no where near the same amount of money. It's just common sense. I've also noted that you don't understand why the wealthy should pay more. Other than for the reason I just mentioned it becomes necessary to point out that in 1945 the income tax rate for the top bracket was 91 percent. 1981-86 (your boy reagan) the effective income tax rate for the wealthiest of Americans was 50%. Point being the top tax bracket needs to stop whining.

Are you poor? Who makes up that list of poor? You claim to be an expert on what it costs to live these days and what people spend their money on. What makes you an expert, textbooks? I am still waiting for someone to explain why Reagan is so popular today if he policies were such a failure. The top marginal rate of Reagan was 28%, not 50%. You want to pay 91% of your income to the govt? Do it and stop forcing others to do what you want to do. You actually believe people paid 91% of their income in taxes? Think about it and stop being spoon fed the liberal lies.
 
Here ya go, Con ... here's two links for ya ...

The first one is the one you claim the BLS got wrong where they show an increase of 398,000 jobs for the month of September ...


BLS: Number in thousands Employed

The second link is to there webpage where you can easily file a complaint with them, informing them the 398,000 job increase they show for September is wrong ...

BLS: Point of Contact for Complaints Concerning Information Quality

... but be warned, Con ... they are going to expect that you can rationally explain how their 398,000 figure is wrong, and personally, I just don't see how you're up to the task.

I posted the actual BLS data, you don't like it, take it up with them. Why don't you find out what that chart represents instead of making a fool of yourself

Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec

2000 5708 5858 5733 5481 5758 5651 5747 5853 5625 5534 5639 5634
2001 6023 6089 6141 6271 6226 6484 6583 7042 7142 7694 8003 8258
2002 8182 8215 8304 8599 8399 8393 8390 8304 8251 8307 8520 8640
2003 8520 8618 8588 8842 8957 9266 9011 8896 8921 8732 8576 8317
2004 8370 8167 8491 8170 8212 8286 8136 7990 7927 8061 7932 7934
2005 7784 7980 7737 7672 7651 7524 7406 7345 7553 7453 7566 7279
2006 7059 7185 7075 7122 6977 6998 7154 7097 6853 6728 6883 6784
2007 7085 6898 6725 6845 6765 6966 7113 7096 7200 7273 7284 7696
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
2010 14837 14871 15005 15260 14973 14623 14599 14860 14767 14843 15119 14485
2011 13863 13673 13542 13747 13914 14087 13931 13967 13992

Discouraged workers
2008 467 396 401 412 400 420 461 381 467 484 608 642
2009 734 731 685 740 792 793 796 758 706 808 861 929
2010 1065 1204 994 1197 1083 1207 1185 1110 1209 1219 1282 1318
2011 993 1020 921 989 822 982 1119 977 1037

Unemployed + Discouraged
2008 8095 7831 8194 8043 8797 8980 9356 9890 10036 10656 11225 12042
2009 12653 13445 13995 14556 15310 15514 15330 15751 15865 16420 16201 16196
2010 15902 16075 15999 16457 16056 15830 15784 15970 15976 16062 16401 15803
2011 14856 14693 14463 14736 14736 15069 15050 14944 15029 0 0 0
 
Now for the rest of the story, In Augst there were 977,000 discourage workers and this month that number was 1.037 million unemployed workers, U-6 went from 16.2% tp 16.5% and you call that an improvement. Obama loves having peeople like you around. Too bad you don't care how foolish he makes you look.
No matter how you try to spin it -- 400,000 jobs added in September.

"Your" President will go down in history making Jimmy Carter look good and Jimmy Carter is the only one smiling these days
Jimmy Carter made George Bush look bad. Carter created 10 million jobs in 4 years compared to Bush creating 4 million jobs in 8 years.
 
I posted the actual BLS data, you don't like it, take it up with them. Why don't you find out what that chart represents instead of making a fool of yourself

Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec

2000 5708 5858 5733 5481 5758 5651 5747 5853 5625 5534 5639 5634
2001 6023 6089 6141 6271 6226 6484 6583 7042 7142 7694 8003 8258
2002 8182 8215 8304 8599 8399 8393 8390 8304 8251 8307 8520 8640
2003 8520 8618 8588 8842 8957 9266 9011 8896 8921 8732 8576 8317
2004 8370 8167 8491 8170 8212 8286 8136 7990 7927 8061 7932 7934
2005 7784 7980 7737 7672 7651 7524 7406 7345 7553 7453 7566 7279
2006 7059 7185 7075 7122 6977 6998 7154 7097 6853 6728 6883 6784
2007 7085 6898 6725 6845 6765 6966 7113 7096 7200 7273 7284 7696
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
2010 14837 14871 15005 15260 14973 14623 14599 14860 14767 14843 15119 14485
2011 13863 13673 13542 13747 13914 14087 13931 13967 13992

Discouraged workers
2008 467 396 401 412 400 420 461 381 467 484 608 642
2009 734 731 685 740 792 793 796 758 706 808 861 929
2010 1065 1204 994 1197 1083 1207 1185 1110 1209 1219 1282 1318
2011 993 1020 921 989 822 982 1119 977 1037

Unemployed + Discouraged
2008 8095 7831 8194 8043 8797 8980 9356 9890 10036 10656 11225 12042
2009 12653 13445 13995 14556 15310 15514 15330 15751 15865 16420 16201 16196
2010 15902 16075 15999 16457 16056 15830 15784 15970 15976 16062 16401 15803
2011 14856 14693 14463 14736 14736 15069 15050 14944 15029 0 0 0
I have no complaints with the BLS, you do. You're the one claiming 400,000 jobs were added last month despite their website showing 400,000 jobs were added.

Now about that book you were talking about -- what is the title so I can faqct check your bogus claim?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom