• 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%

Sheik Yerbuti said:
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??
Click to expand...

Believe me, I know what metric means. But thank you for the ad hominem. I was merely showing that BHO's economic performance, as regards unemployment, has been inferior to GWB's. :cool:
 
Re: U.S. Adds Only 88,000 Jobs; Jobless Rate Falls to 7.6%

Jack Hays said:
Believe me, I know what metric means. But thank you for the ad hominem. I was merely showing that BHO's economic performance, as regards unemployment, has been inferior to GWB's.
Click to expand...
It was not ad hominem. It was education. You offered up a metric and hadn't even realized that you did. Hopefully, now you've learned from your mistake. :shrug:

At any rate, using the metric you employed to demonstrate that Bush's record on unemployment was better than Obama's produced the ill intended effect of (by your standards) showing that Bush out performed Reagan and came within a razor's edge of Clinton.

And if that isn't laughable enough, your metric demonstrates that Carter outperformed Reagan! :lamo :lamo :lamo

Almost as baffling as that is how you're now arguing with yourself over this. You just admitted in a previous post that comparing job creation among presidents is "meaningless." Yet here you are, just 2 posts later claiming that you showed how Obama's performance was inferior to Bush's.

So what is it? Is it meaningless? Or does it prove Bush outperformed Obama?

My favorite part however, can be found in my tagline. :lamo
 
Re: U.S. Adds Only 88,000 Jobs; Jobless Rate Falls to 7.6%

Sheik Yerbuti said:
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??
Click to expand...

Unemployment is half the picture. The other half is growth. BHO fails because unemployment remains high and growth is abysmal. Reagan, by contrast, achieved significant growth, a difference that mitigates his unemployment performance. :cool:
 
Re: U.S. Adds Only 88,000 Jobs; Jobless Rate Falls to 7.6%

Apparently reading is not your primary skill. I have always maintained that job creation is a poor comparison. I have compared unemployment, a very different measure. Together with growth, it provides a better picture.:roll:
 
Re: U.S. Adds Only 88,000 Jobs; Jobless Rate Falls to 7.6%

Jack Hays said:
Unemployment is half the picture. The other half is growth. BHO fails because unemployment remains high and growth is abysmal. Reagan, by contrast, achieved significant growth, a difference that mitigates his unemployment performance. :cool:
Click to expand...

He also had a lot more to spend on the credit card.
 
Re: U.S. Adds Only 88,000 Jobs; Jobless Rate Falls to 7.6%

winston53660 said:
He also had a lot more to spend on the credit card.
Click to expand...

Reagan is responsible for about 11% of our national debt. BHO is responsible for about 35%, and is on track to hit 50% by the end of his second term.:cool:
 
Re: U.S. Adds Only 88,000 Jobs; Jobless Rate Falls to 7.6%

Jack Hays said:
Unemployment is half the picture. The other half is growth. BHO fails because unemployment remains high and growth is abysmal. Reagan, by contrast, achieved significant growth, a difference that mitigates his unemployment performance. :cool:
Click to expand...
You're certainly welcome to alter the parameters of the metric you employed, and I fully understand why you want to; however, that's not what you've been saying until it was brought to your attention how comparing the averages of employment between presidents indicates that both Bush and Carter outperformed Reagan.

It's unfortunate, but you are stuck with that piece of nonsense.

What you've been saying is that Bush having a lower average of unemployment shows that Bush did a better job than Obama.

Jack Hays said:
The other half is growth.
Click to expand...
WTF??? You just said comparing that among presidents is "meaningless."

Now you're using that in a failed attempt to rehabilitate your nonsense about averaging out the unemployment rate???

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

Jack Hays said:
Reagan is responsible for about 11% of our national debt. BHO is responsible for about 35%, and is on track to hit 50% by the end of his second term.:cool:
Click to expand...


How do you figure this?
 
Re: U.S. Adds Only 88,000 Jobs; Jobless Rate Falls to 7.6%

Jack Hays said:
Reagan is responsible for about 11% of our national debt. BHO is responsible for about 35%, and is on track to hit 50% by the end of his second term.:cool:
Click to expand...

Holy ****! :doh :doh :doh

You're on a roll tonight, Jack. Now you're comparing 1980's dollars with current dollars??

Are you like Conservative? He can't tell the difference between real figures from nominal figures either.
 
Re: U.S. Adds Only 88,000 Jobs; Jobless Rate Falls to 7.6%

Jack Hays said:
Apparently reading is not your primary skill.
Click to expand...
Spits the poster who demonstrated he doesn't know what a "metric" is. :roll:

Jack Hays said:
I have always maintained that job creation is a poor comparison. I have compared unemployment, a very different measure. Together with growth, it provides a better picture.:roll:
Click to expand...

What you've been saying, among other things, was that by comparing the average of the unemployment rate between Bush and Obama, the average shows that Bush did a better job than Obama regarding unemployment, which is ludicrous on it's face given that Bush ADDED 11½ million people to under/unemployed and discouraged, while Obama has LOWERED that number by about a million.

But even more ludicrous is your claimed that it also shows that bush Bush and Carter did a better job with unemployment than Regean!!!

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

Jack Hays said:
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:
Click to expand...
Stating a stat is not making an argument.

Bush won't be remembered for his "average unemployment" anymore than Captain E.J. Smith will be remembered for his average trans-Atlantic crossing times.
 
Re: U.S. Adds Only 88,000 Jobs; Jobless Rate Falls to 7.6%

Jack Hays said:
There is absolutely nothing in libertarian thought that precludes support for public sector employment.
Click to expand...
Jack Hays said:
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:
Click to expand...
Cough...hypocrite.....cough
 
Re: U.S. Adds Only 88,000 Jobs; Jobless Rate Falls to 7.6%

Jack Hays said:
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:
Click to expand...
Unfortunately, to get back to the level of unemployment typical of most of the Bush years, Obama would have to average about 350,000 jobs a month for the remainder of his presidency - about twice what we've seen over the last few years.
 
Re: U.S. Adds Only 88,000 Jobs; Jobless Rate Falls to 7.6%

Sheik Yerbuti said:
You're certainly welcome to alter the parameters of the metric you employed, and I fully understand why you want to; however, that's not what you've been saying until it was brought to your attention how comparing the averages of employment between presidents indicates that both Bush and Carter outperformed Reagan.

It's unfortunate, but you are stuck with that piece of nonsense.

What you've been saying is that Bush having a lower average of unemployment shows that Bush did a better job than Obama.


WTF??? You just said comparing that among presidents is "meaningless."

Now you're using that in a failed attempt to rehabilitate your nonsense about averaging out the unemployment rate???

:doh :doh :doh
Click to expand...

As before, your rush to score points leads you to unwarranted assumptions, just as in the matter of the Sixteen Words. You also, in this case, have failed to take the time to understand my argument -- rushing again to your own detriment. I have absolutely no problem with the thought that Carter's economic performance may have scored higher than Reagan's. On the economy, Carter did better than he is generally credited. "Stagflation" hurt him, but he lost the 1980 election because he had lost the country's confidence, not because of his economic performance. Add to that his sanctimonious and scolding style, and the recipe for defeat is clear. Reagan of course went on to lay the foundation for a generation of prosperity and to defeat the Soviet Union in the Cold War; his place in history is safe.

More broadly, I would agree that the "metric" that you created from my argument does indeed show every POTUS you included doing a better job than BHO. Thanks for the assist.:cool:
 
Re: U.S. Adds Only 88,000 Jobs; Jobless Rate Falls to 7.6%

Gimmesometruth said:
Stating a stat is not making an argument.

Bush won't be remembered for his "average unemployment" anymore than Captain E.J. Smith will be remembered for his average trans-Atlantic crossing times.
Click to expand...

You're right. GWB will be remembered as the POTUS whose successor could not match his economic performance but did carry on most of his foreign and defense policies. The exception would be BHO's shift to a "kill" strategy in the war against terrorists, moving away from GWB's "capture and interrogate" strategy.:cool:
 
Re: U.S. Adds Only 88,000 Jobs; Jobless Rate Falls to 7.6%

Sheik Yerbuti said:
Spits the poster who demonstrated he doesn't know what a "metric" is. :roll:



What you've been saying, among other things, was that by comparing the average of the unemployment rate between Bush and Obama, the average shows that Bush did a better job than Obama regarding unemployment, which is ludicrous on it's face given that Bush ADDED 11½ million people to under/unemployed and discouraged, while Obama has LOWERED that number by about a million.

But even more ludicrous is your claimed that it also shows that bush Bush and Carter did a better job with unemployment than Regean!!!

:eek: :eek: :eek:
Click to expand...

The numbers don't lie.:cool:
 
Re: U.S. Adds Only 88,000 Jobs; Jobless Rate Falls to 7.6%

Taylor said:
Unfortunately, to get back to the level of unemployment typical of most of the Bush years, Obama would have to average about 350,000 jobs a month for the remainder of his presidency - about twice what we've seen over the last few years.
Click to expand...

Correct. And since BHO's growth results have been anemic, I don't think he'll get there.:cool:
 
Re: U.S. Adds Only 88,000 Jobs; Jobless Rate Falls to 7.6%

Jack Hays said:
As before, your rush to score points leads you to unwarranted assumptions, just as in the matter of the Sixteen Words. You also, in this case, have failed to take the time to understand my argument -- rushing again to your own detriment. I have absolutely no problem with the thought that Carter's economic performance may have scored higher than Reagan's. On the economy, Carter did better than he is generally credited. "Stagflation" hurt him, but he lost the 1980 election because he had lost the country's confidence, not because of his economic performance. Add to that his sanctimonious and scolding style, and the recipe for defeat is clear. Reagan of course went on to lay the foundation for a generation of prosperity and to defeat the Soviet Union in the Cold War; his place in history is safe.

More broadly, I would agree that the "metric" that you created from my argument does indeed show every POTUS you included doing a better job than BHO. Thanks for the assist.:cool:
Click to expand...
According to your nonsense, even Bush scored higher than Reagan. :roll:

That you can't understand the ludicrousness of your metric reveals more about you than it does Obama. To assert that Bush, who doubled unemployment, outperformed Reagan in terms of unemployment, who added 17 million jobs with a smaller population and reduced unemployment by 28%, reflects just how ridiculous that metric is.
 
Re: U.S. Adds Only 88,000 Jobs; Jobless Rate Falls to 7.6%

Jack Hays said:
You're right. GWB will be remembered as the POTUS whose successor could not match his economic performance but did carry on most of his foreign and defense policies. The exception would be BHO's shift to a "kill" strategy in the war against terrorists, moving away from GWB's "capture and interrogate" strategy.:cool:
Click to expand...

"Hardly a GWB apologist" ~ Jack Hays

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

Sheik Yerbuti said:
According to your nonsense, even Bush scored higher than Reagan. :roll:

That you can't understand the ludicrousness of your metric reveals more about you than it does Obama. To assert that Bush, who doubled unemployment, outperformed Reagan in terms of unemployment, who added 17 million jobs with a smaller population and reduced unemployment by 28%, reflects just how ridiculous that metric is.
Click to expand...

In term of unemployment, GWB's performance was better. In terms of overall leadership and Presidential outcomes, Reagan was the greatest of my lifetime. BHO's problem is that he fails on unemployment and fails on everything else as well. In terms of my "metric" all Presidents since 1976 have done better than BHO. You demonstrated that. Thanks.:cool:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom