• 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%

I believe I have already answered your question. Government employment should not be expected to expand at the same rate, if at all, during any recovery period from a recession. Why would you think it should?

I never asked you if you think it should. I asked you a quantitative question regarding the data. Once you offer me the courtesy of answering the question that resulted in your follow up question (back peddling), i will answer anything you ask.
 
Last edited:
Re: U.S. Adds Only 88,000 Jobs; Jobless Rate Falls to 7.6%

I don't know why you even bother to mention Clinton's name since you admit it was Bush's fault that not enough was done to prevent it.?

I have never seen someone with such hatred for a former President and so much time spent demonizing someone. He must have done something terrible to you or your family so let us know what it is? He has absolutely nothing to do with the economic results of Obama's, nothing and you have a very selective memory of what happened during his term. Bush took office with an economy going into recession and a few months after taking office the country experienced 9/11 which had a devastating effect on employment and economic growth. In spite of that the numbers from 2003-2007 were stellar and it was that growth that led to his re-election. You choose to ignore that reality

Obama on the other hand has absolutely zero leadership skills, never held a real job, took office as the least experienced President in history and the results show that but you overlook the results and continue to buy the rhetoric. You obviously have no understanding of leadership skills or the responsibilities of leadership. Regardless of what you think Bush did, regardless of the hand Obama was dealt, a true leader takes that hand and plays it and then is judged upon the results. The Obama results are a disaster based upon the dollars spent, the poor leadership shown, and the devisive style displayed. Only a true ideologue could try and defend what Obama has done
 
Re: U.S. Adds Only 88,000 Jobs; Jobless Rate Falls to 7.6%

I never asked you if you think it should. I asked you a quantitative question regarding the data. Once you offer me the courtesy by answering the question that resulted in your follow up question (back peddling), i will answer anything you ask.

Yes, if the private sector had added another 700K to offset the decrease in the government sector, UE might be lower. Then again, it might be higher as well if people thought there were productive jobs available...
 
Re: U.S. Adds Only 88,000 Jobs; Jobless Rate Falls to 7.6%

But your wrong, the public sector grew under President Bush. Decreasing income tax revenue resulting from the recession caused loss of public sector jobs. That's about 700K worth which is probably worth a decrease percentage point in the UE rate.

Obama has absolutely no control over public sector jobs at the state level where most of those public sector jobs were lost. States took fiscal responsibility and without the ability to print money did what any private citizen would do when faced with debt, cut expenses. That is a concept that liberals don't understand. The labor force increased over 10 million people during the first 7 years of the Bush term and there was record tax revenue generated to the treasury all with those tax cuts. During the first 7 years of Bush the deficit was never over a trillion dollars and the states had more revenue thus they expanded their public sector employment.

You and Sheik have very selective memories as you try to defend the indefensible. It really is a shame that you have so much invested in demonizing Bush that you cannot see what Obama is doing to this country. Why won't you answer the question as to why? Is the Obama economic policy something you really support?
 
Re: U.S. Adds Only 88,000 Jobs; Jobless Rate Falls to 7.6%

I have never seen someone with such hatred for a former President and so much time spent demonizing someone.
IRONY!

He has absolutely nothing to do with the economic results of Obama's, nothing and you have a very selective memory of what happened during his term. Bush took office with an economy going into recession and a few months after taking office the country experienced 9/11 which had a devastating effect on employment and economic growth.
It has everything to do with the economic results of Obama..."Bush took office with an economy going into recession"--Obama was handed an economy tumbling into depression! and then this.... "the country experienced 9/11" as if it was a natural disaster...it was on BUSH'S FRIGGING WATCH

Only a true ideologue could try and defend what Bush has done..
 
Re: U.S. Adds Only 88,000 Jobs; Jobless Rate Falls to 7.6%

You just posted a lot of words but said nothing of value. Let's consider your first sentence. Your contention is that an 8:1 increase in private sector employment has not been able offset the decrease in the public sector, and this is why unemployment remains high? That's a contortion not many can make with any credibility.
Ummm, if we added 700K in the public sector instead of losing 700K, the unemployment rate would be at around 6½%. The private sector is growing at a reasonably healthy pace. But not enough to effectively lower the unemployment rate. It's the public sector that hurting the UE.

Next, let's assume all your reasons for the drop in the LPR are correct, with which I happen to agree, then we should be experiencing a labor shortage and a correspondingly low UE rate. Would you not agree?
Sure, I can agree with that.
 
Re: U.S. Adds Only 88,000 Jobs; Jobless Rate Falls to 7.6%

IRONY!


It has everything to do with the economic results of Obama..."Bush took office with an economy going into recession"--Obama was handed an economy tumbling into depression! and then this.... "the country experienced 9/11" as if it was a natural disaster...it was on BUSH'S FRIGGING WATCH

Only a true ideologue could try and defend what Bush has done..

You can try to re-write history but you cannot change it, but regardless of what you perceive Bush to have done, it is irrelevant today. What matters now is what Obama has done and the results say made things worse. We are now 6 trillion more in debt, have 3 million fewer people employed than when the recession began, we have had a 1.1 million increase in the labor force, have millions unemployed/under employed/discouraged , millions on food stamps, millions dependent on taxpayer assistance, low economic growth which apparently is giving you exactly what you want, a European style economy
 
Re: U.S. Adds Only 88,000 Jobs; Jobless Rate Falls to 7.6%

Ummm, if we added 700K in the public sector instead of losing 700K, the unemployment rate would be at around 6½%. The private sector is growing at a reasonably healthy pace. But not enough to effectively lower the unemployment rate. It's the public sector that hurting the UE.


Sure, I can agree with that.

You're a hoot. Please try to reconcile both of your posts because I can't...
 
You still don't understand.. He was simply saying that people retiring causes the LFPR to go up(DUH). Conservative has changed to using LFPR as a reliable metric to "combat" the fact that unemployment has been dropping...Hint--it's not a reliable metric for what you're trying to prove.

Riiiight, Here's a Metric for you, Your President and your rotten and corrupt ideology after 4 years has to count massive Govt spending with borrowed dollars to show even a paltry 1.5% growth on average.

And another, after 6 trillion in new structural debt your President and your rotten to the core and corrupt ideology has only a increasing dependent class to show for it. And a increasing poverty rate....what's it up to now, 1 in 6 ???

One more, your President and your rotten and corrupt ideology has to continually infuse printed currency into the financial markets to keep the DOW from nose diving and in the process has falsely inflated bonds and assets to the point of creating a bubble.

Thanks for all of that, IF you voted for him that is. Thanks for being complicit in the misery of millions of middle class American families.
 
You still don't understand.. He was simply saying that people retiring causes the LFPR to go up(DUH). Conservative has changed to using LFPR as a reliable metric to "combat" the fact that unemployment has been dropping...Hint--it's not a reliable metric for what you're trying to prove.
Well to Conservative's defense, it's one of the few remaining talking points he has left. I still recall when he switched his whine from: Obama hasn't created enough jobs to get back where he started ... to: Obama has created enough jobs to get back to where we were in 2007. And once that happens, he'll change his whine again.

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

IRONY!


It has everything to do with the economic results of Obama..."Bush took office with an economy going into recession"--Obama was handed an economy tumbling into depression! and then this.... "the country experienced 9/11" as if it was a natural disaster...it was on BUSH'S FRIGGING WATCH

Only a true ideologue could try and defend what Bush has done..

Wait, you're serious ?

Your'e after 4 years blaming Bush on Obama's continued incompetence ? First off no economist was prediciting a depression after the " Democrat Mandated Sub-Prime Bubble "

Second if it's the Sub-Prime bubble that was the "DEPRESSION !!!" Obama inherited you should know it was actually the collapsing of a sub-prime bubble mandated by Democrat policies and funded by the GSE's who happened to be staffed with Clinton's corrupt appointees.

Next, since you mentioned 9/11, one of the corrupt appointees was a women by the name of Jamie Gorelick.

I would, if I were you, look into the infamous " Gorelick Wall" for a better understanding of the events that led up to 9/11.

But then again, you actually think 4 years into Obama's mistake...I mean his Presidency that his current failures are Bush's fault so I wouldn't expect you to be informed of ...well really anything.
 
Re: U.S. Adds Only 88,000 Jobs; Jobless Rate Falls to 7.6%

Ummm, if we added 700K in the public sector instead of losing 700K, the unemployment rate would be at around 6½%. The private sector is growing at a reasonably healthy pace. But not enough to effectively lower the unemployment rate. It's the public sector that hurting the UE.


Sure, I can agree with that.

You better rethink that because you're wrong. If we didn't lose the 700k the UE Rate would be lower.
 
Re: U.S. Adds Only 88,000 Jobs; Jobless Rate Falls to 7.6%

Wait, you're serious ?
Next, since you mentioned 9/11, one of the corrupt appointees was a women by the name of Jamie Gorelick.
I would, if I were you, look into the infamous " Gorelick Wall" for a better understanding of the events that led up to 9/11.

I'm really not that fond of Obama...just not a fond of incessant bs
Sounds like your being a Bush apologist? It happened under Bush; it had nothing to do with Clinton. Reminiscent of someone else's bogus argument, isnt it??
 
Re: U.S. Adds Only 88,000 Jobs; Jobless Rate Falls to 7.6%

I believe I have already answered your question. Government employment should not be expected to expand at the same rate, if at all, during any recovery period from a recession. Why would you think it should?
Do you just make **** up off the top of your head? Why should public employment not grow during a period of recovery following a recession?

In the last 4 recessions we've had, 2 under Bush Jr, one under Bush Sr, and one under Reagan; this last recession is the only one to see the public sector drop after the recession ended.
 
Re: U.S. Adds Only 88,000 Jobs; Jobless Rate Falls to 7.6%

Yes, if the private sector had added another 700K to offset the decrease in the government sector, UE might be lower. Then again, it might be higher as well if people thought there were productive jobs available...

As expected, you cannot answer me.

January 2010 private employment troughed out at about 105 million. Total private sector non-farm employment is currently 111.547 million, or a change of [(111.547-105)/105 = 0.0625] 6.25% (4.5% since Jan 2009). Total government employment in the same time frame decreased by 0.85%. Had it increased at the same rate, total government employment would have increased from 21.114 million to 22.056 million. Total employment is currently 142.786 million, equating to a difference between government + non-farm private payroll of 10.869 million. So, 111.547 million + 22.054 million + 10.869 million = 144.47 million. Dividing the total number of people employed by the labor force (155.028 million) would give you an unemployment rate of 6.81%.

The question you asked: "should it have increased by the same rate?" The entire point of stimulating a struggling economy is to create jobs! Given that government is the entity that provided stimulus, it would make sense to ensure that government jobs do not decrease in a fashion that would adversely impact labor markets. Allowing government employment to undermine labor market growth is counterproductive if the federal government is implementing policy to help grow the economy.
 
Re: U.S. Adds Only 88,000 Jobs; Jobless Rate Falls to 7.6%

Oh, something to chew on...
I have no confirmed date but i was thinking, as workers become more efficient, and there's more mechanization would there be an expected rise in the natural unemployment level? By no means take this as excusing Obama's unemployment #s, i'm just wondering.
 
Re: U.S. Adds Only 88,000 Jobs; Jobless Rate Falls to 7.6%

Oh, something to chew on...
I have no confirmed date but i was thinking, as workers become more efficient, and there's more mechanization would there be an expected rise in the natural unemployment level? By no means take this as excusing Obama's unemployment #s, i'm just wondering.

This is the luddite fallacy. Do you really believe computers led to job losses in the 70's, 80's, and 90's?
 
Re: U.S. Adds Only 88,000 Jobs; Jobless Rate Falls to 7.6%

I have never seen someone with such hatred for a former President and so much time spent demonizing someone. He must have done something terrible to you or your family so let us know what it is?
What's not to demonize? Few presidents have ****ed this nation as royally as he did. It's not just me who feels this way; at several points during his presidency, he achieved what no other president on record ever accomplished -- a record low JAR of 19%.

He has absolutely nothing to do with the economic results of Obama's
You can claim that all you want, it will never be true. That's why in polls taken, more people still blame Bush for the economy than Obama. That's why Obama was re-elected.

It's beyond ludicrous to claim that Bush could totally wreck the economy as he did, and that he has no effect at all on the economy today. For example, the housing market still hasn't fully recovered. That was Bush's fault, not Obama's. The effects of that effect contruction. They effect manufacturing. They effect credit markets. The world didn't suddenly start on January 20th, 2009.

You can deny reality all you wish, but the result of that is more of a reflection on you than it is on Obama.
 
Re: U.S. Adds Only 88,000 Jobs; Jobless Rate Falls to 7.6%

This is the luddite fallacy. Do you really believe computers led to job losses in the 70's, 80's, and 90's?

The idea was actually postulated as kind of a "ponder on" by our econ prof...
No i realize there will be new, growing markets, but there still is the conflict with productivity and outsourcing etc...
 
Last edited:
Re: U.S. Adds Only 88,000 Jobs; Jobless Rate Falls to 7.6%

What's not to demonize? Few presidents have ****ed this nation as royally as he did. It's not just me who feels this way; at several points during his presidency, he achieved what no other president on record ever accomplished -- a record low JAR of 19%.


You can claim that all you want, it will never be true. That's why in polls taken, more people still blame Bush for the economy than Obama. That's why Obama was re-elected.

It's beyond ludicrous to claim that Bush could totally wreck the economy as he did, and that he has no effect at all on the economy today. For example, the housing market still hasn't fully recovered. That was Bush's fault, not Obama's. The effects of that effect contruction. They effect manufacturing. They effect credit markets. The world didn't suddenly start on January 20th, 2009.

You can deny reality all you wish, but the result of that is more of a reflection on you than it is on Obama.

Your opinion noted as you continue to buy what the media tells you. I am waiting for exactly what President Bush did to hurt you or your family? You seem to believe that Bush had all that power to get us into this mess but Obama doesn't have the power to get us out of that mess. Obama was in the Senate that helped create the mess. Obama said he had the solutions to the problems but like so many you ignore the Obama results and still blame them on Bush

You think Bush is destroying the consumer confidence today? you think Bush is destroying the incentive of small business today? You think Bush proposed penalizing wealth creation? You think the way to prosperity is to tax the producers in this country? It is obvious to me that you never managed anything in your life and have no concept of leadership. Your constant whining about Bush says a lot about you just like your ignoring the Obama results does the same thing.
 
Re: U.S. Adds Only 88,000 Jobs; Jobless Rate Falls to 7.6%

I'm really not that fond of Obama...just not a fond of incessant bs
Sounds like your being a Bush apologist? It happened under Bush; it had nothing to do with Clinton. Reminiscent of someone else's bogus argument, isnt it??

It's a simplistic argument, a simplistic conclusion to imply that everything we need to know about 9/11 and the sub-prime collapse happened on the day of their occurrence.

I would chalk up conclusions like those to the lowest common denominator of Obama supporters. We have a few here that actually think that the sub-prime debacle started post 2004. Yes I know, they're reaaally stupid folks, but they support Obama so what are you gonna do ?

Now if you want to get into the details of each occurrence instead of taking the intellectual lazy road of "it happened on his watch therefore..." then I'm all ears....eyes.
 
Re: U.S. Adds Only 88,000 Jobs; Jobless Rate Falls to 7.6%

The idea was actually postulated and kind of a "ponder on" by our econ prof...
No i realize there will be new, growing markets, but there still is the conflict with productivity and outsourcing etc...

Well, outsourcing allows for an increase in skilled employment, which of course pays better and is far more "productive".
 
Re: U.S. Adds Only 88,000 Jobs; Jobless Rate Falls to 7.6%

Now if you want to get into the details of each occurrence instead of taking the intellectual lazy road of "it happened on his watch therefore..." then I'm all ears....eyes.

Sorry, my sarcasm wasn't obvious enough(i mean that sincerely)
I was point out the fallacy of how "what Bush did has no bearing on our economic situation"
 
Re: U.S. Adds Only 88,000 Jobs; Jobless Rate Falls to 7.6%

Your opinion noted as you continue to buy what the media tells you. I am waiting for exactly what President Bush did to hurt you or your family? You seem to believe that Bush had all that power to get us into this mess but Obama doesn't have the power to get us out of that mess. Obama was in the Senate that helped create the mess. Obama said he had the solutions to the problems but like so many you ignore the Obama results and still blame them on Bush

You think Bush is destroying the consumer confidence today? you think Bush is destroying the incentive of small business today? You think Bush proposed penalizing wealth creation? You think the way to prosperity is to tax the producers in this country? It is obvious to me that you never managed anything in your life and have no concept of leadership. Your constant whining about Bush says a lot about you just like your ignoring the Obama results does the same thing.

Bush presided over the greatest decrease in net wealth this country has witnessed since the Great Depression. In constant dollar terms (factoring for inflation), households still have not recovered. Any idea how much this damages confidence?
 
Re: U.S. Adds Only 88,000 Jobs; Jobless Rate Falls to 7.6%

Obama has absolutely no control over public sector jobs at the state level where most of those public sector jobs were lost. States took fiscal responsibility and without the ability to print money did what any private citizen would do when faced with debt, cut expenses. That is a concept that liberals don't understand. The labor force increased over 10 million people during the first 7 years of the Bush term and there was record tax revenue generated to the treasury all with those tax cuts. During the first 7 years of Bush the deficit was never over a trillion dollars and the states had more revenue thus they expanded their public sector employment.

You and Sheik have very selective memories as you try to defend the indefensible. It really is a shame that you have so much invested in demonizing Bush that you cannot see what Obama is doing to this country. Why won't you answer the question as to why? Is the Obama economic policy something you really support?

The fact is that your Govenor Perry received $6 billion from ARRA.

PolitiFact Texas | President Obama says Gov. Perry used stimulus fund to help balance budget, then started 'blaming' federal lawmakers who voted for legislation
 
Back
Top Bottom