US economy creates 243,000 jobs in January

misterman · Feb 5, 2012

j-mac said:
Wiki is a horrible source.

Wikipedia is what it is.

It's best use is it's footnotes. When you have good footnotes, the info is pretty reliable.

Some studies show it's as good as a conventional encyclopedia: Study: Wikipedia as accurate as Britannica - CNET News

But there's no question that a particular article may be totally unreliable or false, since it can be edited by anyone at any time. The key is the footnotes.

Conservative · Feb 5, 2012

Anyone, conservative or liberal in the private sector would have lost their job if they spent as much money as Obama has spent and generated the results Obama has. Far too many do not understand the role of leadership or the responsibilities of leadership. Seems like responsibility only rests with a Conservative and delegation of responsibility is a liberal trait. Everyone knows a leader cannot delegate responsibility.

Obama has a net job loss, net employment loss, a labor force equal to or less than when he took office, higher misery index, highest debt in three years in U.S. history, record budgets, record spending, credit rating reduction, lower GDP growth than last year which is the worst GDP growth following any recession in history, and liberals still blame this record on others.

misterman · Feb 5, 2012

Conservative said:
Anyone, conservative or liberal in the private sector would have lost their job if they spent as much money as Obama has spent and generated the results Obama has.

Presidents don't spend money. Congress does.

Far too many do not understand the role of leadership or the responsibilities of leadership. Seems like responsibility only rests with a Conservative and delegation of responsibility is a liberal trait. Everyone knows a leader cannot delegate responsibility.

You just keep going and going, don't you?

Conservative · Feb 5, 2012

misterman said:
Presidents don't spend money. Congress does.

You just keep going and going, don't you?

The responsibility belongs to Obama, he is the President and he is in charge. He could have vetoed the spending but in fact requested most of it. The deficits are his, accept responsibility.

haymarket · Feb 5, 2012

This good economic news really must fry your bacon Conservative. You are in the position of cheering against Americans so can cheer for your own political goals.

Not a good spot to be in for a proclaimed patriot.

Republic Now! · Feb 5, 2012

misterman said:
Presidents don't spend money. Congress does.

Good point. I really apologize. What I should say from now, and I urge everyone to, is the "Democrat majority Congress." Of course, the president has to approve all spending, so I guess you could say "The Democrat majority Congress and the President who while being a completely innocent party, stood to the side while this was occurring." Actually, standing to the side isn't exactly right either, since he has to actually sign the budget, so I guess we could say "The Democrat Congress and the President who while being a completely innocent party was forced by his peers to unwillingly put into place, something he completely disagrees with mind you, the..." And then you would say what it is. That way, we wouldn't have these confusions anymore.

Conservative · Feb 5, 2012

haymarket said:
This good economic news really must fry your bacon Conservative. You are in the position of cheering against Americans so can cheer for your own political goals.

Not a good spot to be in for a proclaimed patriot.

That is typical and what I expect from someone who has been looking for something to cheer about for the last three years. As usual you pick out a stat and ignore the total content. Apparently since January 2009 there has been no population and no labor force growth. The Obama results speak for themselves but i continue to be amazed at how someone who works for the state govt. has no problem giving more power to the Federal govt. Guess that is the way you delegate responsibility as well as blame for your poor results.

Obama today has a net job loss
Obama today has a declining labor force
Obama today has fewer people employed than when he took office
Obama today has almost a million discouraged workers which he has averaged over the past three years
Obama today has a U-6 unemployment of 15.2% or 24 million unemployed/under employed Americans
Obama today has add 154395
ed 4.6 trillion dollars to the debt in 3 years
Obama today spent over 842 billion in a stimulus plan that failed
Obama today has a higher misery index than when he took office
Obama today has participated in crony capitalism and wasted billions of taxpayer dollars trying to pick winners in the private sector
Obama today has promoted class warfare and demonized individual wealth creation
Obama today has seen record numbers in poverty and record numbers of people on food stamps
Obama today still claims he brought this country back from the brink of financial collapse when TARP did that and it was Bush's legislation
Obama today claims he saved the auto industry by taking over GM/Chrysler ignoring that Ford took no bailout money nor did any other Auto Manufacturer. Taxpayer losses will be in the billions
Obama today has wasted the repayment of TARP and never used the money to pay down the deficit

misterman · Feb 5, 2012

Conservative said:
The responsibility belongs to Obama, he is the President and he is in charge. He could have vetoed the spending but in fact requested most of it. The deficits are his, accept responsibility.

False.

The Constitution gives Congress most of the control over spending decisions.

Clearly you cannot blame the President just because he didn't veto a bill that Congress passed. Congress clearly holds some responsibility for that.

Second, a large part of the spending is entitlements, and they aren't appropriated each year. Obama can do nothing about those until Congress sends him a bill to limit them. This shows how the growth in spending has been in entitlements - 5 times faster than appropriated spending:

misterman · Feb 5, 2012

Republic Now! said:
Good point. I really apologize.

Hey, thanks. You'll never hear that from Conservative.

What I should say from now, and I urge everyone to, is the "Democrat majority Congress."

Sure, because you're a partisan.

Spending has increased steadily over the years, regardless of who had a majority in Congress.

Of course, the president has to approve all spending, so I guess you could say "The Democrat majority Congress and the President who while being a completely innocent party, stood to the side while this was occurring." Actually, standing to the side isn't exactly right either, since he has to actually sign the budget, so I guess we could say "The Democrat Congress and the President who while being a completely innocent party was forced by his peers to unwillingly put into place, something he completely disagrees with mind you, the..." And then you would say what it is. That way, we wouldn't have these confusions anymore.

You could say all kinds of things.

You remind me of a guy who I debated once who blame Congress for Reagan's spending increases, even after I patiently explained the veto and appropriations process to him.

The bottom line is that both parties are to blame for the overall spending trend. This blame game is silly.

Republic Now! · Feb 5, 2012

misterman said:
Hey, thanks. You'll never hear that from Conservative.

Sure, because you're a partisan.

Well, I'd blame the Republican majority congress too if there was one. I think what you're missing is the connection the congress has to the president. That's kind of the point. They're not exactly against him. In fact, I'd say they have deep ties to each in which they work to similar interests. That's how a functional party usually works.

Spending has increased steadily over the years, regardless of who had a majority in Congress.

Actually, it was going down for several years. The deficit has constantly increased, mainly because simply getting a budget surplus does not equal deficit reduction.

You remind me of a guy who I debated once who blame Congress for Reagan's spending increases, even after I patiently explained the veto and appropriations process to him.

I remind you of someone who is arguing the point you're making? Or am I misunderstanding you?

The bottom line is that both parties are to blame for the overall spending trend. This blame game is silly.

I agree. Unfortunately, since it appears to me as though everyone thinks Obama is a solution to the problem, I have no choice but constantly point out otherwise. I don't think Obama is the worst president of all time but he's not a step in the right direction. I said this same thing about Bush. Until people start seeing the situation for what it is, I'll have no choice but to ensure I consistently point out the realities of the situation to everyone.

Karl · Feb 5, 2012

Harshaw said:
[...] Which is a damn sight different than you present it. [...]

No, it is exactly the same -- the CBO projection you state was based upon the Bush tax cuts expiring by the end of 2010, contrary to your claim:

Harshaw said:
Yes, and prior to the recession, the deficit was on track and projected to disappear, and surpluses reappear, all with the "warz" and the tax cuts intact. [...]

Edited to add:

Harshaw said:
[,,,] The deficit was disappearing (as shown in the previous post) and projected to be eliminated by FY2011, which would be reached BEFORE the calendar expiration of the tax cuts (even if you had presented that portion honestly). [...]

Ah, I see that you moved the goal post, no longer claiming surpluses. .... while accusing others of dishonesty. Figures.

misterman · Feb 5, 2012

Republic Now! said:
Well, I'd blame the Republican majority congress too if there was one.

Um, the House is Republican majority now. So you can't say it's a Dem majority. It's split.

Over the last 20 years, it's been one or the other several times. Spending has grown steadily.

The blame game is silly.

Harshaw · Feb 5, 2012

Karl said:
No, it is exactly the same -- the CBO projection you state was based upon the Bush tax cuts expiring by the end of 2010, contrary to your claim:

Sure. I post the paragraph in full which showed what the paragraph actually said, and you choose to repeat your lie.

Nice.

Ah, I see that you moved the goal post, no longer claiming surpluses. .... while accusing others of dishonesty. Figures.

No, I was reframing the point to defeat you on your own (faulty) terms.

Republic Now! · Feb 5, 2012

misterman said:
Um, the House is Republican majority now. So you can't say it's a Dem majority.

The house isn't Congresss. Congress is congress. I blame the Republican house for condoning the things they've condoned. Though, at the same time, I don't see how they could fix the problem in the present scenario. The most they can do is stop more damage from being done.

It's split.

Well, Congress isn't. We weren't talking about the house before, but yes, if you include the house, and exclusively the house, not considering also the veto power of the president, it's split.

Over the last 20 years, it's been one or the other several times. Spending has grown steadily.

No matter how many times you say spending has grown steadily, it will become true because you said it. I never said Republicans don't increase spending.

The blame game is silly.

Well, that can be your opinion, but I think it's pretty important to find the sources of problems.

Conservative · Feb 5, 2012

misterman said:
False.

The Constitution gives Congress most of the control over spending decisions.

Clearly you cannot blame the President just because he didn't veto a bill that Congress passed. Congress clearly holds some responsibility for that.

Second, a large part of the spending is entitlements, and they aren't appropriated each year. Obama can do nothing about those until Congress sends him a bill to limit them. This shows how the growth in spending has been in entitlements - 5 times faster than appropriated spending:

I haven't seen you defend Bush over all the attacks here in this forum. The President is responsible for the results generated, always has and always will be except when it comes to Obama who isn't responsible for anything but is a good singer.

Conservative · Feb 5, 2012

misterman said:
Um, the House is Republican majority now. So you can't say it's a Dem majority. It's split.

Over the last 20 years, it's been one or the other several times. Spending has grown steadily.

The blame game is silly.

It is split and the deficit for fiscal year 2011 is down from 2010 and that s because of the Republican submitting lower continuing resolutions since there is no budget thanks to the Democrats refusal to pass one when they were in charge.

misterman · Feb 5, 2012

Republic Now! said:
The house isn't Congresss. Congress is congress.

The House is half of Congress. So there's no Dem majority, or Republican majority, in Congress right now. And most of the last 20 years has been split like that.

Well, Congress isn't. We weren't talking about the house before,

Yes, we were talking about both the House and Senate, which as you note, is Congress.

but yes, if you include the house, and exclusively the house, not considering also the veto power of the president, it's split.

No, the House has a Republican majority. The Senate has a dem majority. So Congress is split.

No matter how many times you say spending has grown steadily, it will become true because you said it.

No, it's true because it's true. Anyone can look it up.

I never said Republicans don't increase spending.

You clearly blamed a "democratic majority" for it.

Well, that can be your opinion, but I think it's pretty important to find the sources of problems.

It's silly when your blame isn't fair, or when it doesn't help solve the problem.

misterman · Feb 5, 2012

Conservative said:
It is split

True.

and the deficit for fiscal year 2011 is down from 2010

False.

and that s because of the Republican submitting lower continuing resolutions

You just admitted it was split. You can't go giving Republicans the credit now.

since there is no budget thanks to the Democrats refusal to pass one when they were in charge.

Utter bull****.

The "budget" is irrelevant. A budget is completely unnecessary to pass appropriations. It has nothing to do with the need for a continuing resolution. And the final appropriation wasn't a continuing resolution - which simply extends the prior year's spending - it was an appropriation, one that simply encompassed several normal appropriations bills into one.

And Congress passes a budget resolution in the CURRENT year, so what Dems did in a prior year is irrelevant. More of you just twisting facts any way you can to try to blame Dems for everything. It's getting completely ridiculous, Conservative. It's obvious to everyone that you can't be trusted with your facts.

Republic Now! · Feb 5, 2012

misterman said:
The House is half of Congress. So there's no Dem majority, or Republican majority, in Congress right now. And most of the last 20 years has been split like that.

Yes, we were talking about both the House and Senate, which as you note, is Congress.

No, the House has a Republican majority. The Senate has a dem majority. So Congress is split.

You're right. My mistake.

No, it's true because it's true. Anyone can look it up.

Every source I look up shows a fluctuation of increases and decreases.

You clearly blamed a "democratic majority" for it.

I did because there has been democratic majority, so people can shut the **** up about the democrats "balancing the budge in the 90s."

It's silly when your blame isn't fair, or when it doesn't help solve the problem.

Well, I'm sorry that you feel that way. I'd suggest writing your local representatives and ask them to actually do something about the problem, then they won't have to take what you feel is unfair blame, since there won't be a problem to address. But, since the democrats in power now only addressed the problem when they didn't have the authority to do something about it, I feel fully justified in calling them out on it. Again, sorry if you feel that doesn't help solve the problem. Maybe if we just shut up about it and let them do whatever they want the problem would be solved.

misterman · Feb 5, 2012

Conservative said:
I haven't seen you defend Bush over all the attacks here in this forum.

You haven't seen me defend puppies from being stomped either - does that mean I approve of stomping puppies?

The President is responsible for the results generated,

False. The Constitution says otherwise. It gives Congress power too. You should read it.

Sheik Yerbuti · Feb 5, 2012

cpwill said:
simple enough. they are no longer part of the "working population". functionally it works the same as when discouraged workers drop off the numbers.

Wrong. You remain confused. There are two buckets. One is the "not in labor force" bucket and the other is the "labor force" bucket. Just because someone is added to the "not in labor force" bucket doesn't mean they came from the "labor force" bucket. Case in point, last month, the "not in labor force" bucket increased by 1.2 million while the "labor force" bucket also increased by .5 million.

misterman · Feb 5, 2012

Republic Now! said:
Every source I look up shows a fluctuation of increases and decreases.

The overall trend is up, and pretty steadily up, I'd say.

I did because there has been democratic majority, so people can shut the **** up about the democrats "balancing the budge in the 90s."

This isn't about the 90s. If you want to discuss the 90s, though, I can.

Well, I'm sorry that you feel that way. I'd suggest writing your local representatives and ask them to actually do something about the problem, then they won't have to take what you feel is unfair blame, since there won't be a problem to address. But, since the democrats in power now only addressed the problem when they didn't have the authority to do something about it, I feel fully justified in calling them out on it. Again, sorry if you feel that doesn't help solve the problem. Maybe if we just shut up about it and let them do whatever they want the problem would be solved.

See, you're still doing it. You blame it all on the Dems, when spending overall has grown under Republicans too. Stop it.

Conservative · Feb 5, 2012

misterman said:
True.

False.

You just admitted it was split. You can't go giving Republicans the credit now.

Utter bull****.

The "budget" is irrelevant. A budget is completely unnecessary to pass appropriations. It has nothing to do with the need for a continuing resolution. And the final appropriation wasn't a continuing resolution - which simply extends the prior year's spending - it was an appropriation, one that simply encompassed several normal appropriations bills into one.

And Congress passes a budget resolution in the CURRENT year, so what Dems did in a prior year is irrelevant. More of you just twisting facts any way you can to try to blame Dems for everything. It's getting completely ridiculous, Conservative. It's obvious to everyone that you can't be trusted with your facts.

Prove that the 2011 deficit was higher than the 2010 deficit? The rest of your post is baiting

Republic Now! · Feb 5, 2012

misterman said:
The overall trend is up, and pretty steadily up, I'd say.

Fair enough. "Steadily" isn't the best term though. There have been times when spending decreased.

This isn't about the 90s. If you want to discuss the 90s, though, I can.

I know it's not. I'm just explaining why I make sure to point out it's democrats presently spending. So people don't come back later and say "Democrats are the pretty fiscal responsibility." Neither party has a good track record.

See, you're still doing it. You blame it all on the Dems

When did I say "all of it is the dems fault?" How many times do I have to say "Republicans spend too" before you admit I don't give a crap about the party but the problem not being solved? Republicans are not presently in a situation to solve the problem. The democrats are. When the Republicans are in that position again and they're not, you'll be seeing plenty of "republicans.." in my posts too. I don't know what more you want.

, when spending overall has grown under Republicans too. Stop it.

When did I deny that?

misterman · Feb 5, 2012

Conservative said:
Prove that the 2011 deficit was higher than the 2010 deficit? The rest of your post is baiting

No, the rest of my post clearly proves you wrong. Which is why you won't face it. I dare you to address the points in it. You won't, because you can't handle that you're simply wrong.

Nobody knows what the 2011 deficit is yet, but it's estimated to be about the same as 2010 (EDIT: some sources say it's down, so maybe my source isn't the latest). And appropriations for 2011 were made in 2010 - when the Dems still had a majority in both houses. So that would blow away your whole argument anyway. But you won't man up and respond with substance. You'll dodge, like you just did now.

US economy creates 243,000 jobs in January

Filmmaker ● Lawyer ● Patriot