• 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%

LOL It looks you're still angry Mittens lost race even though you thought he would win in a landslide.

Control panel shows you quoting me on this thread at 8:21PM this evening, but that post is nowhere to be found.:shock:
 
Re: U.S. Adds Only 88,000 Jobs; Jobless Rate Falls to 7.6%

Control panel shows you quoting me on this thread at 8:21PM this evening, but that post is nowhere to be found.:shock:

Sorry, I accidentally sent a post, so I deleted it.
 
Re: U.S. Adds Only 88,000 Jobs; Jobless Rate Falls to 7.6%

LOL It looks you're still angry Mittens lost race even though you thought he would win in a landslide.

Did I say that ? Or are you littering the forum with more half truths and flat out lies perpetuated by a blind allegiance to a dying ideology ?

There is a silver lining to Obama getting re-elected. 8 years of unmitigated failure will be impossible to shrug off on the previous President and/or the rich. Sure some of you will try. But you'll be marginalized as people completely disconnected from reality.

I mean people that support Obama and try to make the case that ANYTHING he's done is a success are disconnected from reality, but after two terms of failure, your spastic rhetoric and vomit-us will be simply ignored as the raving of group of people that more than likely need to be heavily sedated.

And we can in all finality shrug off the metastatic cancer that is destroying this country.

I would give you folks a pass, if it were up to me,.......actually I take that back.
 
Re: U.S. Adds Only 88,000 Jobs; Jobless Rate Falls to 7.6%

year.Jan 2009=142153


year.Jan 2013=143322

Total=1169+

Yep. looks like a gain.:2wave:

Top Picks (Most Requested Statistics) : U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics


LOL !!! Obama on the stump in 2008..

" By 2008 I will add twelve hundred net jobs right after I add 6 trillion to the National debt, pump trillions of printed currency into the stock market causing the next bubble, be solely responsible for 20 million new people that have fled to the food stamp roles, double the amount of people on disability, because there ARE NO JOBS FOR THEM, allow 20 million illegals aliens to stay in the Country and compete with Americans for what little jobs are available, increase the poverty rate to 1 and 6 and pass the most expensive and most destructive health care law I can come up with."

Unreal.

You should have stifled yourself from posting that pathetic data.
 
Re: U.S. Adds Only 88,000 Jobs; Jobless Rate Falls to 7.6%

OK. No problem. I just never want to miss your wisdom.:peace

I would say every post of his is a accident.
 
Re: U.S. Adds Only 88,000 Jobs; Jobless Rate Falls to 7.6%

As I have pointed out repeatedly, unemployment under GWB averaged only 5.3%, including the very much worse than average final months. Economists generally regard unemployment of 4% as representing "full employment" for policy purposes. Thus, GWB spent most of his Presidency running within a percentage point or so of full employment. Upshot? GWB created fewer jobs for the simple (and good) reason that fewer jobs needed to be created. :cool:

I can't believe you still pushing this BS. The very idea that jobs don't need to be created is ludicrous at best. If all the jobs involved fully employed people, you would have a valid point. However, many jobs are part time or temporary.
 
Re: U.S. Adds Only 88,000 Jobs; Jobless Rate Falls to 7.6%

LOL !!! Obama on the stump in 2008..

" By 2008 I will add twelve hundred net jobs right after I add 6 trillion to the National debt, pump trillions of printed currency into the stock market causing the next bubble, be solely responsible for 20 million new people that have fled to the food stamp roles, double the amount of people on disability, because there ARE NO JOBS FOR THEM, allow 20 million illegals aliens to stay in the Country and compete with Americans for what little jobs are available, increase the poverty rate to 1 and 6 and pass the most expensive and most destructive health care law I can come up with."

Unreal.

You should have stifled yourself from posting that pathetic data.

It took you four paragraphs in post #1523 to say BO had nary a job gain.Now you're here dancen around the post and telling me that "You should have stifled yourself from posting that pathetic data".:lamo

Whatta ****en lame you are.:2wave:
 
Re: U.S. Adds Only 88,000 Jobs; Jobless Rate Falls to 7.6%

I can't believe you still pushing this BS. The very idea that jobs don't need to be created is ludicrous at best. If all the jobs involved fully employed people, you would have a valid point. However, many jobs are part time or temporary.

The statistic you like so much is just a net number, reflecting a great deal of job destruction and creation. When the economy doesn't have much unemployment, the net plus doesn't get very high.:cool:
 
Re: U.S. Adds Only 88,000 Jobs; Jobless Rate Falls to 7.6%

Take a basic civics class and get back to me. You have shown how little you know calling budgets spending bills and have no idea what a supplemental is so I wouldn't be trying to tell someone about any correlation until you understand how legislation is generated and the difference between budgets and spending bills.
So you are arguing that the fiscal year 2008 budget caused the housing bubble to collapse? I mean that is the only correlation I can see you making between the Nov 2007 election and "the budget".
 
Re: U.S. Adds Only 88,000 Jobs; Jobless Rate Falls to 7.6%

The statistic you like so much is just a net number, reflecting a great deal of job destruction and creation. When the economy doesn't have much unemployment, the net plus doesn't get very high.:cool:
Such an apologist, the problem is that the net "plus" was a negative, -646,000 private sector job losses or there abouts, which of course, Bush is totally responsible for.

PS....


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

Take a basic civics class and get back to me. You have shown how little you know calling budgets spending bills and have no idea what a supplemental is so I wouldn't be trying to tell someone about any correlation until you understand how legislation is generated and the difference between budgets and spending bills.

Okay high and mighty splain away what's the difference?
 
Re: U.S. Adds Only 88,000 Jobs; Jobless Rate Falls to 7.6%

Yeah, maybe Obama should quit talking about guns and get back to thinking about jobs. Some economists are saying Unemployment will rise to 7.8% and others are saying it will stay the same.

They never really agree on anything and yet counting numbers there really shouldn't be any excuses for mistakes.

7.6%... 7.8%... those aren't the real numbers.

I wish they'd use a formula to give us real numbers... regardless of administration. We need to know all who are out of work, whether they've gone beyond an artificial deadline and are wiped off the list or have stopped looking or not... the total picture should be given.
 
Re: U.S. Adds Only 88,000 Jobs; Jobless Rate Falls to 7.6%

7.6%... 7.8%... those aren't the real numbers.
What makes them "not real?" The same basic definition has been used in the US for about 90 years, and is used for almost every country in the world. Sure, people often use a more informal definition of "unemployed" in conversation, but that doesn't make it the "real definition."

We need to know all who are out of work, whether they've gone beyond an artificial deadline and are wiped off the list or have stopped looking or not... the total picture should be given.
Those numbers are published. What do you mean by "gone beyond an artificial deadline? There's no time limit to be classified as Unemployed. There's no list either, so no one can be wiped off it. And why do you think someone who is not trying to work should be classified as Unemployed? That's what unemployed means...Unable to find work. If someone's not looking for work, we can't know if they are able or unable to find work.

But if you want the breakdown of the population...no problem.
One caveat: The Labor Force Statistics only include people in the 50 states and the District of Columbia who are 16 years old or older, not active duty military and not in an institution (prison, mental institute, old age home etc).

Using the Not Seasonally Adjusted numbers:
Adult Civilian Non-Institutional Population: 244,995,000
Labor Force (Employed plus Unemployed): 154,512,000
Employed: 142,698,000
Unemployed (willing, available, actively looked for work previous 4 weeks): 11,815,000​
Not in the Labor Force (not working or looking): 90,483,000
Do Not Want a Job: 84,084,000
Want a Job: 6,399,000
Did Not Search for Work in Previous Year: 3,417,000
Searched in previous year but not past 4 weeks: 2,982,000
Not Available for work: 656,000
Marginally Attached (available now): 2,326,000
Discouraged: 803,000
Reasons Other than Discouragement (personal reasons for not looking): 1,523,000​

So what are the "real numbers?" These are monthly numbers so it's about what people were doing between February and March. If someone hasn't looked for work in that time period, what does that tell us about how easy/hard it is to get a job in that time period? What does someone who didn't get hired in March but who says that they could not have accepted a job if offered tell us?

Sources: Defintions:
Table A-13
Table A-38
 
Last edited:
Re: U.S. Adds Only 88,000 Jobs; Jobless Rate Falls to 7.6%

What makes them "not real?" The same basic definition has been used in the US for about 90 years, and is used for almost every country in the world. Sure, people often use a more informal definition of "unemployed" in conversation, but that doesn't make it the "real definition."


Those numbers are published. What do you mean by "gone beyond an artificial deadline? There's no time limit to be classified as Unemployed. There's no list either, so no one can be wiped off it. And why do you think someone who is not trying to work should be classified as Unemployed? That's what unemployed means...Unable to find work. If someone's not looking for work, we can't know if they are able or unable to find work.

But if you want the breakdown of the population...no problem.
One caveat: The Labor Force Statistics only include people in the 50 states and the District of Columbia who are 16 years old or older, not active duty military and not in an institution (prison, mental institute, old age home etc).

Using the Not Seasonally Adjusted numbers:
Adult Civilian Non-Institutional Population: 244,995,000
Labor Force (Employed plus Unemployed): 154,512,000
Employed: 142,698,000
Unemployed (willing, available, actively looked for work previous 4 weeks): 11,815,000​
Not in the Labor Force (not working or looking): 90,483,000
Do Not Want a Job: 84,084,000
Want a Job: 6,399,000
Did Not Search for Work in Previous Year: 3,417,000
Searched in previous year but not past 4 weeks: 2,982,000
Not Available for work: 656,000
Marginally Attached (available now): 2,326,000
Discouraged: 803,000
Reasons Other than Discouragement (personal reasons for not looking): 1,523,000​

So what are the "real numbers?" These are monthly numbers so it's about what people were doing between February and March. If someone hasn't looked for work in that time period, what does that tell us about how easy/hard it is to get a job in that time period? What does someone who didn't get hired in March but who says that they could not have accepted a job if offered tell us?

Sources: Defintions:
Table A-13
Table A-38

"Despite the State-Approved Media parroting State-manipulated statistics, these average people have grown quite cognizant of the businesses in their communities going dark. I am not referring to fly-by-night affairs, but shops and chains that have existed since beyond memory boarding shut their doors forever. We see our friends and neighbors being pink-slipped from jobs they have held nearly all of their adult lives or having their hours cut back as the first turn of an irresistible death spiral. Moreover, the stigma of purchasing our goods at flea-markets or at the Dollar Tree has disappeared as the necessity of survival has hit home. Generic brands are now a mainstay as we can no longer afford the items the television would have us purchase. Standing at the check-out, we spy from the corner of our eye the familiar debit card being used by needy families for their sustenance. The unemployment rate, we are told, has sunk below 8% for a long succession of months; but our gut tells us that the truth is otherwise. In our heart of hearts, we know that rate to be much, much higher and we can smell in the air that the great machine is sputtering and winding down as 90 million people are no longer even looking for employment.

But despite the stench of putrefaction in our lungs that comes from a colossal body in its terminal arc, the Great Media Harlot, our gold-plated looking glass to the world, sees, hears and speaks no evil of those she calls her own. Having in her youth been renowned for her virtue, her fading modesty drew attention as she was found consorting in the company of riff-raff in indecent circumstances and at odd hours. But now that the bloom is off the rose, her wantonness for her favorites is for all to see as she cocks her heels behind her ears to her own shame without bothering any longer to pull the drapes. While still of a mind to scream at the top of her lungs at every misstep committed by her ideological rivals, her utility now lies in her affectation of silence as hard and ancient structures lie crumbling about her feet. Any duty she once felt to justice has been supplanted by reckless love: not the love that comes from contemplating the beautiful and the just, but the helpless debased sort that older women feel: having thrown their evaporating charms at young rogues leading ultimately to no happy end.

Despite what we can discern happening about us vibrating in the marrow of our bones, those on the receiving end of our Great Knave's material largesse have taken up the Media Harlot's carefully groomed mantra: a subtle variation of Emile Coue's psychological auto-suggestion that: "Everyday and in every way, things are getting better and better." Having imbibed these imbecilic political "Laws of Attraction," the faithful have learned that every negative thought can be checked and countered by a smiling and trim happy-go-lucky young face on the tube selling us on the lie that the American Dream is alive and well under Obama."


Read more: Articles: The Engineer and the Harlot
Follow us: @AmericanThinker on Twitter | AmericanThinker on Facebook


Off to work I go, so I can transport the loaves of bread that once upon a time cost you about $1.50, now reach prices of $2.50 or higher.....Eat up....
 
Re: U.S. Adds Only 88,000 Jobs; Jobless Rate Falls to 7.6%

What makes them "not real?" The same basic definition has been used in the US for about 90 years, and is used for almost every country in the world. Sure, people often use a more informal definition of "unemployed" in conversation, but that doesn't make it the "real definition."


Those numbers are published. What do you mean by "gone beyond an artificial deadline? There's no time limit to be classified as Unemployed. There's no list either, so no one can be wiped off it. And why do you think someone who is not trying to work should be classified as Unemployed? That's what unemployed means...Unable to find work. If someone's not looking for work, we can't know if they are able or unable to find work.

But if you want the breakdown of the population...no problem.
One caveat: The Labor Force Statistics only include people in the 50 states and the District of Columbia who are 16 years old or older, not active duty military and not in an institution (prison, mental institute, old age home etc).

Using the Not Seasonally Adjusted numbers:
Adult Civilian Non-Institutional Population: 244,995,000
Labor Force (Employed plus Unemployed): 154,512,000
Employed: 142,698,000
Unemployed (willing, available, actively looked for work previous 4 weeks): 11,815,000​
Not in the Labor Force (not working or looking): 90,483,000
Do Not Want a Job: 84,084,000
Want a Job: 6,399,000
Did Not Search for Work in Previous Year: 3,417,000
Searched in previous year but not past 4 weeks: 2,982,000
Not Available for work: 656,000
Marginally Attached (available now): 2,326,000
Discouraged: 803,000
Reasons Other than Discouragement (personal reasons for not looking): 1,523,000​

So what are the "real numbers?" These are monthly numbers so it's about what people were doing between February and March. If someone hasn't looked for work in that time period, what does that tell us about how easy/hard it is to get a job in that time period? What does someone who didn't get hired in March but who says that they could not have accepted a job if offered tell us?

Sources: Defintions:
Table A-13
Table A-38

"Despite the State-Approved Media parroting State-manipulated statistics, these average people have grown quite cognizant of the businesses in their communities going dark. I am not referring to fly-by-night affairs, but shops and chains that have existed since beyond memory boarding shut their doors forever. We see our friends and neighbors being pink-slipped from jobs they have held nearly all of their adult lives or having their hours cut back as the first turn of an irresistible death spiral. Moreover, the stigma of purchasing our goods at flea-markets or at the Dollar Tree has disappeared as the necessity of survival has hit home. Generic brands are now a mainstay as we can no longer afford the items the television would have us purchase. Standing at the check-out, we spy from the corner of our eye the familiar debit card being used by needy families for their sustenance. The unemployment rate, we are told, has sunk below 8% for a long succession of months; but our gut tells us that the truth is otherwise. In our heart of hearts, we know that rate to be much, much higher and we can smell in the air that the great machine is sputtering and winding down as 90 million people are no longer even looking for employment.

But despite the stench of putrefaction in our lungs that comes from a colossal body in its terminal arc, the Great Media Harlot, our gold-plated looking glass to the world, sees, hears and speaks no evil of those she calls her own. Having in her youth been renowned for her virtue, her fading modesty drew attention as she was found consorting in the company of riff-raff in indecent circumstances and at odd hours. But now that the bloom is off the rose, her wantonness for her favorites is for all to see as she cocks her heels behind her ears to her own shame without bothering any longer to pull the drapes. While still of a mind to scream at the top of her lungs at every misstep committed by her ideological rivals, her utility now lies in her affectation of silence as hard and ancient structures lie crumbling about her feet. Any duty she once felt to justice has been supplanted by reckless love: not the love that comes from contemplating the beautiful and the just, but the helpless debased sort that older women feel: having thrown their evaporating charms at young rogues leading ultimately to no happy end.

Despite what we can discern happening about us vibrating in the marrow of our bones, those on the receiving end of our Great Knave's material largesse have taken up the Media Harlot's carefully groomed mantra: a subtle variation of Emile Coue's psychological auto-suggestion that: "Everyday and in every way, things are getting better and better." Having imbibed these imbecilic political "Laws of Attraction," the faithful have learned that every negative thought can be checked and countered by a smiling and trim happy-go-lucky young face on the tube selling us on the lie that the American Dream is alive and well under Obama."


Read more: Articles: The Engineer and the Harlot
Follow us: @AmericanThinker on Twitter | AmericanThinker on Facebook


Off to work I go, so I can transport the loaves of bread that once upon a time cost you about $1.50, now reach prices of $2.50 or higher.....Eat up....
 
Re: U.S. Adds Only 88,000 Jobs; Jobless Rate Falls to 7.6%

"Despite the State-Approved Media parroting State-manipulated statistics, these average people have grown quite cognizant of the businesses in their communities going dark. I am not referring to fly-by-night affairs, but shops and chains that have existed since beyond memory boarding shut their doors forever. We see our friends and neighbors being pink-slipped from jobs they have held nearly all of their adult lives or having their hours cut back as the first turn of an irresistible death spiral. Moreover, the stigma of purchasing our goods at flea-markets or at the Dollar Tree has disappeared as the necessity of survival has hit home. Generic brands are now a mainstay as we can no longer afford the items the television would have us purchase. Standing at the check-out, we spy from the corner of our eye the familiar debit card being used by needy families for their sustenance. The unemployment rate, we are told, has sunk below 8% for a long succession of months; but our gut tells us that the truth is otherwise.
People in Nebraska (3.8% unemployment), North Dakota (3.3%), South Dakota (4.4%), Vermont (4.4%), and Wyoming (4.9%) are not noticing any such thing. and that's just the states that have UE rates below 5%. On the other hand, there are some parts of the country such as Yuma, AZ and parts of California's Central Valley that are experiencing Depression level unemployment. 7.6% (+/- 0.2 percentage points) is the National Average and will almost certainly not be accurate reflection of any particular area.

In our heart of hearts, we know that rate to be much, much higher and we can smell in the air that the great machine is sputtering and winding down as 90 million people are no longer even looking for employment.
"Heart of hearts" is now an accurate measure? Since when? And it is NOT true that 90 million people are "no longer even looking for employment." The majority don't want a job and in any case "Not in the Labor Force," while it includes people who have stopped looking, it also includes those who have never looked. We're talking around 15 million high school and college students. Every month approximately 300,000 people enter the population as "Not in the Labor Force."
 
Re: U.S. Adds Only 88,000 Jobs; Jobless Rate Falls to 7.6%

What makes them "not real?" The same basic definition has been used in the US for about 90 years, and is used for almost every country in the world. Sure, people often use a more informal definition of "unemployed" in conversation, but that doesn't make it the "real definition."

What makes them "not real" is they do not reflect the true level of unemployment, just as baseline budgeting is a deception.

Just because a bunch of socialist nations might do it too doesn't mean we should follow their mistakes. We should recognize the error, correct it AND TELL THE PUBLIC THE TRUTH.

America once was a nation that led. We did not follow the failed systems of Europe. We have employed their idiocy during the past 70-years and with the same level of failure (or worse).

The greatest failure for the whole of mankind is America failed to keep on its course of limited government and maximum Liberty. Today... had we kept the course set by the founders and followed the spirit of the Constitution, Europe would look at us as many in the USSR had after its demise and said... look at what have done to ourselves (this is a line... paraphrasing... a Soviet General said to Colin Powell).

Instead of being a beacon, we've become another decaying socialist laden wasteland where government is King... but Obama's terrorist buddy Bill Ayers likes it that we're in demise.

There is one saving grace... America has a can-do spirit... there are still some of us out there... we have a history of limited government which other nations don't. We have a history we can look back to rebuild... but as one former KGB agent noted... it takes but a generation to destroy that fabric... and our socialists the Democrat Party and their media have done a great job in the direction of destruction.
 
Last edited:
Re: U.S. Adds Only 88,000 Jobs; Jobless Rate Falls to 7.6%

What makes them "not real" is they do not reflect the true level of unemployment,
That's a circular argument...What exactly are you defining as "true level" and what makes the official numbers not the "true level?" And where are you getting your defininition from and what makes it the real/true definition?


Just because a bunch of socialist nations might do it too doesn't mean we should follow their mistakes.
Actually, they're following us. I've worked with many Eastern European countries as they developed their statistics and they used Unemployment Insurance benefits and Registered Unemployed before turning to the US system of household surveys. Some of the more Socialist Western countries such as France and Germany also based their rates on Registered Unemployed until forced by Eurostat to conform to the ILO standard, which was developed AFTER we developed our system in the US. China's Unemployment rate only comes from Registered Urban unemployed.
 
Re: U.S. Adds Only 88,000 Jobs; Jobless Rate Falls to 7.6%

And let's be clear on what the official definition of Unemployed is:
Unemployed persons. All persons who had no employment during the reference week, were available for work, except for temporary illness, and had made specific efforts to find employment sometime during the 4-week period ending with the reference week. Persons who were waiting to be recalled to a job from which they had been laid off need not have been looking for work to be classified as unemployed.
Household Data from Employment and Earnings
 
Re: U.S. Adds Only 88,000 Jobs; Jobless Rate Falls to 7.6%

Such an apologist, the problem is that the net "plus" was a negative, -646,000 private sector job losses or there abouts, which of course, Bush is totally responsible for.

PS....


BUSHvOBAMA_jobsREV.png

My argument doesn't depend in the slightest on private sector vs public sector distinctions. Employment is employment. GWB's average unemployment rate was 5.3%. BHO's average is 8.9%. QED.:cool:
 
Re: U.S. Adds Only 88,000 Jobs; Jobless Rate Falls to 7.6%

My argument doesn't depend in the slightest on private sector vs public sector distinctions. Employment is employment. GWB's average unemployment rate was 5.3%. BHO's average is 8.9%. QED.:cool:

Who knows what you think that means, but to give you an idea, here are the averages going back to Carter:

Clinton .... 5.2
Bush ....... 5.3
GHWBush .... 6.3
Carter ..... 6.5
Reagan ..... 7.5
Obama ...... 8.9


Now I could easily pull up link after link from economists who rank Bush at or near the bottom -- yet your metric places his 1/10th away from the top.

For example, Bush is the only president to leave office with fewer private sector jobs than when he started since Herbert Hoover gave us the Great Depression -- yet your metric makes him appear superior than most.

Clinton and Reagan are considered giants in terms of job creation, adding 19m and 17m jobs respectively -- yet your metric makes Bush appear just about as good as Clinton and even better than Reagan.

In fact, your metric makes Carter look better than Reagan!
:lamo :lamo :lamo
 
Re: U.S. Adds Only 88,000 Jobs; Jobless Rate Falls to 7.6%

I offered no "metric" of any kind. I merely explained why job creation is not an especially meaningful way to compare Presidents. Your post helps me make that point. Thank you.:eek:
 
Re: U.S. Adds Only 88,000 Jobs; Jobless Rate Falls to 7.6%

I offered no "metric" of any kind. I merely explained why job creation is not an especially meaningful way to compare Presidents. Your post helps me make that point. Thank you.:eek:

Ok, so on top of everything else, you don't even know what the word metric means? :roll:

metric

a standard of measurement​

Your linguistic challenges aside, not only are you trying to show that Bush did a better job with unemployment than Obama, you're also trying to show that Bush AND Carter did better than Reagan.

:lamo :lamo :lamo

That's really what you believe??
 
Back
Top Bottom