• 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 Only 88,000 Jobs; Jobless Rate Falls to 7.6%[W: 831]

Re: U.S. Adds Only 88,000 Jobs; Jobless Rate Falls to 7.6%

WTF does a job performance poll have to do with a handling of the economy poll??

[/COLOR]

You brought up polling. So look in a mirror when you ask that.
 
Re: U.S. Adds Only 88,000 Jobs; Jobless Rate Falls to 7.6%

Democrats blocked GSE reform

The evidence is overwhelming and irrefutable. There was no need to filibuster. The threat of a filibuster was enough to keep the bill from ever receiving an up or down vote. Democrats had the 41 votes necessary to keep the bill endlessly in gridlock, so it would have been a waste of time without ANY Democrat support when Democrats would have just kept it endlessly in debate/limbo. It's not my problem your partisanship has blinded you to theses irrefutable facts.

Democrats shoulder the majority of the blame for the Financial Crisis.

Where trading phony baloney derivatives on Wall Sttreet?
 
Bush exploded the debt. To show for it we ended up with the worst economy in 80 years and an additional 12 million people un/underemployed and discouraged. Most of the debt accumulated since then is recession related.

So the solution to $400 billion in deficit spending is $1 trillion in deficit spending? Recession related? Thats baseline spending. Im not sure how you push that level of spending onto Bush and ignore that Obama wanted and continue to want even more spending. Its not at all that Obama wanted to spend less. He wanted to spend much, much more, up to and including a 2nd stimulus and he took attempts to pass other larger spending bills that didnt go through.
 
Re: U.S. Adds Only 88,000 Jobs; Jobless Rate Falls to 7.6%

The U-3 is what most people/media use as the guidepost.

Really?:2razz:

So, if you include those workers which the Fed says (in essence) are technically unemployed - then the unemployment rate should be well over 9%.

Discouraged workers are included in U-4 through U-6. The Fed never said anything about including discouraged workers in the paper by Van Zandweghe, which is why you failed to quote anything in regards to that nature.

Spin and spin and spin...all you do is show your (apparent) closed minded bias.

Me - I have no bias...I think both parties are worse then useless.

I do not have a bias, i simply call it how i see it. You on the other hand have expressed a deep anti-government bias throughout your history on this site. Anything that clashes with your anti-government POV is close minded.
 
Re: U.S. Adds Only 88,000 Jobs; Jobless Rate Falls to 7.6%

Where trading phony baloney derivatives on Wall Sttreet?

That were made legal by a bi-partisan vote.

Keep that in mind. Establishment DC is the problem. Not right, not left---corrupt politician morons bought and paid for by lobbying and special interest favors to make the social engineering portion of home ownership have risk release valves so they could get the banking and financial industry to do it.
 
Re: U.S. Adds Only 88,000 Jobs; Jobless Rate Falls to 7.6%

Again, how did this recession hurt you or your family?

Why the myopic focus? We are not here to discuss myself or any other member of this forum.

Home values along with constant dollar equity prices are not even close to pre-recession levels.

Obama is responsible for the numbers generated during his term just like you hold Bush responsible for the numbers during his term. What Obama policy has made things better for the private sector? Where is th incentive for a small business to grow and hire people?

I never stated i hold Bush responsible for anything other than his two wars and deficit spending with full employment GDP.

fredgraph.png


Interesting logic you have, Bush destroyed the economy but Obama is powerless to implement anythihg to make it better even when he had overwhelming numbers his first term.

Never said Bush destroyed the economy. Only that he presided over the great net wealth loss since the Great Depression. It was the private sector securitization industry that destroyed the economy.
 
Re: U.S. Adds Only 88,000 Jobs; Jobless Rate Falls to 7.6%

You still don't get it. I know you're factoring in the paricipation rate since Obama took over. But you're only doing that for the current unemployment rate -- you're not doing that for the unemployment rate when Obama became president.

That's what I did for Bush; which made the unemployment rate 10% when Obama took over. By you saying it's up now even more than 10% because of that means you're factoring in the participation rate twice now for Obama.

What you're trying to do, and it's not working out for ya, is increasing the unemployment rate based on the drop in the LFPR. But the mistake in your equation is that you're only factoring in the drop in LFPR since January of 2009; when in fact, that drop began much earlier.

That means what you're doing is comparing the 7.8% that Obama inherited without factoring in the LFPR with the current 7.6% rate while factoring in the LFPR.

Apples to oranges. If you want apples to apples, you have to factor in the LFPR drop while Bush was president, which elevates the unemployment rate from 7.8% to 9.9%. So again, even by that metric, Obama lowered unemployment.



There's no spin. The BLS data indicates the U3 rate was 7.8% when Obama became president and it's now 7.6%. In my world, 7.6 is lower than 7.8.


That's where your problems begin -- you have no idea how many of those who left the workforce, did so because they wanted to.


Yet nothing you have presented indicates that. That seems to be your wishful thinking.
Okay...first

http://data.bls.gov/pdq/SurveyOutputServlet Not sure why the link does not work - just type in 'LFPR' in the 'Search' box.

The month GWB (who I think was a lousy POTUS btw) took over - the LFPR was 66.7%

For January 2007, it was 66.4%.

5 years later it had only dropped 0.3%.

By the time he left office - with a full blown major recession in progress - it had dropped to 65.8%. Obviously the recession affected the numbers greatly - just as the Fed suggested.


Now - since Obama took over, the rate has fallen to 63.3% - the lowest it has been since June, 1979 (!).

That is a drop of 2.5% in just over 4 years.

In GWB's first 5 years it had only dropped 0.3% (and then the housing slowdown began and things started to spiral downwards).

So, you are saying that the LFPR is primarily falling because of factors other then the lousy economy - despite the fact that it has dropped over 8 (EIGHT!!!) times faster during Obama's first four years then it did during GWB's first 5?

That is (imo) clearly ridiculous - no offense.


Two) If you wish to take a different starting date to figure in the drop in the Labor Force Participation Rate (LFPR) - go ahead.

But I chose the day Obama took over as my guide because he (and his disciples - like you seem to be) are insisting that the unemployment rate is about the same today as when he took over.

Officially, it is.

But the actual unemployment rate if you included those that have left the work force simply because they cannot find work should (imo) be counted as still part of the work force since they left by force/technicality - not by choice.

And on that basis - the unemployment rate should be well over 9% (using the Fed's own report as a guidepost).


Those are facts.

Now if you wish to spin it so your guy's numbers look better - feel free.

It changes nothing...facts are facts.


And three) the official unemployment rate is worse today then the day Obama was inaugurated - not better as you stated above.

The day he took office (January 20, 2009) the rate officially was 7.3% - not 7.8%.

Notice: Data not available: U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics Type in 'Search' window - 'unemployment rate' and hit the first result.

So by either standard I have listed here - the U.S. unemployment rate is worse today then the day Obama took office.


So, now I have a question for you.

Since the day Obama took office, the official unemployment rate is worse, average housing price is down, the national debt is up over 50% and food stamp usage is up over 40%.

National Debt by Year

On the basis of ONLY those guideposts - would you consider Obama's Presidency a success?

Yes or no, please?
 
Last edited:
Re: U.S. Adds Only 88,000 Jobs; Jobless Rate Falls to 7.6%

Really?:2razz:
The U-3 is the official rate. Sorry you do not know that. Oh well.

I do not have a bias, i simply call it how i see it. You on the other hand have expressed a deep anti-government bias throughout your history on this site. Anything that clashes with your anti-government POV is close minded.

I can speak for myself - and I am not 'anti-government'.

I am anti-incompetence. Anti-corruption.

When the government stops exhibiting these traits in such abundance - I will be as pro-government as anyone (I suspect).


Have a nice day.
 
Re: U.S. Adds Only 88,000 Jobs; Jobless Rate Falls to 7.6%

I don't care how many times you repeat it, that half included people who voluntarily left the workforce.

And where is your link to unbiased, factual evidence that a significant number of that 1/2 left the work force voluntarily - that they did not leave primarily because they could not find work?

Once again, until then, I will take the Fed's numbers over yours.


Have a nice day.
 
Re: U.S. Adds Only 88,000 Jobs; Jobless Rate Falls to 7.6%

Why the myopic focus? We are not here to discuss myself or any other member of this forum.

Home values along with constant dollar equity prices are not even close to pre-recession levels.



I never stated i hold Bush responsible for anything other than his two wars and deficit spending with full employment GDP.

fredgraph.png




Never said Bush destroyed the economy. Only that he presided over the great net wealth loss since the Great Depression. It was the private sector securitization industry that destroyed the economy.

The private sector is what built this country, politicians and bureaucrats are destroying it. There is no reason for a 3.77 trillion dollar budget other than to buy votes by creating dependence and that is what Obama is doing.

You didn't say it but Sheik did along with other leftwing ideologues. Bush had a lot of help doing just that and it all came to a head under a Democratic controlled Congress in late 2007. Prior to that from 2003-2007 there was incredible wealth creation and growth which seems to escape a lot of people. That has been reversed and Obama had nothing to do with it other than trying to destroy it again
 
Re: U.S. Adds Only 88,000 Jobs; Jobless Rate Falls to 7.6%

Oh, btw ... no, it doesn't mean that either. That article is almost 16 months old. Since then, close to 3 million people have found work in the private sector.

Either include sources for your numbers (as I generally do) or your numbers will be ignored.

I am not going to waste my time checking your 'numbers'.

'Close to' can mean almost anything.


Have a nice day.
 
Re: U.S. Adds Only 88,000 Jobs; Jobless Rate Falls to 7.6%

Either include sources for your numbers (as I generally do) or your numbers will be ignored.

I am not going to waste my time checking your 'numbers'.

'Close to' can mean almost anything.


Have a nice day.

Employment is back to where it was when Obama took office, very little more and it only cost over 6 trillion to the debt to get there. Some areas of the country are still waiting for their shovels to arrive for those shovel ready jobs.
 
Re: U.S. Adds Only 88,000 Jobs; Jobless Rate Falls to 7.6%

Okay...first

Notice: Data not available: U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics Not sure why the link does not work - just type in 'LFPR' in the 'Search' box.

The month GWB (who I think was a lousy POTUS btw) took over - the LFPR was 66.7%

For January 2007, it was 66.4%.

4 years later it had only dropped 0.3%.

By the time he left office - with a full blown major recession in progress - it had dropped to 65.8%. Obviously the recession affected the numbers greatly - just as the Fed suggested.


Now - since Obama took over, the rate has fallen to 63.3% - the lowest it has been since June, 1979 (!).

That is a drop of 2.5% in just over 4 years.

In GWB's first 4 years it had only dropped 0.3% (and then the housing slowdown began and things started to spiral downwards).

So, you are saying that the LFPR is primarily falling because of factors other then the lousy economy - despite the fact that it has dropped over 8 (EIGHT!!!) times faster during Obama's first four years then it did during GWB's first 4?

That is (imo) clearly ridiculous - no offense.

The three highlighted numbers are mistakes I made and the correct numbers are the highlighted ones - basically, I put '5' in where I should have put '4'.
 
Last edited:
Re: U.S. Adds Only 88,000 Jobs; Jobless Rate Falls to 7.6%

Prior to that from 2003-2007 there was incredible wealth creation and growth which seems to escape a lot of people. That has been reversed and Obama had nothing to do with it other than trying to destroy it again

Ignored? Um...it was based on a REAL ESTATE BUBBLE......or have you forgotten that too?

FFS!
 
Re: U.S. Adds Only 88,000 Jobs; Jobless Rate Falls to 7.6%

Ignored? Um...it was based on a REAL ESTATE BUBBLE......or have you forgotten that too?

FFS!

Got it, the Dot.com bubble ok, but the real estate bubble, not so much. All economies are going to have bubbles at one time or anyother it is how leadership handles the bubbles that matter. Obama has been a failure at handling this one. TARP supposedly saved the banks and brought us out of recession, TARP was Bush's program that Obama voted for and supported.
 
Re: U.S. Adds Only 88,000 Jobs; Jobless Rate Falls to 7.6%

Got it, the Dot.com bubble ok, but the real estate bubble, not so much. All economies are going to have bubbles at one time or anyother it is how leadership handles the bubbles that matter.

BS, what bubble have we had since 2007 that the admin has refused to address that has popped?

And con, the 2003-2006 bubble percolated throughout the economy, that was the basis for your "from 2003-2007 there was incredible wealth creation and growth" bubble.

An admin should address a bubble when it is happening, not leaving for the next admin to pick up the pieces.
 
Re: U.S. Adds Only 88,000 Jobs; Jobless Rate Falls to 7.6%

Got it, the Dot.com bubble ok, but the real estate bubble, not so much. All economies are going to have bubbles at one time or anyother it is how leadership handles the bubbles that matter. Obama has been a failure at handling this one. TARP supposedly saved the banks and brought us out of recession, TARP was Bush's program that Obama voted for and supported.

Gee, I wish Bush had given us the Dot.com bubble and 20M jobs, plus a balanced budget, and the longest GDP expansion in US history.

I'll take a bubble like that.

Instead he gave us anemic growth, a few million jobs (mostly low paying), two vanity wars and the biggest deficits in history -- all while giving Paris Hilton a tax cut.

That's conservatism for ya
 
Re: U.S. Adds Only 88,000 Jobs; Jobless Rate Falls to 7.6%

BS, what bubble have we had since 2007 that the admin has refused to address that has popped?

And con, the 2003-2006 bubble percolated throughout the economy, that was the basis for your "from 2003-2007 there was incredible wealth creation and growth" bubble.

An admin should address a bubble when it is happening, not leaving for the next admin to pick up the pieces.

What has Obama done to improve the economy. This thread is about job creation and not the housing bubble. He has been in office over 4 years, got re-elected by Obamabots, and has economic numbers that are a disaster including unemployment. Your fixation with Bush and the past doesn't solve the problems of today so that makes you in the same boat as Obama. Keep buying the leftwing rhetoric and media misinformation
 
Re: U.S. Adds Only 88,000 Jobs; Jobless Rate Falls to 7.6%

Gee, I wish Bush had given us the Dot.com bubble and 20M jobs, plus a balanced budget, and the longest GDP expansion in US history.

I'll take a bubble like that.

Instead he gave us anemic growth, a few million jobs (mostly low paying), two vanity wars and the biggest deficits in history -- all while giving Paris Hilton a tax cut.

That's conservatism for ya

LOL, nice spin, but this thread is about Obama and the reality that there are 3 million fewer employed today than when the recession began, 1.1 million increase in the labor force in 4 years which during the Bush years was over a million a month, 500,000 people dropped out of the labor force last month, we had .4% GDP Growth last quarter, and over 6 trillion added to the debt. That is the Obama record that has nothing to do with Clinton, Bush or anyone else other than Obama. Your Bush Derangement Syndrome is filled with misinformation and false information
 
Re: U.S. Adds Only 88,000 Jobs; Jobless Rate Falls to 7.6%

What has Obama done to improve the economy. This thread is about job creation and not the housing bubble. He has been in office over 4 years, got re-elected by Obamabots, and has economic numbers that are a disaster including unemployment. Your fixation with Bush and the past doesn't solve the problems of today so that makes you in the same boat as Obama. Keep buying the leftwing rhetoric and media misinformation
For f sake, YOU brought up the "wealth creation in 2003-07" failing to understand it WAS A BUBBLE....and now you don't want to talk about the Bush economy?

This has got to be the biggest FAIL by you evah.
 
Re: U.S. Adds Only 88,000 Jobs; Jobless Rate Falls to 7.6%

For f sake, YOU brought up the "wealth creation in 2003-07" failing to understand it WAS A BUBBLE....and now you don't want to talk about the Bush economy?

This has got to be the biggest FAIL by you evah.

A lot of people made money in that bubble and held on to it, just like a lot of people got rich during the dot.com bubble, both bubbles bursting led to recessions. Is that reason to dismantle the private sector and demonize individual wealth creation? Is that reason for the govt. to expand its impact on GDP and to increase the number dependent on the Federal Taxpayers?
 
Re: U.S. Adds Only 88,000 Jobs; Jobless Rate Falls to 7.6%

A lot of people made money in that bubble and held on to it, just like a lot of people got rich during the dot.com bubble, both bubbles bursting led to recessions. Is that reason to dismantle the private sector and demonize individual wealth creation? Is that reason for the govt. to expand its impact on GDP and to increase the number dependent on the Federal Taxpayers?
You are flopping around like a landed fish, con. The govt is not "dismantling private sector", FFS, TARP was a method to preserve it.

Stop, before you hurt yourself even more.
 
Re: U.S. Adds Only 88,000 Jobs; Jobless Rate Falls to 7.6%

You are flopping around like a landed fish, con. The govt is not "dismantling private sector", FFS, TARP was a method to preserve it.

Stop, before you hurt yourself even more.

You really have no idea how the private sector works, do you?
 
Re: U.S. Adds Only 88,000 Jobs; Jobless Rate Falls to 7.6%

Too bad, Romney could not live up to President Obama's reputation.:cool:

...
This past Friday, like the first Friday of every month, saw the release of the latest jobs numbers. Within minutes of the release, analysts left, right, and center began pointing nervously at August's decline in labor force participation-the fraction of adults who are working or looking for a job. Several hundred thousand Americans became demoralized and gave up looking for work, said the left. Labor force dropout concealed an unemployment rate exceeding 11% at the close of Obama's first term, said the right. Labor force participation was at its lowest since 1981, and "at an all-time low" among men.


Hold the phone. The labor force participation rate can decline for reasons that should concern us, as when increasing numbers of the unemployed give up looking because of a terrible labor market. That is what most observers have in mind when they see labor force participation falling. But it can also decline for reasons that are either benign or that should cheer us. For instance, as we have grown richer over time, the duration of our working years has shrunk. The typical worker retired at 70 sixty years ago; today he retires at 63. That's a decline in labor force participation.


In fact, the small August drop in labor force participation-which at any rate is not statistically reliable and may be overturned when the final numbers come in next month-almost surely did not reflect rising discouragement among job-seekers. This is readily seen by comparing the so-called "U4" jobless rate-which combines the unemployed and "discouraged workers"-to the official "U3" unemployment rate. Both fell by 0.2 percentage points between July and August. If the fall in labor force participation had been about hopelessly unemployed people, the change in the U4 rate would have looked worse than the U3 change.

Read more RealClearMarkets - Misunderstanding Declines In Labor Force Participation


And yet workforce participation among those aged 65+ has increased. So that excuse isn't available. It must be tiring to eternally search for excuses.:cool:
 
Re: U.S. Adds Only 88,000 Jobs; Jobless Rate Falls to 7.6%

If you are now saying that your argument was "nothing", I agree.

What I'm saying is that you've done nothing but proclaim that "It's not Obama's fault!" over and over. You are apparently impervious to reason.:cool:
 
Back
Top Bottom