• 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%

TheNextEra said:
Excuses excuses excuses. You did the same thing you are now blaming others doing. Hypocritical at best. You have ZERO credibility and people can see that. BTW, I thought you said Romney was going to be president? Oh yeah, wrong again.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I was wrong as I underestimated the number of Obamabots out there. Those people are getting exactly what they apparently want, dependence on the Federal Govt., stagnant economic growth, high unemployment, and greater debt
 
Sheik Yerbuti said:
[COLOR="#0000F
F"]Despite the wealthy being heavily
invested in the market, almost half of those eligable for 401K, participate.

Again, applying your criteria to make the unemployment rate to when Obama became president, the unemployment rate would have been around 10%. So it's still down from where he started. Same as every other metric used to calculate unemployment.

Every President since Reagan as accumulated massive debt. Nice that you finally noticed.

Unemployment is not higher than when Obama started, it's lower.

And what do food stamps have to do with people retiring?[/COLOR]
Click to expand...

What does people retiring have to do with 9 million people dropping out of the job markets ?

All presidents incur debt, this one has exploded our debt and we have nothing to show for it.

People with 401ks don't like their investments being devalued as our Fed is literally forced to continue pumping as its actions drive up bond values and asset values.

Plus forcing of perpetully low interest rates hurts the people who are dependent on fixed retirements.
 
Re: U.S. Adds Only 88,000 Jobs; Jobless Rate Falls to 7.6%

Sheik Yerbuti said:
By election day:
Bush had driven up the misery index by 18.2%.
Obama had driven up the misery index by 4.2%.
 :roll:
Click to expand...
You have this about backwards. Bush was 4.3%, Obama was 21.2%.

Average for Bush years was 8.11, Average for Obama years has been 10.57 thus far.
 
Re: U.S. Adds Only 88,000 Jobs; Jobless Rate Falls to 7.6%

Conservative said:
Yeah, I was wrong as I underestimated the number of Obamabots out there. Those people are getting exactly what they apparently want, dependence on the Federal Govt., stagnant economic growth, high unemployment, and greater debt
Click to expand...

And you are getting what you deserve, a bloated federal government.
 
Re: U.S. Adds Only 88,000 Jobs; Jobless Rate Falls to 7.6%

DA60 said:
I have the Fed itself stating that 1/2 of the drop in the participation rate is due to the crappy economy.

All I see from you are your words and assumptions.

Now whose word should I take on this? The Fed's or some guy on the Internet?

Hmmm......


Have a nice day.
Click to expand...

No, you don't have that. For example, the article you linked doesn't mention how many of that half that you call a "crappy economy" chose to go on disability rather than work.

It leaves you guessing as to why that half left the work force. That half includes people switching to disability, people choosing school over work, etc....
 
Fenton said:
Hey that bill was resubmitted in 2007.

What happened to it ?
Click to expand...
It got thrown out in favor of Nancy Pelosi's bill (which made it to the president). Maybe it was just a crappy bill and that's why Republican leadership wouldn't put it to a vote in 2005?
 
Re: U.S. Adds Only 88,000 Jobs; Jobless Rate Falls to 7.6%

Conservative said:
The choice never was Bush vs Obama and your use of percentage change is misguided at best.
Click to expand...
Hey, Con, nice attempt to change the subject, but I never suggested they ran against each other.

I was just hilighting your hypocrisy for voting for Bush. When he ran for re-election, his record was abysmal.

You didn't care because results don't matter to you when the president is a Republican.

And the only reason you care now is because the president is a Democrat.
 
Re: U.S. Adds Only 88,000 Jobs; Jobless Rate Falls to 7.6%

Sheik Yerbuti said:
Despite the wealthy being heavily invested in the market, almost half of those eligable for 401K, participate.

Again, applying your criteria to make the unemployment rate to when Obama became president, the unemployment rate would have been around 10%. So it's still down from where he started.
Click to expand...

Ahhh...no.

I said the difference in the participation rate since Obama took over.

Since you are claiming(?!?) that the rate was actually 10% when he took over, then the unemployment rate would be well over 10% now.

No idea what you are spinning now but the U-3 unemployment rate IS higher then the day Obama was inaugurated.

If you add in all those people that (according to the Fed) left the workforce strictly because they cannot find work...then the unemployment rate would be well over 9%.

Sorry pal, no matter how you spin it...the unemployment rate IS worse then the day Obama took over.

And what do food stamps have to do with people retiring?
Click to expand...

Nothing...and I never said (or even thought) that it did.

I was simply listing another fact of the Obama Presidency...food stamp usage has risen over 40% since he took office.
 
Sheik Yerbuti said:
It got thrown out in favor of Nancy
Pelosi's bill (which made it to the president). Maybe it was just a crappy bill and that's why Republican leadership wouldn't put it to a vote in 2005?
Click to expand...

It never made it out of the Democrat chaired committee.

Are you allergic to truth?

I have a feeling you never read it. Truth is it was submitted to reign in the corrupt Democrats running Fannie and Freddie.

How many Democrats including Nancy Pelosi signed a letter sent to tbe Bush White House opposing new regulations on Fannie and Freddie ?

In 2004 ? Need a hint ?
 
Re: U.S. Adds Only 88,000 Jobs; Jobless Rate Falls to 7.6%

Sheik Yerbuti said:
Hey, Con, nice attempt to change the subject, but I never suggested they ran against each other.

I was just hilighting your hypocrisy for voting for Bush. When he ran for re-election, his record was abysmal.

You didn't care because results don't matter to you when the president is a Republican.

And the only reason you care now is because the president is a Democrat.
Click to expand...

Your selective interpretation of the Bush results is typical of liberals who have to divert from the Obama failures. Still waiting for you to tell me what conservative economy policy Obama implemented? Economic performance was much better after the Bush tax cuts were fully implemented in July 2003. Economic growth was stronger and there was no demonization of individual wealth creation. The Obama results are a disaster, high debt, low economic growth, and massive numbers leaving the labor force along with high unemployment
 
Re: U.S. Adds Only 88,000 Jobs; Jobless Rate Falls to 7.6%

Sheik Yerbuti said:
No, you don't have that. For example, the article you linked doesn't mention how many of that half that you call a "crappy economy" chose to go on disability rather than work.

It leaves you guessing as to why that half left the work force. That half includes people switching to disability, people choosing school over work, etc....
Click to expand...

The fed article stated the following:

'V. CONCLUSION

The sharp decline of the LFPR since the onset of the recent recession is due to long-term shifts related to demographic trends and to the cyclical downturn in the labor market. A variety of evidence indicates that, on balance, trend factors account for about half of the decline in labor force participation from 2007 to 2011, with cyclical factors accounting for the other half.'

http://www.kc.frb.org/publicat/econrev/pdf/12q1VanZandweghe.pdf

Cyclical downturn in the labor market?

Cyclical factors accounting for the other half?

That means (in essence) they left the work force because the economy sucked.

It does not specify what they did once they left (like go back to school, go on disability, take up knitting, kill themselves, explore the wonders of living in a box, etc.).


I am not going to go around and around on this with you.

The Fed itself states (in essence) that 1/2 of those that have left the workforce since Obama took over have left because they could not find work (I.e. 'cyclical downturn in labor market').

That means that they are still unemployed (as they left because they could not find work).

And that means that adding in those people to the workforce (since Obama took over) brings the unemployment rate to over 9%.

And you have posted zero links to disprove any of this - just more spinning theories of yours.

Either post links to unbiased sources that disputes this or you will be ignored on this...I do not care about your wild theories...back them up with unbiased sources and maybe then I will pay attention.


Have a nice day.
 
Fenton said:
What does people retiring have to do with 9 million people dropping out of the job markets ?
Click to expand...
First of all, 9 million people have not dropped out of the job market. You're citing the NILF figure which includes population growth as well as people who voluntarily left the job market. Furthermore, the NILF figure is growing at roughly the same pace it has been growing for the last 16 years; with a slight uptick at around the time of the housing bubble crash.

Fenton said:
All presidents incur debt, this one has exploded our debt and we have nothing to show for it.
Click to expand...
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.

Fenton said:
People with 401ks don't like their investments being devalued as our Fed is literally forced to continue pumping as its actions drive up bond values and asset values.
Click to expand...
Ummm, their investiments are waaaay up. Who knows why you think they're devalued??

But again, the point to that is during the recession, many seniors would have put off retiring because their investments were in the toilet. Now, many of them are more likely to retire since their investments are at, or near, all-time highs.
 
Re: U.S. Adds Only 88,000 Jobs; Jobless Rate Falls to 7.6%

Taylor said:
You have this about backwards. Bush was 4.3%, Obama was 21.2%.

Average for Bush years was 8.11, Average for Obama years has been 10.57 thus far.
Click to expand...
You're right, my bad. I wrongly relied on annual data, not monthly data.
 
Fenton said:
It never made it out of the Democrat chaired committee.

Are you allergic to truth?

I have a feeling you never read it. Truth is it was submitted to reign in the corrupt Democrats running Fannie and Freddie.

How many Democrats including Nancy Pelosi signed a letter sent to tbe Bush White House opposing new regulations on Fannie and Freddie ?

In 2004 ? Need a hint ?
Click to expand...

The truth is that President Bush didn't like the bill.

George W. Bush: Statement of Administration Policy: H.R. 1461 - Federal Housing Finance Reform Act of 2005

snip
The dramatic growth of the housing GSEs over the last decade, as well as recent accounting and operational problems, underscore the importance of protecting the broader financial markets from systemic risks caused by their actions. The housing GSEs' outstanding debt is approximately $2.5 trillion, and they provide credit guarantees on another $2.4 trillion of mortgages. By comparison, the privately held debt of the Federal government is $4.1 trillion. Housing GSE debt is issued largely to support sizable portfolio investments that are unnecessary to fulfill the GSEs' housing mission. Given the size and importance of the GSEs, Congress must ensure that their large mortgage portfolios do not place the U.S. financial system at risk. H.R. 1461 fails to provide critical policy guidance in this area.


The Administration strongly believes that the housing GSEs should be focused on their core housing mission, particularly with respect to low-income Americans and first-time homebuyers. Instead, provisions of H.R. 1461 that expand mortgage purchasing authority would lessen the housing GSEs' commitment to low-income homebuyers. Likewise, provisions that divert profits will lead to increased risk-taking and decreased market discipline, while exacerbating systemic risk.


The Administration remains committed to bringing real reform to the housing GSEs and looks forward to continuing to work with Congress to ensure that the needed reforms are part of any final legislation.
​
 
Re: U.S. Adds Only 88,000 Jobs; Jobless Rate Falls to 7.6%

DA60 said:
Ahhh...no.

I said the difference in the participation rate since Obama took over.

Since you are claiming(?!?) that the rate was actually 10% when he took over, then the unemployment rate would be well over 10% now.
Click to expand...
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.

DA60 said:
No idea what you are spinning now but the U-3 unemployment rate IS higher then the day Obama was inaugurated.
Click to expand...
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.

DA60 said:
If you add in all those people that (according to the Fed) left the workforce strictly because they cannot find work...then the unemployment rate would be well over 9%.
Click to expand...
That's where your problems begin -- you have no idea how many of those who left the workforce, did so because they wanted to.

DA60 said:
Sorry pal, no matter how you spin it...the unemployment rate IS worse then the day Obama took over.
Click to expand...
Yet nothing you have presented indicates that. That seems to be your wishful thinking.
 
Sheik Yerbuti said:
It got thrown out in favor of Nancy Pelosi's bill (which made it to the president). Maybe it was just a crappy bill and that's why Republican leadership wouldn't put it to a vote in 2005?

Fenton said:
It never made it out of the Democrat chaired committee.

Are you allergic to truth?
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
WTF??

What part of that bolded part confused you?

Fenton said:
I have a feeling you never read it. Truth is it was submitted to reign in the corrupt Democrats running Fannie and Freddie.

How many Democrats including Nancy Pelosi signed a letter sent to tbe Bush White House opposing new regulations on Fannie and Freddie ?

In 2004 ? Need a hint ?
Click to expand...
Doesn't matter -- Democrats were not in charge. I never said Democrats were on the right side of the issue. They weren't. But they were not in charge. Republicans were and Republicans failed to pass any legislation to add oversight on the GSEs. You can't blame the minority party for when the majority party fails to do its job.
 
Re: U.S. Adds Only 88,000 Jobs; Jobless Rate Falls to 7.6%

DA60 said:
The fed article stated the following:

'V. CONCLUSION

The sharp decline of the LFPR since the onset of the recent recession is due to long-term shifts related to demographic trends and to the cyclical downturn in the labor market. A variety of evidence indicates that, on balance, trend factors account for about half of the decline in labor force participation from 2007 to 2011, with cyclical factors accounting for the other half.'

http://www.kc.frb.org/publicat/econrev/pdf/12q1VanZandweghe.pdf

Cyclical downturn in the labor market?

Cyclical factors accounting for the other half?

That means (in essence) they left the work force because the economy sucked.

It does not specify what they did once they left (like go back to school, go on disability, take up knitting, kill themselves, explore the wonders of living in a box, etc.).


I am not going to go around and around on this with you.

The Fed itself states (in essence) that 1/2 of those that have left the workforce since Obama took over have left because they could not find work (I.e. 'cyclical downturn in labor market').

That means that they are still unemployed (as they left because they could not find work).

And that means that adding in those people to the workforce (since Obama took over) brings the unemployment rate to over 9%.

And you have posted zero links to disprove any of this - just more spinning theories of yours.

Either post links to unbiased sources that disputes this or you will be ignored on this...I do not care about your wild theories...back them up with unbiased sources and maybe then I will pay attention.


Have a nice day.
Click to expand...

I don't care how many times you repeat it, that half included people who voluntarily left the workforce. That includes people who chose disability over work and others who chose school over work. Some of both groups likely because they couldn't find work while others because they didn't want to work.

You're still stuck with guessing what that number is and you refuse to understand that because no one measures those factors, you will never have anything but your guess to fill in that number, since there is no data on it.
 
Re: U.S. Adds Only 88,000 Jobs; Jobless Rate Falls to 7.6%

DA60 said:
The Fed itself states (in essence) that 1/2 of those that have left the workforce since Obama took over have left because they could not find work (I.e. 'cyclical downturn in labor market').

That means that they are still unemployed (as they left because they could not find work).
Click to expand...
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.
 
Re: U.S. Adds Only 88,000 Jobs; Jobless Rate Falls to 7.6%

Sheik Yerbuti said:
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.
Click to expand...

Perhaps you folks should look at U-6. The rate in Jan 2009 was 14.2% and in March 2013 13.8% so a slight improvement over the last 4 plus years. Now with some facts people can debate whether the improvement shows good or bad performance of the administration.
 
pbrauer said:
The truth is that President Bush didn't like the bill.

George W. Bush: Statement of Administration Policy: H.R. 1461 - Federal Housing Finance Reform Act of 2005

snip
The dramatic growth of the housing GSEs over the last decade, as well as recent accounting and operational problems, underscore the importance of protecting the broader financial markets from systemic risks caused by their actions. The housing GSEs' outstanding debt is approximately $2.5 trillion, and they provide credit guarantees on another $2.4 trillion of mortgages. By comparison, the privately held debt of the Federal government is $4.1 trillion. Housing GSE debt is issued largely to support sizable portfolio investments that are unnecessary to fulfill the GSEs' housing mission. Given the size and importance of the GSEs, Congress must ensure that their large mortgage portfolios do not place the U.S. financial system at risk. H.R. 1461 fails to provide critical policy guidance in this area.


The Administration strongly believes that the housing GSEs should be focused on their core housing mission, particularly with respect to low-income Americans and first-time homebuyers. Instead, provisions of H.R. 1461 that expand mortgage purchasing authority would lessen the housing GSEs' commitment to low-income homebuyers. Likewise, provisions that divert profits will lead to increased risk-taking and decreased market discipline, while exacerbating systemic risk.


The Administration remains committed to bringing real reform to the housing GSEs and looks forward to continuing to work with Congress to ensure that the needed reforms are part of any final legislation.
​
Click to expand...
I love this part ...

H.R. 1461 fails to include key elements that are essential to protect the safety and soundness of the housing finance system and the broader financial system at large. As a result, the Administration opposes the bill.
 
Re: U.S. Adds Only 88,000 Jobs; Jobless Rate Falls to 7.6%

Sheik Yerbuti said:
So what, they had the votes to filibuster?? Most Senates we've had, had a minority party with enough votes to sustain a filibuster. Still, they didn't filibuster and they didn't block the bills.

That doesn't prevent the majority party from submitting a bill for a full Senate vote. In the House, Ryan knew his budget wouldn't pass in the Senate. Did that prevent him from passing it anyway to put the Senate on record as being against it? No, of course not. Republican leadership never put either of those bills on the legislative calendar. They're to blame for that. You can't reasonably blame Democrats because Republicans were afraid of them.
Click to expand...

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
 
Bronson said:
Wrong Bill. Nice try though.

Senate version s190

Federal Housing Enterprise Regulatory Reform Act of 2005 (2005; 109th Congress S. 190) - GovTrack.us
Click to expand...

President Bush was not in favor of S.190 either. Nice try though. :lol:

Freddie Mac - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Snip
President Bush recommended a significant regulatory overhaul of the housing finance industry in 2003, but many Democrats opposed his plan, fearing that tighter regulation could greatly reduce financing for low-income housing, both low- and high-risk.[29] Bush opposed two other acts of legislation:[30][31] Senate Bill S. 190, the Federal Housing Enterprise Regulatory Reform Act of 2005, which was introduced in the Senate on January 26, 2005, sponsored by Senator Chuck Hagel and co-sponsored by Senators Elizabeth Dole and John Sununu. S. 190 was reported out of the Senate Banking Committee on July 28, 2005, but never voted on by the full Senate.


​
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom