• 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 195,000 Jobs; Unemployment Remains 7.6%

Like it or not, we have a growing population and zero positive leadership in the WH. Doesn't matter what your misconceptions are about the economy the economic results today are a failure of leadership and economic policies Liberalism is a total and complete failure everywhere in the world with only arrogance keeping it alive.
Like it or not, December 2007 was the peek of the housing bubble and if there wasn't one the job growth wouldn't be nearly that high. "
 
Like it or not, December 2007 was the peek of the housing bubble and if there wasn't one the job growth wouldn't be nearly that high. "

Your opinion noted, what is it about racing to the bottom that excites you? You have such low expectations and apparently thus are never disappointed. You don't think there are 146 million jobs in this country today? My, my what liberalism has done to good people.
 
Your opinion noted, what is it about racing to the bottom that excites you? You have such low expectations and apparently thus are never disappointed. You don't think there are 146 million jobs in this country today? My, my what liberalism has done to good people.

You can see the housing bubble in the graph:

Bureau of Labor Statistics Data
 
You can see the housing bubble in the graph:

Bureau of Labor Statistics Data

Leadership provides the incentive to get beyond the bubble. You have such low expectations that you simply cannot see the reality of what we face and what made this country great. Initiative and creativity are being destroyed and to accept a growing population and a labor force that isn't keeping up seems to be the new normal for a liberal.
 
You are so right, 6.2 trillion added to the debt, having two million fewer employed than were employed in December 2007 meaning he never fixed what he was hired to do, having 1.8% GDP growth, and 14.3% U-6 unemployment is good for America?

He has fixed Bush's disaster. We are no longer hemorrhaging hundreds of thousands of jobs every month. We no longer have a GDP of negative 9%. That we're not back to pre-Bush Great Recession levels yet speaks to how massive that recession was as we lost some 12 million jobs to under/unemployment. More than any other time in U.S. history except for the Great Depression.

And 40 consecutive months now (and counting) of growth in the private sector to the tune of 7.2 million jobs added. Again, more good news for America which is bad news for Conservatives.

As far as adding to the debt, that was against record low interest rates.
 
He has fixed Bush's disaster. We are no longer hemorrhaging hundreds of thousands of jobs every month. We no longer have a GDP of negative 9%. That we're not back to pre-Bush Great Recession levels yet speaks to how massive that recession was as we lost some 12 million jobs to under/unemployment. More than any other time in U.S. history except for the Great Depression.

And 40 consecutive months now (and counting) of growth in the private sector to the tune of 7.2 million jobs added. Again, more good news for America which is bad news for Conservatives.

As far as adding to the debt, that was against record low interest rates.

Aw, yes, the new liberal normal, high debt, high unemployment, low economic growth, and low expectations. You must be so proud. Interesting how all those jobs added have led to 177,000 fewer people on unemployment vs. when Obama took office. Yes, that is a success to a liberal and fixing the mess.
 
I'll bet that much of the GDP gain would be in the area of weapons systems.

Right, and people don't work in the defense industry. All those evil corporations and business that don't hire people or aren't run by people. Yes, the new liberal normal, demonize the engine that drives our economy. Love how liberals love percentage change and inflation adjusted numbers ignoring that expenses and revenue during the time frame are what people have, what people spend thus is irrelevant today.
 
Right, and people don't work in the defense industry.

Nobody said that. It is just hypocritical to make claims about Reagan's job creation of government (quasi) subsidized industry, while making arguments which in essence equate to: the deficit kills jobs!
 
Aw, yes, the new liberal normal, high debt, high unemployment, low economic growth, and low expectations. You must be so proud. Interesting how all those jobs added have led to 177,000 fewer people on unemployment vs. when Obama took office. Yes, that is a success to a liberal and fixing the mess.

That is what happens when an administration inherits the type of economic downturn that comes along once in a century.
 
Nobody said that. It is just hypocritical to make claims about Reagan's job creation of government (quasi) subsidized industry, while making arguments which in essence equate to: the deficit kills jobs!

what is hypocritical are books smart liberals who get all their information out of a textbook and then ignore actual data from verifiable sites all in an attempt to justify a failed ideology and Presidency. Whatever Reagan did doesn't have any impact on what Obama is doing today because Obama is too arrogant to take the good that Reagan did with his leadership skills and implement them now. The new liberal normal is as I described it and the throwing of taxpayer money down the rat hole of green energy and Obamacare is a legacy liberals will never live down and hopefully the country will survive.
 
That is what happens when an administration inherits the type of economic downturn that comes along once in a century.

Reagan survived it through leadership and positive economic policies not micromanaging of an economy that Obama and liberals don't understand.
 
Reagan survived it through leadership and positive economic policies not micromanaging of an economy that Obama and liberals don't understand.

Reagan didn't inherit the type of economic downturn that occurs once a century. Hoover did; but it didn't work out too good for him.
 
... Huh? Marginally Attached and Discouraged are not included in the 11.8 million unemployed, so you can't take them out. I have no idea what "not really trying is." If you're willing, available and trying to work, you're unemployed. If you're not trying to work, you're not. The object is to measure the labor market. People not trying to get a job are not in the labor market.

Only because you choose to accept the government and "business" definition of unemployment, which avoids addressing the potential problems of Hidden Unemployment when considering effects of eliminating a minimum wage. (see Unemployment - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia and Hidden unemployment | Define Hidden unemployment at Dictionary.com)

Besides, they are in the "labor market." MARGINALLY ATTACHED: Persons not in the labor force who want and are available for work, and who have looked for a job sometime in the prior 12 months (or since the end of their last job if they held one within the past 12 months), but were not counted as unemployed because they had not searched for work in the 4 weeks preceding the survey. Discouraged workers are a subset of the marginally attached. BLS Glossary

They WANT and ARE AVAILABLE FOR WORK...even searched for it, but were unsuccessful most recently and have not sought it most recently. Okay, it's obviously their fault so they can't be unemployed. :doh

No, if they were seeking work, they would be classified as unemployed (assuming they were actually available).

Again, depends on your viewpoint. Having worked with both employers and the unemployed I am a little less skeptical about real causes of their "disgust" and "marginality."

Monthly sample survey of 60,000 households conducted by the Census Bureau.

Ahh, just as I thought...a statistical survey. Personally never bought into them much, always suspect both their accuracy and how the data can be manipulated in almost any way the gatherer wants.

It means that for the month in question, they were not trying to work. When/if they start looking, they'll be picked up in the data for the next month.

Really? So do they sample the same 60,000 people each month? Is this like those Nielsen Ratings? LOL

But you've admitted you don't know how the data is actually collected and correlated. How can you decide they're wrong, if you don't even know what they do?

True, but I also suggested it was probably some statistical survey, and turns out I was correct. So the figures used could be complete B/S as far as I am concerned.
 
Reagan didn't inherit the type of economic downturn that occurs once a century. Hoover did; but it did't work out too good for him.

That is your opinion and maybe what some textbooks tell you but people that lived and worked during that period of time had a different opinion and perception. The American people were hurt a lot more by the economic conditions of 81-82 which by the way was basically a double dip recession coupled with high inflation and misery index. IMO many people today would never have survived a 81-82 recession. Your Obama monetary bubble is going to pop here soon and coupled with the high unemployment is going to see economic conditions never before seen in this country since the great depression.
 
That is your opinion and maybe what some textbooks tell you but people that lived and worked during that period of time had a different opinion and perception.

It is not based on opinion or perception, but simply based on the data! Which of course supports my position.
 
That is your opinion and maybe what some textbooks tell you but people that lived and worked during that period of time had a different opinion and perception. The American people were hurt a lot more by the economic conditions of 81-82 which by the way was basically a double dip recession coupled with high inflation and misery index. IMO many people today would never have survived a 81-82 recession. Your Obama monetary bubble is going to pop here soon and coupled with the high unemployment is going to see economic conditions never before seen in this country since the great depression.


I started my first business while finishing up college in 1978. Unfortunately, the gas crisis in 1979 eventually ended that, along with too much inexperience, and not enough seed money.

The second attempt ended during the recession of 81-82. I learned people don't buy luxury items (Jacuzzi's, etc.) when the interest rates are through the roof, and home construction is tanking.

My third attempt started in 1985, and turned into a 25 year run with multiple plants in multiple states, before I sold out to an investment firm.

Hard to argue what contributed to that success. Policies enacted during the Reagan Administration had a huge impact on the early success of my company in 1985 and beyond.
 
Besides, they are in the "labor market." MARGINALLY ATTACHED: Persons not in the labor force who want and are available for work, and who have looked for a job sometime in the prior 12 months (or since the end of their last job if they held one within the past 12 months), but were not counted as unemployed because they had not searched for work in the 4 weeks preceding the survey. Discouraged workers are a subset of the marginally attached. BLS Glossary

They WANT and ARE AVAILABLE FOR WORK...even searched for it, but were unsuccessful most recently and have not sought it most recently.
Which means that for the month in question they are NOT participating in the labor market.


Okay, it's obviously their fault so they can't be unemployed. :doh
Who cares about fault? And the point is that if they're not trying to get a job we can't know if they could or not. For Discouraged, we just have their belief, which may or may not be accurate.

Again, depends on your viewpoint. Having worked with both employers and the unemployed I am a little less skeptical about real causes of their "disgust" and "marginality."
You're saying they're lying about their reasons?

Ahh, just as I thought...a statistical survey. Personally never bought into them much, always suspect both their accuracy and how the data can be manipulated in almost any way the gatherer wants.
And your alternative would be......???

Really? So do they sample the same 60,000 people each month? Is this like those Nielsen Ratings?
Households are in the survey for 4 months, out for 8, back in for 4. Each month is 8 panels each in a different month, so every month you have around 7,5000 in their first month, and 7,500 returning after a break. So about 75% of the sample is the same from one month to the next and for the same month in consecutive years, about 50% is the same.

True, but I also suggested it was probably some statistical survey, and turns out I was correct. So the figures used could be complete B/S as far as I am concerned.
It's a very complicated survey and really, it couldn't be manipulated. There's too much oversight and too many people who can double check. Sure there will be lazy census workers who curbstone (sit in the car a make things up), but they would have no way of knowing what the effect of that would be and there are spot checks to make sure they're not.
 
It is not based on opinion or perception, but simply based on the data! Which of course supports my position.

The data you want to ignore are the foreclosures, the high interest rates, high inflation, 10.8% unemployment and the effects of that on personal income and monthly profit demand. You read your charts and graphs were as I dealt with real people losing their homes, losing their jobs and not able to pay a 17.5% mortgage rate. Like far too many the human aspect of any recession is ignored by ideologues like you. How exactly did this recession affect you and your family? I can tell you how the double dip in 81-82 hurt most Americans far more than this one.
 
He has fixed Bush's disaster. We are no longer hemorrhaging hundreds of thousands of jobs every month. We no longer have a GDP of negative 9%. That we're not back to pre-Bush Great Recession levels yet speaks to how massive that recession was as we lost some 12 million jobs to under/unemployment. More than any other time in U.S. history except for the Great Depression.

And 40 consecutive months now (and counting) of growth in the private sector to the tune of 7.2 million jobs added. Again, more good news for America which is bad news for Conservatives.

As far as adding to the debt, that was against record low interest rates.

LOL. Beyond silly. First off, what did Bush do to cause the problem to begin with? That's right nothing. The wheels were turning way before he came in office that caused the housing market to burst. If fact, he made at least a modest attempt to do something about it but people raking in millions off the corrupt scam on capital hill would hear nothing about it and ran his people off. Another fact. Obama was in position as a Senator to do something about the looming housing bubble problem but did nothing. As it turns out, the scam operators is where he got huge sums of his campaign cash from but Obama won't tell you that.

Second off, the recession ended about two or three months after Obama took office. He has lead the worst recovery from a recession on record. The answers are as simple as they can be as why that has happened. Higher taxes, Obamacare, more regulations, lawlessness from government and so on gives business little confidence or reason to invest. But that doesn't sit well with the liberal mindset so Obama supporters tell any lie, ignore anything and everything that makes any sense, and pretend that he has worked wonders when the facts are completely opposite.

Third off, things are still getting worse, overall. Sure, there highlights, here and there. But Presidents are not about here and there. Losing full time jobs each month is a big disaster just waiting on time to happen. Pushing for millions of more of low wage workers competing for few available jobs won't create an economic turn around. Pushing back by a year part of a disaster healthcare law won't cause business investment. Business wondering what crimes or untruthfulness will be committed next at DOJ won't cause them to invest more money. Business wondering what kind of stupidity will come out of the department of energy won't cause them to invest money (unless it has been stolen from taxpayers). And so on and so.

And we still have three years left of this train wreck.
 
This will show you liberal booksmart individuals that there are actual people out there suffering behind the Obama numbers particularly the people of Ky and W. Va. When you demonize those evil companies you hurt the people who work for them and whose livelihood depends on those businesses. Barack Obama doesn't understand how his policies are affecting individuals and all supporters can do is divert from his record by claiming that it isn't any worse than his predecessor. The Obama record is much worse because actual people are suffering as he throws money down the green energy rat hole and tells you how evil the coal industry is. When you have a weak economy you don't demonize any industry and promote govt. growth that creates dependence. Instead you promote the private sector and put them back to work. Run, liberals, run from reality.

http://conservativevideos.com/2013/...y-singer-stuns-with-coal-keeps-the-lights-on/
 
I started my first business while finishing up college in 1978. Unfortunately, the gas crisis in 1979 eventually ended that, along with too much inexperience, and not enough seed money.

The second attempt ended during the recession of 81-82. I learned people don't buy luxury items (Jacuzzi's, etc.) when the interest rates are through the roof, and home construction is tanking.

My third attempt started in 1985, and turned into a 25 year run with multiple plants in multiple states, before I sold out to an investment firm.

Hard to argue what contributed to that success. Policies enacted during the Reagan Administration had a huge impact on the early success of my company in 1985 and beyond.

Despite the popular saying, perception isn't necessarily reality. May a person mistaken one thing as the cause when it was really something else. That's why it's better to test your perception from time to time.
 
The data you want to ignore are the foreclosures, the high interest rates, high inflation, 10.8% unemployment and the effects of that on personal income and monthly profit demand. You read your charts and graphs were as I dealt with real people losing their homes, losing their jobs and not able to pay a 17.5% mortgage rate. Like far too many the human aspect of any recession is ignored by ideologues like you. How exactly did this recession affect you and your family? I can tell you how the double dip in 81-82 hurt most Americans far more than this one.
Silly silly silly, you have gone back to your silly "it was worse in '82".

No, it wasn't. You had foreclosure rates of 1% in 81-82, you had a spike in oil costs sending a temporary inflation shock through the economy and you had Volker INTENTIONALLY spiking interest rates to control inflation. Inflationary spikes lead to short run unemployment.

You still haven't come to terms with how this is a very different, deeper and more severe recession, requiring different responses. One thing that could be duplicated is the massive spending by the govt on direct employment. Reagan spent on defense, we could spend on infrastructure. Reagan got that with a cooperative Dem Congress.....since the Congress was being responsive and responsible to the people they represented. This Congress wants to starve not only "the beast", but the people too.
 
Silly silly silly, you have gone back to your silly "it was worse in '82".

No, it wasn't. You had foreclosure rates of 1% in 81-82, you had a spike in oil costs sending a temporary inflation shock through the economy and you had Volker INTENTIONALLY spiking interest rates to control inflation. Inflationary spikes lead to short run unemployment.

You still haven't come to terms with how this is a very different, deeper and more severe recession, requiring different responses. One thing that could be duplicated is the massive spending by the govt on direct employment. Reagan spent on defense, we could spend on infrastructure. Reagan got that with a cooperative Dem Congress.....since the Congress was being responsive and responsible to the people they represented. This Congress wants to starve not only "the beast", but the people too.

Is that what your textbooks told you? Ever been out in the real world? There is a reason Reagan has a higher approval rating and ranking than Obama. Obama is making Jimmy Carter look good and making you look foolish. Reagan provided the leadership to actually meet with Tip ONeil and the Democrat House. Reagan had the leadership to actual demand that Congress work together and set the tone by doing it with ONeil. Reagan didn't take African vacations or play golf every weekend. Reagan actually promoted the greatness of America and is loved today by all except big govt. promoting liberals.
 
Back
Top Bottom