• 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!

U.S. Adds 146,000 Jobs; Jobless Rate Falls to 7.7%

That would be because Republican Presidents understand basic economics, unlike Obama, who is nothing more than radical ideologue/community organizer who has never even run a cash register at 7/11.

Complete and utter partisan delusions. Allow me to demonstrate. Going back as far as BLS data goes, only one Republican president saw unemployment drop up until this point in their respective presidency (46 months). And that one lone Republican was the Conservative god, Reagan; and that drop in unemployment was just 3 tenths of one percent. At this point in their presidency, unemployment rose for every other Republican president. Converesly, not a single Democrat president saw unemployment rise up until this point in their presidency.

To claim Republican superiority is to demonstrate hallucinations.



GHW Bush +2.0 +37%
Ford** +2.0 +36%
Nixon +1.6 +56%
Eisenhower +1.5 +52%
Bush +1.2 +29%
Carter 0.0 0%
Obama -0.1 -1%
Reagan -0.3 -4%
Kennedy* -1.2 -14%
Clinton -1.9 -26%
Johnson -1.9 -33%

* = Kennedy was in office 34 months

** = Ford was in office 29 months


Bureau of Labor Statistics Data

Bush's Economy for most of his 2 terms was a robust, strong, and growing economy, with unemployment as low as 4.5%

At this point into Bush's term, unemployment had increased 1.2 points as there was a net loss of 2 million jobs. Under Obama, there's been a net gain in jobs.

Bush remains only 1 of 2 presidents in U.S. history to retire from office with fewer private sector jobs than when he started. The only other being Herbert Hoover.

And even with Bush benefiting from the housing bubble, he still managed to nearly double the unemployment rate from 4.2% to 7.8%.

And your red-herring about the "average" unemployment rate under Bush compared to under Obama seeks to ignore the fact that the unemployment rate under Bush started at 4.2% while under Obama, it started at 7.8%; add to that how Bush passed the worst economy since the Great Depression to Obama; so of course the average is better with Bush, who increased the unemployment rate on his watch more than any other president except for Hoover, than with Obama, who's decreased it.


The Housing Crash happened because of Clinton's over-regulation and Greenspan's idiotic monetary policy.
Bush disagrees with you. He says it's the fault of his and Republican policies...

"Thanks to our policies, home ownership in America is at an all-time high." ~ George Bush, 9.2.2004, RNC acceptance speech

I'll take someone's tacit confession over a hyper-partisan's revisionism any day.
 
Last edited:
The key difference to what?? I dont understand where you are going with this...

The money would be less for a longer Reid of time. It isn't like they'd have as much as working. People still work. Most work.
 
This has gotten so tiresomely typical. Right-wingers just drag out the same old dead arguments in any month that the BLS numbers are positive. Knee-jerk trained-sealism.

The labor force particpation rate is principally driven by two factors -- a demographic component and a cyclical component. Beginning in the late 1960's and picking up steam through the 1970's, the demographic component drove the LFPR as -- thanks to the pill and to Roe -- women demanded and got an education and then demanded and got jobs. And not just jobs in the steno pool. That trend of more and more women working was projected to peak in the late 1990's, but the economy was so strong then (remember?) that the cyclical component pushed the actual peak back by a couple of years. Things have changed since then. The demographic arrow is now pushing the LFPR downward due to the increasing rate of baby boomer retirements. The cyclical arrow had tilted downward in 2001-2003, and was of course jerked sharply in that direction in 2007-2008. It would be news if the LFPR were doing anything but declining.

The labor force, however, is a different thing. Where then LFPR is a long-term trend, the labor force is a bouncy thing in the short-term. In the eleven months of data so far in 2012, the labor force has increased six times and decreased five times. The absolute value of the average monthly change has been about 375,000. The range has been between -368K and +642K. There is not an consistent argument to be made form these data, but the right wing will pretend that there is -- in certain selected months. This is because their handlers are inveterate liars and they themselves don't seem to know better.
 
Stop it, you're calling Bush's economy robust?
It's unbelievable that anyone would even attempt such an incredible feat.

Under 8 years of Bush, an astounding 11.4 million people became un/under employed. And that's not even considering the months which followed his presidency as millions more became categorized by the U6 unemployment rate as a direct result to the Great Recession he passed on to Obama.

Under Obama, number is up 460,000.


Bush: 11,404,112 -- "Yay, Bush!!! only 5.4% average unemployment!!!" ~ Conservatives

Obama: 460,000 -- "Boooooo, Obama the one term Marxist Kenyan!!!" ~ Conservatives
 
OK, so you want to say that they are all retirees....Show me that in black and white then, and not just your own partisan wish to make your own argument work....
First, quote where I said "they are all retirees" ...
 
The money would be less for a longer Reid of time. It isn't like they'd have as much as working. People still work. Most work.

I still dont understand what your trying to prove here. How many are "most". How many people on welfare can work but chose not to? Same with disability, unemployment and any other form of government welfare? I wouldn’t expect those on welfare to be making as much as those who are retired, even though the amount retirees receive changes drastically from person to person. it just depends on how well one prepares for retirement.
 
This has gotten so tiresomely typical. Right-wingers just drag out the same old dead arguments in any month that the BLS numbers are positive. Knee-jerk trained-sealism.
They must be so baffled at how they coudn't convince enough voters of their economic views that they couldn't defeat Obama. :shrug:
 
This has gotten so tiresomely typical. Right-wingers just drag out the same old dead arguments in any month that the BLS numbers are positive. Knee-jerk trained-sealism.

The labor force particpation rate is principally driven by two factors -- a demographic component and a cyclical component. Beginning in the late 1960's and picking up steam through the 1970's, the demographic component drove the LFPR as -- thanks to the pill and to Roe -- women demanded and got an education and then demanded and got jobs. And not just jobs in the steno pool. That trend of more and more women working was projected to peak in the late 1990's, but the economy was so strong then (remember?) that the cyclical component pushed the actual peak back by a couple of years. Things have changed since then. The demographic arrow is now pushing the LFPR downward due to the increasing rate of baby boomer retirements. The cyclical arrow had tilted downward in 2001-2003, and was of course jerked sharply in that direction in 2007-2008. It would be news if the LFPR were doing anything but declining.

The labor force, however, is a different thing. Where then LFPR is a long-term trend, the labor force is a bouncy thing in the short-term. In the eleven months of data so far in 2012, the labor force has increased six times and decreased five times. The absolute value of the average monthly change has been about 375,000. The range has been between -368K and +642K. There is not an consistent argument to be made form these data, but the right wing will pretend that there is -- in certain selected months. This is because their handlers are inveterate liars and they themselves don't seem to know better.

What is tiresome, is when people constantly make their arguments, based on party affiliation. I.E. Anything republicans do is garbage, and anything the Democrats do is pure gold! Anyone who cant admit that there are things done in both parties that are good and bad, is simply a hypocrite. Cardinal being foremost among them.
 
First, quote where I said "they are all retirees" ...


I bolded what you said, so do us both a favor, and instead of this semantic diversion, just answer the question, K? Yeah, thanks.
 
Under 8 years of Bush, an astounding 11.4 million people became un/under employed.
Another way to look at it is that after inheriting an unemployment rate of 4.2% in January 2001, by March of 2002, Bush had us on federal emergency long-term UI benefits, and we stayed there for the rest of 2002 and all of 2003. What a miracle worker!

The low point in unemploymnt under Bush came on January 20, 2001, the day he was first inaugurated. It has been higher every day since. Thanks, George!
 
See bolded part - no, there isn't, as long as the states agree to those programs. We don't need the feds to provide any but the services enumerated to the fed's control by the Constitution. They can all be provided by the states as they wish. The feds should only act as a coordinator in this scenerio.

But we've screwed that system and gone way extra-constitutional. So with the system the way it is, the way we've allowed it to morph, we have become dependent upon federal services. Setting up a vicious cycle.

I understand your view, I just happen to disagree with it. I think we can not be a great nation if we allow the poor and needy to starve and suffer. Our social programs are designed to be a hand up, not a way of life. I think when we have a healthy society, there will be less crime and a stronger workforce.
 
They must be so baffled at how they coudn't convince enough voters of their economic views that they couldn't defeat Obama.:shrug:
Yes, it seems to be weighing rather heavily on a quite number of them. They were so stoked and invested in the dream of seeing Romney fulfill the prophecy of making Obama a one-term President. Like Romney, they never wrote a concession speech. Now they have to wing it and are not doing a terribly good job of it...
 
What is tiresome, is when people constantly make their arguments, based on party affiliation. I.E. Anything republicans do is garbage, and anything the Democrats do is pure gold! Anyone who cant admit that there are things done in both parties that are good and bad, is simply a hypocrite. Cardinal being foremost among them.
The data speak, but not to you, I see. At least judging from this one entirely hapless response. A significant nuimber of the arguments proposed in this thread and elsewhere by our right-wing friends have been total frauds. The same total frauds they trotted out last time the employment numbers looked good. It's become nothing but a mindless ritual.
 
I bolded what you said, so do us both a favor, and instead of this semantic diversion, just answer the question, K? Yeah, thanks.
WTF???

I said, "But to that, I largely attribute retiring baby boomers."


But your brain translates that into, "so you want to say that they are all retirees."

:shrug: :shrug: :shrug: :shrug: :shrug:

How can I answer a question based on a false premise? That false premise being something I never said.

At any rate, according to this study, just under half of the drop in the labor force participation rate is due to retiring baby boomers. And the rate of baby boomers reaching retirement age increases every single day, leading to even more people retiring.

There are an additional 1.5 million people between ages 62 and 66 every single month. That has a huge impact on the labor force.


http://chicagofed.org/digital_assets/publications/chicago_fed_letter/2012/cflmarch2012_296.pdf
 
Last edited:
The data speak, but not to you, I see. At least judging from this one entirely hapless response. A significant nuimber of the arguments proposed in this thread and elsewhere by our right-wing friends have been total frauds. The same total frauds they trotted out last time the employment numbers looked good. It's become nothing but a mindless ritual.

You realize that the data you refer to shows that Reagan left office with an unemployment rate of 4% right? Using stimulus spending no less...
 
WTF???

I said, "But to that, I largely attribute retiring baby boomers."


But your brain translates that into, "so you want to say that they are all retirees."

:shrug: :shrug: :shrug: :shrug: :shrug:

How can I answer a question based on a false premise? That false premise being something I never said.

At any rate, according to this study, just under half of the drop in the labor force participation rate is due to retiring baby boomers. And the rate of baby boomers reaching retirement age increases every single day, leading to even more people retiring.

There are an additional 1.5 million people between ages 62 and 66 every single month. That has a huge impact on the labor force.


http://chicagofed.org/digital_assets/publications/chicago_fed_letter/2012/cflmarch2012_296.pdf

Then explain to me if that is the case, why it is that the employment numbers aren't equally as large? I mean, if 1.5 million per month are leaving, and only 150,000 being hired, where's the other jobs going?
 
You realize that the data you refer to shows that Reagan left office with an unemployment rate of 4% right? Using stimulus spending no less...
I don't suppose you'd mind backing that up with "factual" data??

No, of course not.

January, 1989: U3=5.4%


Bureau of Labor Statistics Data

Oh, and by the way ... back then, they didn't include 16-24 year olds in the U3 unemployment rate. Had they, that 5.4% would have been higher.
 
Then explain to me if that is the case, why it is that the employment numbers aren't equally as large? I mean, if 1.5 million per month are leaving, and only 150,000 being hired, where's the other jobs going?
Holy ****, mac!!!

First I say, "But to that, I largely attribute retiring baby boomers," but somehow, your brain translates that into,
"so you want to say that they are all retirees."

Now I say, "There are an additional 1.5 million people between ages 62 and 66 every single month," and somehow your brain translates that into, "I mean, if 1.5 million per month are leaving"

I'm sorry, but until you learn to properly read what people write, I can't continue answering questions that are not grounded to reality.
 
You realize that the data you refer to shows that Reagan left office with an unemployment rate of 4% right? Using stimulus spending no less...
Actually, it was 5.4%, but that was more than 20 years ago. What would that have to do with the price of eggs?

Bush inherited from his predecessor one of the healthiest economies of any incoming President in our history, and he passed on to his successor one of the sickest. The Bush-43 administration was an economic disaster. Unfortunately, there were others as well.
 
That was a constitutional amendment, which is ratified by the states.

Preaching to the choir, bud, and sadly, you're preaching semantics, as far as the voting population, and the folks they elect, go.
 
Oh, and by the way ... back then, they didn't include 16-24 year olds in the U3 unemployment rate. Had they, that 5.4% would have been higher.
Yes, they did. A minimum age of 16 for inclusion in the labor force was introduced in 1967. Prior to that it had been 14. The data were concurrently adjusted back through 1947. The change was made to establish concurrence with state school attendance and work-permit laws.
 
Holy ****, mac!!!

First I say, "But to that, I largely attribute retiring baby boomers," but somehow, your brain translates that into,
"so you want to say that they are all retirees."

Now I say, "There are an additional 1.5 million people between ages 62 and 66 every single month," and somehow your brain translates that into, "I mean, if 1.5 million per month are leaving"

I'm sorry, but until you learn to properly read what people write, I can't continue answering questions that are not grounded to reality.


Let me break it down for you....

The thread is about the drop in unemployment. It has been determined that this number is reflecting some 350,000 that dropped out of the workforce, and that on a side conversation the theory of retirees making up that number either in part, or more was floated although no solid stats to back that up.

You also floated that theory so I think I asked a reasonable question....Now I think you are over reacting, which tells me I am on the right track.....So, can you answer the question I posed?
 
I don't suppose you'd mind backing that up with "factual" data??

No, of course not.

January, 1989: U3=5.4%


Bureau of Labor Statistics Data

Oh, and by the way ... back then, they didn't include 16-24 year olds in the U3 unemployment rate. Had they, that 5.4% would have been higher.

Ya your right, its was 5.4% I was thinking of the inflation rate, which was 4%.
 
Actually, it was 5.4%, but that was more than 20 years ago. What would that have to do with the price of eggs?

Bush inherited from his predecessor one of the healthiest economies of any incoming President in our history, and he passed on to his successor one of the sickest. The Bush-43 administration was an economic disaster. Unfortunately, there were others as well.

The Clinton administration was over 12 years ago, what does that have to do with the price of eggs?
 
Back
Top Bottom