• 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 adds 96K jobs, rate falls to 8.1 pct. [W:123]

Dickieboy said:
I saw what you did!

Now back to the point, the current administratin is 1,079m jobs behind...where are all these '4.5 million jobs created'? The numbers do not reflect them...
Click to expand...
The numbers I posted in post #103 are for Total nonfarm jobs (private and government sector) and they come from bls. Basically they represent everyone who is paid a salary for the job they perform. Someone who works on a farm is considered employed, but they are not paid a salary so they are not included.

The 4.5 million figure includes private sector jobs only (no government jobs). They represent the sum of jobs from 2010 until the present.

1-Month Net Change
Series Id: CES0500000001
Seasonally Adjusted
Super Sector: Total private
Industry: Total private
NAICS Code: -
Data Type: ALL EMPLOYEES, THOUSANDS
YearJanFebMarAprMayJunJulAugSepOctNovDec
2009-839-725-787-802-312-426-296-219-184-232-42-120
2010-40-27141193849292128115196134140
201111925726126410810217552216139178234
20122772541478511663162103
Bureau of Labor Statistics Data
 
pbrauer said:
The numbers I posted in post #103 are for Total nonfarm jobs (private and government sector) and they come from bls. Basically they represent everyone who is paid a salary for the job they perform. Someone who works on a farm is considered employed, but they are not paid a salary so they are not included.

The 4.5 million figure includes private sector jobs only (no government jobs). They represent the sum of jobs from 2010 until the present.

1-Month Net Change
Series Id: CES0500000001
Seasonally Adjusted
Super Sector: Total private
Industry: Total private
NAICS Code: -
Data Type: ALL EMPLOYEES, THOUSANDS
Year
Jan
Feb
Mar
Apr
May
Jun
Jul
Aug
Sep
Oct
Nov
Dec
2009
-839
-725
-787
-802
-312
-426
-296
-219
-184
-232
-42
-120
2010
-40
-27
141
193
84
92
92
128
115
196
134
140
2011
119
257
261
264
108
102
175
52
216
139
178
234
2012
277
254
147
85
116
63
162
103
Bureau of Labor Statistics Data
Click to expand...

Hey Pete, why don't you use ALL jobs created rather than cherry picking the catagory that best fits you agenda?
 
pbrauer said:
The numbers I posted in post #103 are for Total nonfarm jobs (private and government sector) and they come from bls. Basically they represent everyone who is paid a salary for the job they perform. Someone who works on a farm is considered employed, but they are not paid a salary so they are not included.

The 4.5 million figure includes private sector jobs only (no government jobs). They represent the sum of jobs from 2010 until the present.

1-Month Net Change
Series Id: CES0500000001
Seasonally Adjusted
Super Sector: Total private
Industry: Total private
NAICS Code: -
Data Type: ALL EMPLOYEES, THOUSANDS
YearJanFebMarAprMayJunJulAugSepOctNovDec
2009-839-725-787-802-312-426-296-219-184-232-42-120
2010-40-27141193849292128115196134140
201111925726126410810217552216139178234
20122772541478511663162103
Bureau of Labor Statistics Data
Click to expand...

Put down the Kool-Ade. If Obama had to carry the same LFPR (labor force participation rate) now, as when he took office, the U-3 is 11.4%. Not the 8.1 snow-job we were fed today.

Do liberals even care about anything except the free-stuff gubmit teat in their mouths for another cycle ?

Your guy is a ****ing disaster. Man-up for once Obamabots.
 
Grim17 said:
Of course not, but it wasn't Bush's fault either. That economic collapse was decades in the making.
Click to expand...

There you go....decades in the making alright. But since Obama hasn't gotten us and the World out of it in 3 years, he's a failure. This one was bad, the already over indebted middle class were hit with a $6.5 Trillion loss from the housing bubble on top of the Wall street collapse. We will get out but not with mumbo jumbo or magic wands but with invesment in our Country not in the wealthy. Have faith. We are still growing unlike most of the free world.
 
The average jobs lost per month from 2009-2012 (using the statistics from the Bureau of Labor) is 10,875. We need to generate at least 130,584 jobs per month to keep up with population growth. Overall, we haven't been growing, we've been in a decline. Unless my math is completely off, 2002-2008 saw greater job creation (at 43,560 average jobs created per month), than 2009-2012, but it was still sub-par.

Bureau of Labor Statistics Data
 
iguanaman said:
There you go....decades in the making alright. But since Obama hasn't gotten us and the World out of it in 3 years, he's a failure. This one was bad, the already over indebted middle class were hit with a $6.5 Trillion loss from the housing bubble on top of the Wall street collapse. We will get out but not with mumbo jumbo or magic wands but with invesment in our Country not in the wealthy. Have faith. We are still growing unlike most of the free world.
Click to expand...

Create the stawman, then slay it.

Its not about "getting us out" of this. Its about stopping the bleeding, and getting us on the road to recovery. As in "recovery summer", promise before, but now 0-3.

Obama has failed. Miserably so. Man-up libs. He was the wrong choice from day one.
 
Eighty Deuce said:
Create the stawman, then slay it.

Its not about "getting us out" of this. Its about stopping the bleeding, and getting us on the road to recovery. As in "recovery summer", promise before, but now 0-3.

Obama has failed. Miserably so. Man-up libs. He was the wrong choice from day one.
Click to expand...

That explains it. No matter what good Obama has done you will say he is a failure. That doesn't work with most people, they want someone who cares about America not that they lost an election.
By wishing for Obama's failure you have wished for us all to fail. It has not helped and in Washington it has been disasterous. A bill to create a million jobs have been blocked in the House since last fall. It is disgraceful. Congress has never had such a low approval rating. I hope you will change your tune in Obama's 2nd term. Romney lost when he failed to release his tax returns.
 
Grim17 said:
Hey Pete, why don't you use ALL jobs created rather than cherry picking the catagory that best fits you agenda?
Click to expand...
Sorry but I don't really consider it cherry picking because of the financial meltdown the credit markets were frozen and that makes it virtually impossible for companies to hire anyone. The financial institutions were given all that TARP money, but refused to lend it to anyone. On Sept 24, 2008 President Bush gave an address from the White House and told the nation how dire the situation was:

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/24/business/economy/24text-bush.html?pagewanted=all

 
iguanaman said:
That explains it. No matter what good Obama has done you will say he is a failure. That doesn't work with most people, they want someone who cares about America not that they lost an election.
By wishing for Obama's failure you have wished for us all to fail. It has not helped and in Washington it has been disasterous. A bill to create a million jobs have been blocked in the House since last fall. It is disgraceful. Congress has never had such a low approval rating. I hope you will change your tune in Obama's 2nd term. Romney lost when he failed to release his tax returns.
Click to expand...

The GOP doesn't care what they do to win; it's the ends that justifies the means with them.

 
Grim17 said:
I don't give a damn how you see it... It's cherry picking.
Click to expand...
And I don't give a damn what YOU think either, so that makes us even. :thumbs:
 
pbrauer said:
And I don't give a damn what YOU think either, so that makes us even. :thumbs:
Click to expand...

All you care about is propping up your beliefs, otherwise you would use the TOTAL job figures, instead of the ones that try and deceive people.
 
pbrauer said:
And I don't give a damn what YOU think either, so that makes us even. :thumbs:
Click to expand...

It is 'cherry picking' though.

Cherry picking, suppressing evidence, or the fallacy of incomplete evidence is the act of pointing to individual cases or data that seem to confirm a particular position, while ignoring a significant portion of related cases or data that may contradict that position. It is a kind of fallacy of selective attention, the most common example of which is the confirmation bias. Cherry picking may be committed unintentionally.
Click to expand...

 
pbrauer said:
Austerity is never the way out of a recession.
Click to expand...

Oh, is that why during the 1920/21 depression, the government massively cut spending and tax rates - but still it ended less then 30 months after it began? With both the unemployment rate and the DOW reaching near per-crash levels within 3 1/2 years of the depression's beginning...all while the national debt shrank.

'Harding believed the federal government should be fiscally managed similar to the private sector having campaigned "Less government in business and more business in government."[116] "Harding was true to his word, carrying on budget cuts that had begun under a debilitated Woodrow Wilson. Federal spending declined from $6.3 billion in 1920 to $5 billion in 1921 and $3.3 billion in 1922.'

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warren_Harding

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Depression_of_1920–21#Government_response

Whereas the Great Depression and it's massive spending under Hoover and FDR resulted in a decade long economic mess where unemployment took over ten years to reach near per-crash levels and the DOW took 25! Oh, and the national debt skyrocketed.


There have been recessions in America every 6 years (on average) since it's birth. The vast majority of them ended without government's doing anything.

Recessions end due to the private sector, not the government.
 
Last edited:
pbrauer said:
Sorry but I don't really consider it cherry picking
Click to expand...

So government jobs don't count? OK...remind me again who President Obama works for...the GOVERNMENT...
doesn't count indeed...:lamo
 
iguanaman said:
Here's a list of Presidents since Kennedy and the GDP growth in their terms. Carter did better than Reagan. Republicans since him have not managed to break 2%.


Kennedy/Johnson 5.2%

Clinton 3.7%

Carter 3.4%

Reagan 3.3%

Nixon/Ford 2.7%

Eisenhower 2.3%

GHW Bush 1.9%

Truman 1.8%

GW Bush 1.7%
Click to expand...

1.7% of 13 trillion is more than 5.2% of 1 trillion. Heres the same list in inflation adj dollars

Kennedy/Johson - 1.2 trillion increase
Clinton - 2.5T increase
Carter - 600B increase
Reagan - 1.8T increase
Nixon/Ford - 1.1T increase
Eisenhower - 500B increase
GHWBush - 600B increase
Truman - 300B increase
GWBush - 2T increase

Since the 80s, weve been operating under supply side economic policy, low taxes, reduced regulation. Under both democrats and Republican presidents and congresses. Meanwhile, since the recession weve gone more towards Keynsian economics at least on spending and regulation. And the economy has stalled.
 
jonny5 said:
1.7% of 13 trillion is more than 5.2% of 1 trillion. Heres the same list in inflation adj dollars

Kennedy/Johson - 1.2 trillion increase
Clinton - 2.5T increase
Carter - 600B increase
Reagan - 1.8T increase
Nixon/Ford - 1.1T increase
Eisenhower - 500B increase
GHWBush - 600B increase
Truman - 300B increase
GWBush - 2T increase

Since the 80s, weve been operating under supply side economic policy, low taxes, reduced regulation. Under both democrats and Republican presidents and congresses. Meanwhile, since the recession weve gone more towards Keynsian economics at least on spending and regulation. And the economy has stalled.
Click to expand...

I'm glad to hear that you consider Clinton's tax increases to be a supply side measure. We need more of that kind of supply, it's called REVENUE.
Nice spin on the miserable growth during Bush 8 years. Even with the housing bubble. It is all about the % the total has nothing to do with growth.
 
haymarket said:
Did we not already have this discussion with the millions of jobs, wings and playboy centerfolds throwing themselves at me?
Click to expand...
No, I'm afraid that's one of those dreams you had before you woke up and remembered that there were only 96,000 jobs, a cold, half-eaten order of Chicken McNuggets, and, well... your internet connection.
 
Grim17 said:
Hey Pete, why don't you use ALL jobs created rather than cherry picking the catagory that best fits you agenda?
Click to expand...

You mean include government jobs too? I thought you didn't like big government. :mrgreen:
 
pbrauer said:
The GOP doesn't care what they do to win; it's the ends that justifies the means with them.

Click to expand...


That tactic was invented by Plato, and was used by both Machiavelli and Karl Marx.
 
danarhea said:
That tactic was invented by Plato, and was used by both Machiavelli and Karl Marx.
Click to expand...

Plato invented it but was used by Machiavelli, a political adviser and military strategist for Florence, and a German political philosopher and philosopher of history? Somehow, I think your scope is a little small, in addition to a misinterpretation of Machiavelli's thought, let alone Marx or Plato.
 
iguanaman said:
I'm glad to hear that you consider Clinton's tax increases to be a supply side measure. We need more of that kind of supply, it's called REVENUE.
Nice spin on the miserable growth during Bush 8 years. Even with the housing bubble. It is all about the % the total has nothing to do with growth.
Click to expand...

What spin? I posted the facts. The economy grew by 2 trillion under Bush, EVEN with a recession. Percentages are a way to spin real numbers, by making everything relative.
 
Fiddytree said:
Plato invented it but was used by Machiavelli, a political adviser and military strategist for Florence, and a German political philosopher and philosopher of history? Somehow, I think your scope is a little small, in addition to a misinterpretation of Machiavelli's thought, let alone Marx or Plato.
Click to expand...

what amazes me is the utter banality of the claim that ends justifying means is somehow wrong. ends always justify means. that's why you take the means. the problem is when the ends don't justify the means.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom