• 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.
randel said:
what bothers you is that these jobs were saved....sure, some were union, and has been explained to you countless times, repeatedly, over and over, is that more than just 'union' jobs were saved, quite a few 'non union' jobs were also saved, but you would be willing to be rid of these 'non union' jobs just to get rid of those that are union....i'd explain the economic consequences of losing all those jobs, hell, i've already explained it to you several times, it is pointless to do it again. you were all for letting chrysler/gm go under , so long as it took a bunch of 'union' jobs with it, the consequences to those workers, and the many more 'non union' workers be damned. as long as it struck a blow against the unions, all would have been well in your world.
Click to expand...

What bothers me is the fact that you believe it is the Federal Taxpayers' job to bailout out union contracts in the states. you don't seem to understand the separation of powers and the role of the state govt. in your world it is all one pot. Why don't you just send my state money directly instead of paying a bureaucrat to send it where they want?

You buy the Obama rhetoric and simply don't think. Jobs were saved, how many? NO ONE KNOWS FOR SURE nor does anyone know if those jobs would have been saved by the state taxpayers but it is easier for you to buy Obama rhetoric than actually think. Try to understand the role of the state and the role of the Federal Govt. They aren't the same
 
pbrauer said:
da
He did an awful thing today - he compromised!
Click to expand...
There was no compromise. First he dictated an unconstitutional provision then he lied about it.

But just for fun show me where the president has the authority to tell a company they must provide something to anyone at a cost to themselves and at no cost to the beneficiary.

This has become a dictatorship.
 
AdamT said:
In order to qualify for Chapter 11 a corporation has to offer a plan showing that it can continue as a going concern if the plan is approved. Neither GM nor Chrysler could come close to doing so without the infusion of capital from the government. At the time of the bailouts, GM was burning through over $3 billion in cash per month. GM estimated that it would need $100 billion in debtor-in-possession financing to emerge from Chapter 11 bankruptcy. See, Vlasic P. 546. They were just about $100 billion short and no private lender was going to give them that kind of money. They were already leveraged to the hilt.
Click to expand...

Maybe this is why?
No GM Buyback or Dividend Seen as Pension Gap Freezes Cash: Cars - Bloomberg

Part of the problem with the GM and Chrysler models is that they had terrible pension liabilities and still do. Its better but now, the chances on the Unions changing their bargaining the way that they had to at Ford is almost nil. Im not going to touch the venture capital thing, that kind of volatility needs to be separated from a large capital enterprise like an auto maker.

Secondly, if you would tell me how much the government loaned to GM and Chrysler? Im curious and I dont think it was $100B.
 
Conservative said:
What bothers me is the fact that you believe it is the Federal Taxpayers' job to bailout out union contracts in the states. you don't seem to understand the separation of powers and the role of the state govt. in your world it is all one pot. Why don't you just send my state money directly instead of paying a bureaucrat to send it where they want?

You buy the Obama rhetoric and simply don't think. Jobs were saved, how many? NO ONE KNOWS FOR SURE nor does anyone know if those jobs would have been saved by the state taxpayers but it is easier for you to buy Obama rhetoric than actually think. Try to understand the role of the state and the role of the Federal Govt. They aren't the same
Click to expand...
It is amazing how posts like this make liberals quiet as they cannot refute the logic and reality. Come on, randel, let's hear a response? Is it the Federal Responsibility to save state union jobs and bail out state pension funds?
 
Conservative said:
What bothers me is the fact that you believe it is the Federal Taxpayers' job to bailout out union contracts in the states. you don't seem to understand the separation of powers and the role of the state govt. in your world it is all one pot. Why don't you just send my state money directly instead of paying a bureaucrat to send it where they want?

You buy the Obama rhetoric and simply don't think. Jobs were saved, how many? NO ONE KNOWS FOR SURE nor does anyone know if those jobs would have been saved by the state taxpayers but it is easier for you to buy Obama rhetoric than actually think. Try to understand the role of the state and the role of the Federal Govt. They aren't the same
Click to expand...
and yet again, the word 'union' comes up in your response...just admit it and be honest, what happened would not have bothered you nearly as much if no union jobs were involved...the unions were not 'bailed out' ......you speak of 'rhetoric', yet, that is all you speak, you speak of the different roles of the federal and state governments, yet you don't understand yourself...educate yourself before you claim others dont understand.
 
randel said:
and yet again, the word 'union' comes up in your response...just admit it and be honest, what happened would not have bothered you nearly as much if no union jobs were involved...the unions were not 'bailed out' ......you speak of 'rhetoric', yet, that is all you speak, you speak of the different roles of the federal and state governments, yet you don't understand yourself...educate yourself before you claim others dont understand.
Click to expand...

The biggest liability on the balance sheet now owns 55% of the company, if that isnt a bailout I dont know what the **** is.
 
randel said:
and yet again, the word 'union' comes up in your response...just admit it and be honest, what happened would not have bothered you nearly as much if no union jobs were involved...the unions were not 'bailed out' ......you speak of 'rhetoric', yet, that is all you speak, you speak of the different roles of the federal and state governments, yet you don't understand yourself...educate yourself before you claim others dont understand.
Click to expand...

Are you telling me that none of the those so called saved jobs were union jobs? Really? it does appear that jobs may not be the case but pay certainly was yet still Obama claims he saved jobs

Obama Didn't Save Union Jobs, He Saved Union Pay - Forbes.com

how about a list of those jobs "saved" to see how many really are union jobs?

As for the role of the state and Federal Government, it is you that seems to believe they are the same. You claim I don't know the difference yet never offer specifics
 
Unemployment Definition Abbott and Costello

Unemployment Definition

Abbott and Costello

COSTELLO: I want to talk about the unemployment rate in America .
ABBOTT: Good Subject. Terrible times. It's 9%.

COSTELLO: That many people are out of work?
ABBOTT: No, that's 16%.

COSTELLO: You just said 9%.
ABBOTT: 9% Unemployed.

COSTELLO: Right 9% out of work.
ABBOTT: No, that's 16%.

COSTELLO: Okay, so it's 16% unemployed.
ABBOTT: No, that's 9%...

COSTELLO: Wait a minute. Is it 9% or 16%?
ABBOTT: 9% are unemployed. 16% are out of work.

COSTELLO: IF you are out of work you are unemployed.
ABBOTT: No, you can't count the "Out of Work" as the unemployed.
You have to look for work to be unemployed.

COSTELLO: BUT THEY ARE OUT OF WORK!
ABBOTT: No, you miss my point.

COSTELLO: What point?
ABBOTT: Someone who doesn't look for work, can't be counted
with those who look for
work. It wouldn't be fair.

COSTELLO: To whom?
ABBOTT: The unemployed.

COSTELLO: But they are ALL out of work.
ABBOTT: No, the unemployed are actively looking for work.
Those who are out of work stopped looking. They
gave up. And, if you give up, you are no longer
in the ranks of the unemployed.

COSTELLO: So if you're off the unemployment roles, that
would count as less unemployment?
ABBOTT: Unemployment would go down. Absolutely!

COSTELLO: The unemployment just goes down because you
don't look for work?
ABBOTT: Absolutely it goes down. That's how you get to 9%.
Otherwise it would be 16%. You don't want to read
about 16% unemployment do ya?

COSTELLO: That would be frightening.
ABBOTT: Absolutely.

COSTELLO: Wait, I got a question for you. That means
they're two ways to bring down the unemployment
number?
ABBOTT: Two ways is correct.

COSTELLO: Unemployment can go down if someone gets a job?
ABBOTT: Correct.

OSTELLO: And unemployment can also go down if you stop
looking for a job?
ABBOTT: Bingo.

COSTELLO: So there are two ways to bring unemployment down, and
the easier of the two is to just stop looking for work.
ABBOTT: Now you're thinking like an economist.

COSTELLO: I don't even know what the heck I just said!
Click to expand...

And now you know why Obama's unemployment figures are improving!
 
Conservative said:
Unemployment Definition Abbott and Costello



And now you know why Obama's unemployment figures are improving!
Click to expand...


That’s been around for a while. The last time I seen it was with the gippers 1982 number in it.

It looked like this.:2wave:

10.8% in 1982

Unemployment Definition

Abbott and Costello

COSTELLO: I want to talk about the unemployment rate in America.
ABBOTT: Good Subject. Terrible times. 10.8%

COSTELLO: That many people are out of work?
ABBOTT: No, that's 16%.

COSTELLO: You just said 10.8%
ABBOTT: 10.8% Unemployed.

COSTELLO: Right 10.8% out of work.
ABBOTT: No, that's 10.8%

COSTELLO: Okay, so it's 16% unemployed.
ABBOTT: No, that's 10.8%

COSTELLO: Wait a minute. Is it 10.8% or 16%?
ABBOTT: 10.8% are unemployed. 16% are out of work.

COSTELLO: IF you are out of work you are unemployed.
ABBOTT: No, you can't count the "Out of Work" as the unemployed.
You have to look for work to be unemployed.

COSTELLO: BUT THEY ARE OUT OF WORK!
ABBOTT: No, you miss my point.

COSTELLO: What point?
ABBOTT: Someone who doesn't look for work, can't be counted
with those who look for
work. It wouldn't be fair.

COSTELLO: To whom?
ABBOTT: The unemployed.

COSTELLO: But they are ALL out of work.
ABBOTT: No, the unemployed are actively looking for work.
Those who are out of work stopped looking. They
gave up. And, if you give up, you are no longer
in the ranks of the unemployed.

COSTELLO: So if you're off the unemployment roles, that
would count as less unemployment?
ABBOTT: Unemployment would go down. Absolutely!

COSTELLO: The unemployment just goes down because you
don't look for work?
ABBOTT: Absolutely it goes down. That's how you get to 9%.
Otherwise it would be 16%. You don't want to read
about 16% unemployment do ya?

COSTELLO: That would be frightening.
ABBOTT: Absolutely.

COSTELLO: Wait, I got a question for you. That means
they're two ways to bring down the unemployment
number?
ABBOTT: Two ways is correct.

COSTELLO: Unemployment can go down if someone gets a job?
ABBOTT: Correct.

OSTELLO: And unemployment can also go down if you stop
looking for a job?
ABBOTT: Bingo.

COSTELLO: So there are two ways to bring unemployment down, and
the easier of the two is to just stop looking for work.
ABBOTT: Now you're thinking like an economist.

COSTELLO: I don't even know what the heck I just said!
 
treedancer said:
That’s been around for a while. The last time I seen it was with the gippers 1982 number in it.

It looked like this.:2wave:

10.8% in 1982

Unemployment Definition

Abbott and Costello

COSTELLO: I want to talk about the unemployment rate in America.
ABBOTT: Good Subject. Terrible times. 10.8%

COSTELLO: That many people are out of work?
ABBOTT: No, that's 16%.

COSTELLO: You just said 10.8%
ABBOTT: 10.8% Unemployed.

COSTELLO: Right 10.8% out of work.
ABBOTT: No, that's 10.8%

COSTELLO: Okay, so it's 16% unemployed.
ABBOTT: No, that's 10.8%

COSTELLO: Wait a minute. Is it 10.8% or 16%?
ABBOTT: 10.8% are unemployed. 16% are out of work.

COSTELLO: IF you are out of work you are unemployed.
ABBOTT: No, you can't count the "Out of Work" as the unemployed.
You have to look for work to be unemployed.

COSTELLO: BUT THEY ARE OUT OF WORK!
ABBOTT: No, you miss my point.

COSTELLO: What point?
ABBOTT: Someone who doesn't look for work, can't be counted
with those who look for
work. It wouldn't be fair.

COSTELLO: To whom?
ABBOTT: The unemployed.

COSTELLO: But they are ALL out of work.
ABBOTT: No, the unemployed are actively looking for work.
Those who are out of work stopped looking. They
gave up. And, if you give up, you are no longer
in the ranks of the unemployed.

COSTELLO: So if you're off the unemployment roles, that
would count as less unemployment?
ABBOTT: Unemployment would go down. Absolutely!

COSTELLO: The unemployment just goes down because you
don't look for work?
ABBOTT: Absolutely it goes down. That's how you get to 9%.
Otherwise it would be 16%. You don't want to read
about 16% unemployment do ya?

COSTELLO: That would be frightening.
ABBOTT: Absolutely.

COSTELLO: Wait, I got a question for you. That means
they're two ways to bring down the unemployment
number?
ABBOTT: Two ways is correct.

COSTELLO: Unemployment can go down if someone gets a job?
ABBOTT: Correct.

OSTELLO: And unemployment can also go down if you stop
looking for a job?
ABBOTT: Bingo.

COSTELLO: So there are two ways to bring unemployment down, and
the easier of the two is to just stop looking for work.
ABBOTT: Now you're thinking like an economist.

COSTELLO: I don't even know what the heck I just said!
Click to expand...

you really don't have a clue as to what you are talking about. Back when Reagan was President discouraged workers were unemployed and counted as unemployed. That calculation changed in 1994. Discouraged workers were unemployed, people dropping out of the labor force were unemployed. Do liberals ever apologize for being wrong?
 
This argument is kind of dumb. I'm in the 16% because I'm a full time student and I'm not looking for a job. I'd really like to see the statistics that say the majority of the non-unemployed that are out of work have stopped looking due to discouragement. Then, conservative, you may have your apology.

The data from the Office for National Statistics inidcated that 722000 people aged 16 to 24 were out of work - one in six - while their younger...

That would further my point just FYI.
 
Misterveritis said:
There was no compromise. First he dictated an unconstitutional provision then he lied about it.

But just for fun show me where the president has the authority to tell a company they must provide something to anyone at a cost to themselves and at no cost to the beneficiary.

This has become a dictatorship.
Click to expand...

OMG, President Obama has become a dictator? That's one of the funniest things I've read today.:lamo
 
Conservative said:
you really don't have a clue as to what you are talking about. Back when Reagan was President discouraged workers were unemployed and counted as unemployed. That calculation changed in 1994. Discouraged workers were unemployed, people dropping out of the labor force were unemployed. Do liberals ever apologize for being wrong?
Click to expand...

Wrong yet again.Sigh.:roll:

<The official unemployment rate, however, masks two important differences between the unemployment rate in 1982 and today. The first is demographic. In 1982, the US population was substantially younger than it is today. Even in an otherwise identical economy, we would expect a younger population to have a higher unemployment rate than an older population would. The second difference is statistical. The main government survey used to measure the unemployment rate – the Current Population Survey (CPS) – reaches a smaller share of the population today than it did in 1982, and is especially likely to miss people who are not employed. As a result, the official unemployment rate understates the unemployment rate today relative to 1982.>

http://www.cepr.net/documents/publications/ur-2009-03.pdf
 
Jryan said:
This argument is kind of dumb. I'm in the 16% because I'm a full time student and I'm not looking for a job. I'd really like to see the statistics that say the majority of the non-unemployed that are out of work have stopped looking due to discouragement. Then, conservative, you may have your apology.

The data from the Office for National Statistics inidcated that 722000 people aged 16 to 24 were out of work - one in six - while their younger...

That would further my point just FYI.
Click to expand...

Read the BLS website and see how calculations are made. Full time students aren't counted as employed, unemployed, or discouraged
 
treedancer said:
Wrong yet again.Sigh.:roll:

<The official unemployment rate, however, masks two important differences between the unemployment rate in 1982 and today. The first is demographic. In 1982, the US population was substantially younger than it is today. Even in an otherwise identical economy, we would expect a younger population to have a higher unemployment rate than an older population would. The second difference is statistical. The main government survey used to measure the unemployment rate – the Current Population Survey (CPS) – reaches a smaller share of the population today than it did in 1982, and is especially likely to miss people who are not employed. As a result, the official unemployment rate understates the unemployment rate today relative to 1982.>

http://www.cepr.net/documents/publications/ur-2009-03.pdf
Click to expand...

Wrong as usual, discouraged workers were counted as unemployed during the 80's, suggest better research, Obama had over a million discouraged workers that weren't counted as unemployed. Also check the BLS site and tell me the first month for discouraged workers and the U-6 numbers were available. Your support and loyalty to Obama is quite telling and quite misguided

Information on U-6 as well as all the portals available from BLS. Notice the Obama U-6 numbers. Wonder how many he can get to drop out in 2012?

http://portalseven.com/employment/unemployment_rate_u6.jsp
 
Last edited:
pbrauer said:
OMG, President Obama has become a dictator? That's one of the funniest things I've read today.:lamo
Click to expand...
One cannot help the foolish, nor the fellow travelers.

Do you believe the president has the authority to tell a private company what goods and services it must provide to another private person or company? If you believe it you are part of the problem. Fascism is tyranny.
 
Conservative said:
you really don't have a clue as to what you are talking about. Back when Reagan was President discouraged workers were unemployed and counted as unemployed. That calculation changed in 1994. Discouraged workers were unemployed, people dropping out of the labor force were unemployed. Do liberals ever apologize for being wrong?
Click to expand...
It's rather bizarre how you point out how much higher the unemployment rate is now compared to 1982 -- yet you continue to insist, against all rational, that the 1982 recession was worse than Bush's Great Recession.

Go figger. :shrug:
 
Sheik Yerbuti said:
It's rather bizarre how you point out how much higher the unemployment rate is now compared to 1982 -- yet you continue to insist, against all rational, that the 1982 recession was worse than Bush's Great Recession.

Go figger. :shrug:
Click to expand...

Actual facts always get in the way of your opinions, the unemployment today is much higher than the Reagan years because of very poor leadership on the part of Obama. The conditions were worse when Reagan took office than when Obama took office with regards to the effects on the individual. You weren't old enough to know what the early 80's were really like yet you like far too many liberals are experts on everything
 
Conservative said:
Actual facts always get in the way of your opinions, the unemployment today is much higher than the Reagan years because of very poor leadership on the part of Obama. The conditions were worse when Reagan took office than when Obama took office with regards to the effects on the individual.
Click to expand...
Bull****. The unemployment rate was already 14.2% before Obama was even sworn in and 16.5% by the end of Bush's Great Recession. Blaming that on Obama exposes your sycophancy.

The two leading indicators of the economy are 1) GDP; and 2) unemployment. Both were far worse during Bush's Great Recession than during Reagan's recession. Other than delusions, thre is no case to be made that Reagan's recession was worse.

Conservative said:
You weren't old enough to know what the early 80's were really like yet you like far too many liberals are experts on everything
Click to expand...
The irony of you sarcastically claiming "Liberals are excperts on everything" while at the same time, you act as though you're an export on knowing how old I am even though I never said, is quite hysterical.
 
Last edited:
Sheik Yerbuti said:
Bull****. The unemployment rate was already 14.2% before Obama was even sworn in and 16.5% by the end of Bush's Great Recession. Blaming that on Obama exposes your sycophancy.

The two leading indicators of the economy are 1) GDP; and 2) unemployment. Both were far worse during Bush's Great Recession than during Reagan's recession. Other than delusions, thre is no case to be made that Reagan's recession was worse.


The irony of you sarcastically claiming "Liberals are excperts on everything" while at the same time, you act as though you're an export on knowing how old I am even though I never said, is quite hysterical.
Click to expand...

Your defense of Obama is typical liberalism. Would have thought someone of your intelligence would be smarter than this. Apparenlty the symbolism over substance is more important to you. Obama added 4.6 trillion to the debt to generate these numbers and that is ok with you? Liberal logic is amazing, Obama was hired as the one to fix the economy and failed yet the results three years later which are worse than when he took office are irrlevant to you because you buy what he says and ignore the actual results. Are the GDP results better in 2011 than they were in 2010? If not why not? Did Bush sneak back into the WH?

As for being an expert, i lived and worked during the Reagan term and that does make me more of an expert than you on the subject
 
Sheik Yerbuti said:
It's rather bizarre how you point out how much higher the unemployment rate is now compared to 1982 -- yet you continue to insist, against all rational, that the 1982 recession was worse than Bush's Great Recession.

Go figger. :shrug:
Click to expand...
"Bush's Great Recession" officially ended in the second quarter of 2009. Almost 3 years ago. The economic conditions of today can best be classified as "Obama's Lame Recovery."
 
Conservative said:
Your defense of Obama is typical liberalism.
Click to expand...
Pointing out your bull**** is not defending Obama, it's pointing out bull****.

Conservative said:
As for being an expert, i lived and worked during the Reagan term and that does make me more of an expert than you on the subject
Click to expand...
Since you have no idea how old I am, your claim of superiority on the subjust is rooted in ignorance.
 
Conservative said:
Read the BLS website and see how calculations are made. Full time students aren't counted as employed, unemployed, or discouraged
Click to expand...

So, master of unemployment, if you can so easily win the argument by pointing out the statistics, why aren't you doing so? Apology is still awaiting your proof of data.
 
Jryan said:
So, master of unemployment, if you can so easily win the argument by pointing out the statistics, why aren't you doing so? Apology is still awaiting your proof of data.
Click to expand...

Because when I give you the answer you either ignore it or dismiss it, so educate yourself on BLS data and how it is created. As a socialist Iam sure you are used to having people give you everything but not in this case, educate yourself. bls.gov
 
Sheik Yerbuti said:
Pointing out your bull**** is not defending Obama, it's pointing out bull****.


Since you have no idea how old I am, your claim of superiority on the subjust is rooted in ignorance.
Click to expand...

Aw, yes, getting a little testy, Sheik, not surprising. Hard defending the empty suit in the WH and his record. I will put my 35 years of business experience and 65 years of real life experience up against yours any day. That does make me a lot more credible except to a liberal who hates having facts refute their opinions. Bull**** is defense of Obama and his record which you do all the time. The "Obama Lame Recovery" has nothing to do with Bush and everything to do with this country getting exactly what the Obama resume showed, no leadership and poor results.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom