• 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.
David Brock is a piece of **** who shifts his ideology based on the dollar signs he sees in his eyes. He was a staunch Conservative while that paid his bills. When it became financially expedient, he became a Liberal.

Blinded by an ideology defines most liberals including you. You have no concept as to what made this country great and since you seem to believe you are successful you support policies in defiance of htat success. What govt. program made you successful? Has the govt. ever bailed you out of a personal responsibility issue that you failed on?
 
The U3 rate is calculated the same way it's been calculated for close to 2 decades now. Same for the U6 rate. Bizarre doesn't even begin to describe how it took you 18 years to decide the BLS is fooling Americans.


The fact that the American people have not been told the truth about the health of their country is certainly not a selling point for Obama is it now?


And by any measure, the unemployment rate, is not much higher than when Obama started.

Did you far left progressives vote in droves for the status quo? I don't think so... Heck even Obama said himself that if he didn't improve things then his Presidency would be a "One term proposition"... Here see for yourself.




As far as Obama's JAR, his average is 47.9%; Bush's average at this same point in his presidency was 49%.


So Bush did a better job in American's eyes...Thanks for admitting that.

And I note that my challenge to you to explain how Obama is manipulating the numbers remains unanswered.

I wouldn't go as far as to say that Obama is actually 'manipulating' the numbers, but I would say that his staff is spinning wildly. Leaving out anything that points to the failures, and making excuses for things, then when you have something like a flat month in employment, or even a small gain, he is pumping that like we should all put 'happy days are here again' on the stereo and turn it up.

David Brock is a piece of **** who shifts his ideology based on the dollar signs he sees in his eyes. He was a staunch Conservative while that paid his bills. When it became financially expedient, he became a Liberal.

Yes, but he is YOUR piece of ****....I would say he was ever a 'staunch conservative' either. But the point is, that the lid is blown off the relationship between, MM, the WH, MSNBC, and other outlets, writing direct scripts for broadcast. You know who else uses media as propaganda outlets for their message?

Dictators, thugs, and communist/socialist scum.


j-mac
 
No where did I say that Obama was manipulating the numbers, that is a downright lie from an intellectually dishonest liberal. I said he was telling part of the story and fooling people like you by not telling the whole story...
You said he's fooling people like me. How is that possible when I'm fully aware of the U6 rate? So how is Obama fooling people like me who know the U6 rate includes marginally attached workers unless he is manipulating the numbers?

You remain stuck on your own petard.
 
Yes, it is, been calculated the same way for the past two decades and shows that Bush had half the discouraged workers as Obama had so add the unemployed and discouraged workers for both Presidents for a true picture of unemployment. By all measurement Obama loses and Bush didn't spend 4.6 trillion in three yers to generate those numbers. As for percentages you don't seem to understand the higher the base the lower the percentage thus a 4.6 trillion dollar debt in three years when you start at 10.6 trillion isn't nearlhy as high as a 4.9 increase in the debt in 8 years when the base was 5.7 trillion.

No where did I say that Obama was manipulating the numbers, that is a downright lie from an intellectually dishonest liberal. I said he was telling part of the story and fooling people like you by not telling the whole story which is as I have posted many times, unemployment higher today it was when Obama took office, employment lower, more discouraged workers, and a labor force that hasn't kept up with population growth. You can continue to play your game but the reality shows Obama less popular today than when he took office and if his numbers were as you believe they wouldn't be lower, they would be higher.
"downright lie from an intellectually dishonest liberal...." say con, i seem to remember you get on somebody the other day over what you perceived to be a personal attack......hmmmmm...perhaps practicing what you preach would be in order? just sayin'
 
You said he's fooling people like me. How is that possible when I'm fully aware of the U6 rate? So how is Obama fooling people like me who know the U6 rate includes marginally attached workers unless he is manipulating the numbers?

You remain stuck on your own petard.

Maybe he isn't fooling people like you and you really are a typical Obama supporter that only wants part of the story. You buy the rhetoric and never verify it by doing any research. When Obama claims he has created all those jobs he fails to mention all those people dropping out of the labor force which affects the unemployment rate. He fails to mention that the rate is higher today than when he took office and that there are fewer employed today than when he took office. You point to the u-3 rate which is higher than Bush's rate and Bush didn't spend 842 billion to generate those numbers. Trust but verify is something you never do
 
Blinded by an ideology defines most liberals including you. You have no concept as to what made this country great and since you seem to believe you are successful you support policies in defiance of htat success. What govt. program made you successful? Has the govt. ever bailed you out of a personal responsibility issue that you failed on?
Your propensity for posting vapid rightwing talking points is deafened only by your complete lack of self-awareness.
 
Your propensity for posting vapid rightwing talking points is deafened only by your complete lack of self-awareness.

At least i don't claim to be a liberal backing a failed ideology that is bankrupting this country and generating more govt. dependence. You will grow up someday too
 
Maybe he isn't fooling people like you and you really are a typical Obama supporter that only wants part of the story. You buy the rhetoric and never verify it by doing any research.
The facts and my history on this forum reveal that inanity of yours as the lie it was intended to be.

When Obama claims he has created all those jobs he fails to mention all those people dropping out of the labor force which affects the unemployment rate. He fails to mention that the rate is higher today than when he took office and that there are fewer employed today than when he took office.
Quote Obama.
 
At least i don't claim to be a liberal backing a failed ideology that is bankrupting this country and generating more govt. dependence. You will grow up someday too
That is your loss as much as it is your hallucination.
 
The fact that the American people have not been told the truth about the health of their country is certainly not a selling point for Obama is it now?
The health of the country is now improving. Conservatives can spin that all day every day, it will not alter that reality no matter how hard they try.

Did you far left progressives vote in droves for the status quo? I don't think so... Heck even Obama said himself that if he didn't improve things then his Presidency would be a "One term proposition"... Here see for yourself.


And in November we'll see if it's a "one year proposition." So?

So Bush did a better job in American's eyes...Thanks for admitting that.
Not when you factor in margin of error or the inflation to Bush's JAR thanks to 9.11.

I wouldn't go as far as to say that Obama is actually 'manipulating' the numbers, but I would say that his staff is spinning wildly. Leaving out anything that points to the failures, and making excuses for things, then when you have something like a flat month in employment, or even a small gain, he is pumping that like we should all put 'happy days are here again' on the stereo and turn it up.
Kindly quote Obama or his staff pumping out 'happy days are here again' messages during a month which employment was flat... Thanks in advance.

Yes, but he is YOUR piece of ****....I would say he was ever a 'staunch conservative' either. But the point is, that the lid is blown off the relationship between, MM, the WH, MSNBC, and other outlets, writing direct scripts for broadcast. You know who else uses media as propaganda outlets for their message?
Nor is he a Liberal, so no, he is not MY piece of ****. He's an opportunist, transcending ideology and flowing with the cash, not with principles.
 
say con, i seem to remember you get on somebody the other day over what you perceived to be a personal attack......hmmmmm...perhaps practicing what you preach would be in order? just sayin'

You must mean this ...

"Stop with the bull**** personal attacks" ~ Conservative

of course, since then, in the last 24 hours alone, I can also quote Conservative saying ...

  • "Nothing ever is going to change the mind of the brainwashed." ~ Conservative

  • "that is a downright lie from an intellectually dishonest liberal" ~ Conservative

  • "Blinded by an ideology defines most liberals including you." ~ Conservative

  • "You have no concept as to what made this country great" ~ Conservative

  • "You will grow up someday too" ~ Conservative
 
Nor is he a Liberal, so no, he is not MY piece of ****. He's an opportunist, transcending ideology and flowing with the cash, not with principles.
You couldn't be more wrong about David Brock, if he's not a liberal then I'm a monkey's uncle. Yes, he was on the right because of his anti-communist views, but chaned sides because he was disalusioned by the right. He is the founder a CEO of Media Matters and presently heading a superpac that supports President Obama. You have a right to your opinion, but not your own set of facts - David Brock is very muck a liberal.
 
The health of the country is now improving. Conservatives can spin that all day every day, it will not alter that reality no matter how hard they try.

It is? It isn't conservatives spinning, take a look at a CNN (no conservative outlet there) article....

First, it is not working for the three-million (3 million) workers that have been unemployed for the entire time (i.e., three years) Mr. Obama has been in office.

Second, it is not working for the five-million (5 million) workers that are unemployed and have stopped looking for work.

Third, it is not working for the forty-six (46 million) million workers that went from the middle-class and joint the lower class under Mr. Obama’s administration and not the Bush Administration.

Forth, it is not working for the forty-six (46 million) million workers that went from the middle-class and are on food stamps under Mr. Obama’s administration and not the Bush Administration, which is the highest rate in US history.

Fifth, it is not working for the thousands of experienced high tech Engineers (e.g., systems, integration, maintenance, missile, aerospace, etc.) workers that have been laid off under the Obama administration while his administration continues to give out H1D Visa’s to foreigners who are taking back our technology to their countries and creating a future national security threat.

Is US Economy Really Improving in the former land of the Free? - CNN iReport

And in November we'll see if it's a "one year proposition." So?

Yes we will. The polls today mean nothing.

Not when you factor in margin of error or the inflation to Bush's JAR thanks to 9.11.

Oh, so now you want a qualifier when you get busted posting a number that is still losing to Bush.....heh, heh...

Kindly quote Obama or his staff pumping out 'happy days are here again' messages during a month which employment was flat... Thanks in advance.



Nor is he a Liberal, so no, he is not MY piece of ****. He's an opportunist, transcending ideology and flowing with the cash, not with principles.

David Brock (born November 2, 1962) is an American journalist and author, the founder of the media group, Media Matters for America, and a Democratic political operative.[1] He was a conservative journalist during the 1990s[2] gaining notoriety for his book The Real Anita Hill and authoring the Troopergate story, which led to Paula Jones filing a lawsuit against Bill Clinton. At the start of the Presidency of George W. Bush his views shifted significantly towards the left. He founded Media Matters for America, a non-profit organization that describes itself as a "progressive research and information center dedicated to comprehensively monitoring, analyzing and correcting conservative misinformation in the U.S. media."[3]

snip

Brock announced in 2010 that he was forming a super-PAC, American Bridge, to help elect liberal Democrats, starting with the 2012 election cycle.[10] In describing Brock's intentions for the super-PAC, The New York Times referred to Brock as a "prominent Democratic political operative"[1] (mirrored by The Washington Post's characterization of him as a "former journalist-turned-political operative")[11] and New York Magazine referred to Brock's "hyperpartisanship."[12]

David Brock - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Oh yeah, he's a lib, a snotty, weak minded, angry lib. Probably always was, and just was a poser when he claimed to be a conservative.

j-mac
 
It is? It isn't conservatives spinning, take a look at a CNN (no conservative outlet there) article....
Umm, mac .... that isn't a CNN article. Why are you trying to pull a fast one? It actually starts with, "NOT VETTED BY CNN." That's your idea of a CNN article??

It's actually a post made by someone who registered with CNN, not unlike someone posting here. That doesn't make it a "CNN article." That aside, it's inaccurate anyway. For example, it claims:



"Forth, it is not working for the forty-six (46 million) million workers that went from the middle-class and are on food stamps under Mr. Obama’s administration and not the Bush Administration, which is the highest rate in US history."


In reality, there were some 46 million in total on food stamps as of last August. The person who fooled you into believing he writes CNN articles :)lamo) claimed that all 46 million went on food stamps since Obama became president while the truth is that 46 million was 27 million when Obama became president. Furthormore, that increase of 21 million (not 46 million as that iReport incorrectly claims) is mostly due to the Great Bush Recession.

Food stamp use is up 70 percent over the past four years and that trend is expected to continue.

The spike began in late-2008 and early-2009 when the worst of the recession was triggering massive layoffs and home foreclosures. Although the economy has been growing since mid-2009, the pace has been too slow to absorb the nearly 14 million people without jobs. Nearly half of those have been out of work more than six months.

As a result, the number of people seeking federal help with groceries has been soaring. At this time four years ago, before the recession hit, about 27 million people were using food stamps. Today 46 million get help through the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program — what most people call food stamps — which is roughly 15 percent of the population.


More Americans Hungry For Food Stamps : NPR

Oh, so now you want a qualifier when you get busted posting a number that is still losing to Bush.....heh, heh...
What qualifier? A 49% JAR is a statistical tie to a 48% JAR. Have someone explain "margin of error" to ya.


Sheik Yerbuti said:
Kindly quote Obama or his staff pumping out 'happy days are here again' messages during a month which employment was flat... Thanks in advance.



I asked you for a quote from Obama or from someone from his administration "pumping out 'happy days are here again'," during a "flat month in employment," as you claimed.

How in your universe does an economist complaining about Obama's policies answer that challenge??

Here, for free ... read and learn ...


Definition: non-sequitur


Oh yeah, he's a lib, a snotty, weak minded, angry lib. Probably always was, and just was a poser when he claimed to be a conservative.
Well you failed miserably to prove that the Obama administration was "pumping out 'happy days are here again'," during a "flat month in employment," so I eagerly await your evidence that Brock is a Liberal, no less a "snotty, weak minded, angry" one.
 
run, Sheik, run, j-mac just kicked your butt and you do what you always do ignore it
He "kicked my butt?" How? By posting CNN articles that really aren't CNN articles? Or was it by posting a video of an economist whining about Obama's policies when I actually asked for a quote from Obama or someone in his administration, to confirm jmac's claim they were "pumping up" the economy when job growth was flat?

But your desperation to best me, even if it's by proxy of those more competent than yourself, is duly noted.


:coffeepap:
 
He "kicked my butt?" How? By posting CNN articles that really aren't CNN articles? Or was it by posting a video of an economist whining about Obama's policies when I actually asked for a quote from Obama or someone in his administration, to confirm jmac's claim they were "pumping up" the economy when job growth was flat?

But your desperation to best me, even if it's by proxy of those more competent than yourself, is duly noted.


:coffeepap:

Sheik, I don't have to do a thing to best you, the Obama record makes you and all the other supporters look like idiots. How can you support what this empty suit is doing?
 
Umm, mac .... that isn't a CNN article. Why are you trying to pull a fast one? It actually starts with, "NOT VETTED BY CNN." That's your idea of a CNN article??

It's actually a post made by someone who registered with CNN, not unlike someone posting here. That doesn't make it a "CNN article." That aside, it's inaccurate anyway. For example, it claims:



"Forth, it is not working for the forty-six (46 million) million workers that went from the middle-class and are on food stamps under Mr. Obama’s administration and not the Bush Administration, which is the highest rate in US history."


In reality, there were some 46 million in total on food stamps as of last August. The person who fooled you into believing he writes CNN articles :)lamo) claimed that all 46 million went on food stamps since Obama became president while the truth is that 46 million was 27 million when Obama became president. Furthormore, that increase of 21 million (not 46 million as that iReport incorrectly claims) is mostly due to the Great Bush Recession.

Food stamp use is up 70 percent over the past four years and that trend is expected to continue.

The spike began in late-2008 and early-2009 when the worst of the recession was triggering massive layoffs and home foreclosures. Although the economy has been growing since mid-2009, the pace has been too slow to absorb the nearly 14 million people without jobs. Nearly half of those have been out of work more than six months.

As a result, the number of people seeking federal help with groceries has been soaring. At this time four years ago, before the recession hit, about 27 million people were using food stamps. Today 46 million get help through the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program — what most people call food stamps — which is roughly 15 percent of the population.


More Americans Hungry For Food Stamps : NPR


You think this shows success of the Obama regime? Really? In what world does even 21 million more people now on the government dole (your number) show anything less than catastrophic failure?

Then your knee jerk is to yet again blame Bush? talk to the hand at this point.

Well you failed miserably to prove that the Obama administration was "pumping out 'happy days are here again'," during a "flat month in employment," so I eagerly await your evidence that Brock is a Liberal, no less a "snotty, weak minded, angry" one.

I gave you his bio, and another liberal in this board pbrauer even smacked down your assertion that Brock is anything other than a lib...So deal with it.


j-mac
 
Sheik, I don't have to do a thing to best you,
Your previous post belies you. If that were true, you wouldn't have been shaking your pom-poms for jmac as you did while wishing I was running away from his post.

cheer2.gif
cheer2.gif
cheer2.gif
cheer2.gif
cheer2.gif


the Obama record makes you and all the other supporters look like idiots. How can you support what this empty suit is doing?
In many respects, Obama's record is better than Bush's, yet your hypocrisy justified you supporting him. I bet if you thought about it long and hard enough in those terms, you could easily answer your own question.
 
Last edited:
Your previous post belies you. If that were true, you wouldn't have been shaking your pom-poms for jmac as you did while wishing I was running away from his post.

cheer2.gif
cheer2.gif
cheer2.gif
cheer2.gif
cheer2.gif



In many respects, Obama's record is better than Bush's, yet your hypocrisy justified you supporting him. I bet if you thought about it long and hard enough in those terms, you could easily answer your own question.

Amazing isn't it, in many areas Bush's record is better than Obama's yet you support Obama yet your hypocrisy justifies supporting him? Comparing the average Bush numbers to the Obama numbers in every category the Bush numbers beat Obama's yet you hate Bush but will be supporting Obama? Can you say hypocrisy?
 
You think this shows success of the Obama regime? Really? In what world does even 21 million more people now on the government dole (your number) show anything less than catastrophic failure?

Then your knee jerk is to yet again blame Bush? talk to the hand at this point.
In the world where the spike is directly attributable to Bush's Great Recession.


I gave you his bio, and another liberal in this board pbrauer even smacked down your assertion that Brock is anything other than a lib...So deal with it.
You didn't give me his bio, you gave me a link to wikipedia, one of the least reliable sources on the Internet for veracious information. You're jokng with that link, right?? This is a joke like your claim that a non CNN article was a CNN article, right??
 
Amazing isn't it, in many areas Bush's record is better than Obama's yet you support Obama yet your hypocrisy justifies supporting him? Comparing the average Bush numbers to the Obama numbers in every category the Bush numbers beat Obama's yet you hate Bush but will be supporting Obama? Can you say hypocrisy?
It's neither amazing nor hypocritical. The difference between the two, which you are incapable of understanding, is that most of Bush's record is a direct reflection of his policies, which wrecked our economy; whereas most of Obama's record is a reflection of trying to overcome the Great Bush Recession.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom