• 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!

U.S. Jobless Rate Unexpectedly Declines to 8.6%

Rhapsody1447 said:
So you are adopting the "wait and see" approach?
Click to expand...

No, not really. We as Americans have been dealt the "wait and see" approach. I would prefer infrastructure stimulus in the tune of at least $1 trillion per year for the next 2 years, but that's not going to happen.
 
Goldenboy219 said:
No, not really. We as Americans have been dealt the "wait and see" approach. I would prefer infrastructure stimulus in the tune of at least $1 trillion per year for the next 2 years, but that's not going to happen.
Click to expand...

You finally got something right.
 
treedancer said:
Your right, the bush tax cuts sure didn't.
Click to expand...

Once the Bush tax cuts were fully implemented, July 2003, they sure did, until Democrats took control of Congress

2001 137778
2002 135701
2003 137417
2004 138472
2005 140245
2006 143150
2007 146033
2008 146407

Looks to me like 9 million jobs created between January 1, 2003 and January 1, 2008. Compare that to Obama's job performance

2009 142221
2010 138333
2011 139323
Nov 11 140590

That would be a net loss of 1.6 million
 
Conservative said:
Once the Bush tax cuts were fully implemented, July 2003, they sure did, until Democrats took control of Congress

2001 137778
2002 135701
2003 137417
2004 138472
2005 140245
2006 143150
2007 146033
2008 146407

Looks to me like 9 million jobs created between January 1, 2003 and January 1, 2008. Compare that to Obama's job performance

2009 142221
2010 138333
2011 139323
Nov 11 140590

That would be a net loss of 1.6 million
Click to expand...

You conveniently leave out the massive reduction in public saving. Federal spending increase from about $2 trillion/year in 2002 to about $3 trillion/year in 2008; an increase of 50% in 6 years.

You can't have it both ways.
 
Goldenboy219 said:
Actually, we gained 339,000 jobs last month but 219,000 of them were due to the holiday/winter season ;)
Click to expand...

And we had 315,000 drop out of the labor force with a growing population and had another 1.1 million discouraged workers. The unemployment rate with the discouraged workers is 9.3% and the U-6 unemployment is 15.6%. Don't see many taking victory laps over those numbers.
 
apdst said:
You believe that folks are going to vote for the Dems next year, because they got a tax cut that amounts to 10 bucks a week?
Click to expand...


It really depends on how the tax cuts are framed doesn’t it? For instance, the reps want the bush tax cuts kept in place, which help the wealthiest, while blocking the tax cut that helps the middle class more.Hhmm...Lottsa fodder their for move on.:thumbs:

Then we have the rep clown show running for President into.kinda looks like the dems have a pretty good shot of taking the house back as well.
 
apdst said:
Bush had a low rate of 4.5%. How do you explain that?
Click to expand...

That was caused by Clinton, don't you know that? Anything good happens during a republican presidency and it's the democrats who are responsible. Anything bad happen during a democratic presidency and it's the republicans who are responsible. When will you ever learn?
 
treedancer said:
It really depends on how the tax cuts are framed doesn’t it? For instance, the reps want the bush tax cuts kept in place, which help the wealthiest, while blocking the tax cut that helps the middle class more.Hhmm...Lottsa fodder their for move on.:thumbs:

Then we have the rep clown show running for President into.kinda looks like the dems have a pretty good shot of taking the house back as well.
Click to expand...

The Bush tax cuts allowed 47% of the income earning households to drop off the tax roles and pay zero in Federal Income Taxes so tell me how that didn't help those people?
 
Goldenboy219 said:
You must be wondering what that's like?
Click to expand...

Yeah ??? Get back to me when total unemployment drops below 15%. I predict that will happen fairly soon after Obama is voted out next year.
 
Goldenboy219 said:
You conveniently leave out the massive reduction in public saving. Federal spending increase from about $2 trillion/year in 2002 to about $3 trillion/year in 2008; an increase of 50% in 6 years.

You can't have it both ways.
Click to expand...

How dare me leaving out savings in reporting job creation! Looks to me like the Bush tax cuts did exactly what they were supposed to do, increase spending and demand.
 
treedancer said:
It really depends on how the tax cuts are framed doesn’t it? For instance, the reps want the bush tax cuts kept in place, which help the wealthiest, while blocking the tax cut that helps the middle class more.Hhmm...Lottsa fodder their for move on.:thumbs:
Click to expand...


The Bush tax cuts lowered taxes on all tax brackets.

Then we have the rep clown show running for President into.kinda looks like the dems have a pretty good shot of taking the house back as well.
Click to expand...

They're going to win it with all those wonderful policies that won them the midterms? Oh, wait...
 
dontworrybehappy said:
That was caused by Clinton, don't you know that? Anything good happens during a republican presidency and it's the democrats who are responsible. Anything bad happen during a democratic presidency and it's the republicans who are responsible. When will you ever learn?
Click to expand...

I know. Dammit! :rofl
 
Conservative said:
The Bush tax cuts allowed 47% of the income earning households to drop off the tax roles and pay zero in Federal Income Taxes so tell me how that didn't help those people?
Click to expand...

WTH does this post have to do with the post of mine that you quoted?:roll:
 
treedancer said:
WTH does this post have to do with the post of mine that you quoted?:roll:
Click to expand...

Did you not post the following?

the reps want the bush tax cuts kept in place, which help the wealthiest, while blocking the tax cut that helps the middle class more.
Click to expand...

Wouldn't you say 47% of income earning households not paying Federal income taxes were helped by the Bush tax cuts?
 
Conservative said:
How dare me leaving out savings in reporting job creation! Looks to me like the Bush tax cuts did exactly what they were supposed to do, increase spending and demand.
Click to expand...

Public savings is the difference between taxes and spending. When it is negative, we have a deficit; when it is positive we have a surplus. Low public savings during the Bush years was extremely stimulative; the issue that arose out of a low tax/high spending policy during periods of economic growth was the fact that the private sector did not save accordingly (as evident in the trade deficit).

The Bush tax cuts combined with increases in government spending were actually quite stimulative; even when unemployment was @ 4.5% (which is retarded).
 
The unemployment rate is seasonally adjusted. Therefore, the claim that the drop in the unemployment rate is attributed to the increased hiring of holiday workers is a misnomer.

Seasonal adjustment is a statistical technique that attempts to measure and remove the influences of predictable seasonal patterns to reveal how employment and unemployment change from month to month.

Over the course of a year, the size of the labor force, the levels of employment and unemployment, and other measures of labor market activity undergo fluctuations due to seasonal events including changes in weather, harvests, major holidays, and school schedules. Because these seasonal events follow a more or less regular pattern each year, their influence on statistical trends can be eliminated by seasonally adjusting the statistics from month to month. These seasonal adjustments make it easier to observe the cyclical, underlying trend, and other nonseasonal movements in the series.

As a general rule, the monthly employment and unemployment numbers reported in the news are seasonally adjusted data. Seasonally adjusted data are useful when comparing several months of data. Annual average estimates are calculated from the not seasonally adjusted data series.
Click to expand...
What is seasonal adjustment?


Like others, I have my reservations about this "unexpected" drop. Let's give a few month and see where we stand in the Spring.
 
Antiderivative said:
The unemployment rate is seasonally adjusted. Therefore, the claim that the drop in the unemployment rate is attributed to the increased hiring of holiday workers is a misnomer.


What is seasonal adjustment?


Like others, I have my reservations about this "unexpected" drop. Let's give a few month and see where we stand in the Spring.
Click to expand...

The sad part is that people who do/did not understand this expect their opinion to carry weight.
 
Conservative said:
Did you not post the following?



Wouldn't you say 47% of income earning households not paying Federal income taxes were helped by the Bush tax cuts?
Click to expand...


Whoop te do...WOW what are they going to do with all that dough.:roll:


America’s top earners will get an average tax cut of $66,384 in 2011, while the bottom 20 percent will get an average cut of $107.
 
treedancer said:
Whoop te do...WOW what are they going to do with all that dough.:roll:


America’s top earners will get an average tax cut of $66,384 in 2011, while the bottom 20 percent will get an average cut of $107.
Click to expand...

So your answer then is to send people who aren't paying any Federal Income Taxes a check? How much and why? Amazing how you believe those evil rich people who are paying 38% of all Federal Income Taxes collected AFTER the tax cuts benefit more than people who aren't paying any Federal Income taxes at all? You call yourself "slightly liberal?" That total lack of logic and common sense makes you totally liberal.
 
Conservative said:
You call yourself "slightly liberal?" That total lack of logic and common sense makes you totally liberal.
Click to expand...

How is this relevant to the topic?
 
Gill said:
The meaning of the topic is clear...... 315,000 fewer people are now looking for jobs, which resulted in the drop in the unemployment rate. There are now 487,000 fewer people in the workforce than there was in October.

Of the private sector jobs, 50,000 of them were retail, obviously temporary holiday work. Manufacturing gained only 2,000 new jobs, while construction lost 12,000.

If it makes you feel good to gloat about these pathetic numbers, feel free.
Click to expand...

I am not certain he understands what normally happens when a denominator is lowered.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom