• 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!

US economy creates 243,000 jobs in January

Status
Not open for further replies.
Check the dates for Bush, you only looked at 7 years for Bush.

Note to jmac ... you like that, huh? :roll:
Actually, the numbers for Bush are 8 years, and they are accurate. I just typed in January 2008 when I should have typed in January 2009. But the number 133,561,000 is the January 2009 number. It is interesting, however, that you were so quickly critical of my numbers, mind telling me how in the heck did you arrived at yours?
 
Actually, the numbers for Bush are 8 years, and they are accurate. I just typed in January 2008 when I should have typed in January 2009. But the number 133,561,000 is the January 2009 number. It is interesting, however, that you were so quickly critical of my numbers, mind telling me how in the heck did you arrived at yours?

Not sure where he got the numbers either but here are the employment numbers from BLS, these are the numbers used to calculate the unemployment rate

Labor Force Statistics from the Current Population Survey
Original Data Value

Series Id: LNS12000000
Seasonally Adjusted
Series title: (Seas) Employment Level
Labor force status: Employed
Type of data: Number in thousands
Age: 16 years and over
Years: 1980 to 2011

Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
2001 137778 137612 137783 137299 137092 136873 137071 136241 136846 136392 136238 136047
2002 135701 136438 136177 136126 136539 136415 136413 136705 137302 137008 136521 136426
2003 137417 137482 137434 137633 137544 137790 137474 137549 137609 137984 138424 138411
2004 138472 138542 138453 138680 138852 139174 139556 139573 139487 139732 140231 140125
2005 140245 140385 140654 141254 141609 141714 142026 142434 142401 142548 142499 142752
2006 143150 143457 143741 143761 144089 144353 144202 144625 144815 145314 145534 145970
2007 146028 146057 146320 145586 145903 146063 145905 145682 146244 145946 146595 146273
2008 146397 146157 146108 146130 145929 145738 145530 145196 145059 144792 144078 143328
2009 142187 141660 140754 140654 140294 140003 139891 139458 138775 138401 138607 137968
2010 138500 138665 138836 139306 139340 139137 139139 139338 139344 139072 138937 139220
2011 139330 139551 139764 139628 139808 139385 139450 139754 140107 140297 140614 140790
2012 141637


Looks to me like a large net job gain for Bush and a net job loss for Obama
 
What numbers did you get? From when to when, before you are snarky.
Snarky?

Moi??

Fletch posted 2001-2008 (instead of 2001-2009) and I didn't get snarky. I merely pointed out that he used the wrong dates.

Which is a good thing too since I also messed up by posting a link to total non-farm when I meant to post a link to total private. Here's the new link, along with my apologies ...


Bureau of Labor Statistics Data

Jan/1977: 65636
Jan/1981: 74671
Jan/1989: 89359
Jan/1993: 90825
Jan/2001: 111631
Jan/2009: 110985
Jan/2012: 110436

Carter 4 years9,035,000
Reagan 8 years 14,688,000
GHWBush 4 years 1,466,000
Clinton 8 years 20,806,000
Bush 8 years -646,000
Obama 3 years -549,000
 
Sorry, but there was no answer and since there was no answer there is nothing to search for. I am becoming convinced that my 11 year old granddaughter is smarter than Obama supporters
I'd wager your 11 year old granddaughter can find where I already answered that question, even though you can't.
 
Snarky?

Moi??

Fletch posted 2001-2008 (instead of 2001-2009) and I didn't get snarky. I merely pointed out that he used the wrong dates.

Which is a good thing too since I also messed up by posting a link to total non-farm when I meant to post a link to total private. Here's the new link, along with my apologies ...


Bureau of Labor Statistics Data

Jan/1977: 65636
Jan/1981: 74671
Jan/1989: 89359
Jan/1993: 90825
Jan/2001: 111631
Jan/2009: 110985
Jan/2012: 110436

Carter 4 years9,035,000
Reagan 8 years 14,688,000
GHWBush 4 years 1,466,000
Clinton 8 years 20,806,000
Bush 8 years -646,000
Obama 3 years -549,000

I downloaded the data, and it had different numbers than posted...looking into it.
 
http://data.bls.gov/pdq/SurveyOutputServlet

Jan 12 - 132409
Jan 09 - 133561
Jan 01 - 132466
Jan 93 - 109726
Jan 89 - 107133
Jan 81 - 91031
Jan 77 - 80692

Carter: 10399
Reagan: 16102
Bush Sr: 2593
Clinton: 22740
Bush Jr: 1095
Obama: -1152

Those are the numbers I am seeing...
 
Last edited:
Snarky?

Moi??

Fletch posted 2001-2008 (instead of 2001-2009) and I didn't get snarky. I merely pointed out that he used the wrong dates.

Which is a good thing too since I also messed up by posting a link to total non-farm when I meant to post a link to total private. Here's the new link, along with my apologies ...


Bureau of Labor Statistics Data

Jan/1977: 65636
Jan/1981: 74671
Jan/1989: 89359
Jan/1993: 90825
Jan/2001: 111631
Jan/2009: 110985
Jan/2012: 110436

Carter 4 years9,035,000
Reagan 8 years 14,688,000
GHWBush 4 years 1,466,000
Clinton 8 years 20,806,000
Bush 8 years -646,000
Obama 3 years -549,000

Your link went to Employee hours...
 
Reagan, "Are you better off today than you were 4 years ago?" American electorate, "NO" thus a Reagan victory

GOP Candidate, "Are you better off today than you were 4 years ago?" American electorate, "NO, Misery index 7.83 in Jan 2009 and 11.46 in December 2010"

The liberal truth somehow ignores the liberal results, why is that?

In spite of your phantom “Misery index“ it looks like the American Voters took a look at the clown caravan that the republicans have running and decided that they like Obama better than any of the current small r’s that are running. Got anymore-obsolete numbers you feel like posting for us to look at ? :roll:

<President Obama’s political standing is rising along with voters’ optimism that the economy is getting better, according to the latest New York Times/CBS News poll, a shift that coincides with continued Republican disquiet over the field of candidates seeking to replace him. >

<howing steady improvement since early December, Mr. Obama’s approval rating has reached the 50 percent mark in The Times/CBS News poll >

<For the first time since the election season began in earnest in the late summer, as many Democrats as Republicans say they are more enthusiastic than usual about voting in the 2012 presidential election>

<Mr. Obama leads all four remaining Republican presidential candidates in theoretical, one-on-one competitions, including the presumed front-runner, Mr. Romney But the president’s general election prospects could change drastically when the opposition finally settles on a nominee, who will likely win an immediate boost of support and enthusiasm, if history is a guide. >

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/15/us/politics/economic-gains-give-lift-to-obama-in-poll.html?_r=1
 
What purpose is it to only post private jobs? Do public jobs not count? Why?
In response to Conservative posting ...

"Yep, we are reliving the Carter days focused on micromanagement of the Private sector generating similar results." ~ Conservative


... I posted the actual private sector jobs to show that Obama's results are closer to Bush's than Carter's.

Carter (4 years): 9,035,000
Bush (8 years): -646,000
Obama (3 years): -549,000
 
Ok...makes sense...I think this is the confusion in the various numbers. carry on.
 
What purpose is it to only post private jobs? Do public jobs not count? Why?

Conservatives generally argue that government is too big, and thus a lower public job total should make conservatives happy. It would be a bit hypocritical to argue that government should be smaller, and then use smaller government as a cudgel to beat Obama. Wouldn't it?
 
Conservatives generally argue that government is too big, and thus a lower public job total should make conservatives happy. It would be a bit hypocritical to argue that government should be smaller, and then use smaller government as a cudgel to beat Obama. Wouldn't it?
But then again, perhaps the only metric that should be considered when evaluating a presidents impact upon jobs is the growth of government jobs, since the president has very little impact on whether or not someone in the private sector hires someone or not.
 
But then again, perhaps the only metric that should be considered when evaluating a presidents impact upon jobs is the growth of government jobs, since the president has very little impact on whether or not someone in the private sector hires someone or not.

But the policies that the President and Congress pass allows companies to operate with more or less clarity. With more clarity of their future they can spend more money on jobs.

When I am talking clarity, I am thinking specifically of the recent Health Care Act. Businesses were unsure how this would effect their bottom line, and some businesses stated that this triggered a hiring freeze until they knew what was coming down the pike.
 
But then again, perhaps the only metric that should be considered when evaluating a presidents impact upon jobs is the growth of government jobs, since the president has very little impact on whether or not someone in the private sector hires someone or not.

Not really true. The president has more direct control over federal jobs, but his policies certainly influence private hiring/firing.
 
Conservatives generally argue that government is too big, and thus a lower public job total should make conservatives happy. It would be a bit hypocritical to argue that government should be smaller, and then use smaller government as a cudgel to beat Obama. Wouldn't it?

Govt is too big, wonder how many wage slaves here believe their employer is making too much and paying too little in taxes? You claim to be an independent contractor yet you seem to support bigger govt. and that govt. providing solutions for everyone else. How about solutions for you? Can't you see Conservatives are fighting for your right to make as much money as you can? Can't you see that Conservatives have no problem with you joining the upper class? Can you not see that the Govt. isn't the answer to all the social problems in this country? Maybe this will help you understand but doubt it

The Government Can- Tim Hawkins (Insanitized DVD) - YouTube
 
Not really true. The president has more direct control over federal jobs, but his policies certainly influence private hiring/firing.

This President is showing his true colors just like those supporting him. His budget says it all and promote the continued movement towards the failed European socialist model that has set Europe on fire. Keep supporting this guy and pay the price later or don't you care?
 
Govt is too big, wonder how many wage slaves here believe their employer is making too much and paying too little in taxes? You claim to be an independent contractor yet you seem to support bigger govt. and that govt. providing solutions for everyone else. How about solutions for you? Can't you see Conservatives are fighting for your right to make as much money as you can? Can't you see that Conservatives have no problem with you joining the upper class? Can you not see that the Govt. isn't the answer to all the social problems in this country? Maybe this will help you understand but doubt it

The Government Can- Tim Hawkins (Insanitized DVD) - YouTube

Tim Hawkins has it right! I love that song! :)
 
This President is showing his true colors just like those supporting him. His budget says it all and promote the continued movement towards the failed European socialist model that has set Europe on fire. Keep supporting this guy and pay the price later or don't you care?


What’s not to like about the budget sent to Congress? $4 trillion in deficit savings over the next ten years, cuts in the budget, wars winding down.Damn…your hard to please; one side of you mouth says one thing while the other sides saying something else.:(
 
What’s not to like about the budget sent to Congress? $4 trillion in deficit savings over the next ten years, cuts in the budget, wars winding down.Damn…your hard to please; one side of you mouth says one thing while the other sides saying something else.:(

Keep buying the rhetoric just like a cow being led to slaughter. Total ignorance of reality. There are no budget cuts just games. The Iraq War is over and those savings are already taking place, in the Obama budget they are counted twice. Medicare cuts are shifted to Obamacare costs. There are no cuts but instead another 1.3 trillion added to the deb. Stop playing your silly ass game and think for a change.
 
Keep buying the rhetoric just like a cow being led to slaughter. Total ignorance of reality. There are no budget cuts just games. The Iraq War is over and those savings are already taking place, in the Obama budget they are counted twice. Medicare cuts are shifted to Obamacare costs. There are no cuts but instead another 1.3 trillion added to the deb. Stop playing your silly ass game and think for a change.
'Stop playing your silly ass game and think for a change.'..............i agree, you con, should absolutely quit playing your silly ass game, and think for a change.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom