• 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%

Stop lying, Con?

Here are the real GDP numbers:

1980: 5,834.0
1988: 7,607.4

Actual gain: 30% (i.e., not double)

http://www.bea.gov/national/xls/gdplev.xls

Looks like double to me

Table 1.1.5. Gross Domestic Product
[Billions of dollars]
Bureau of Economic Analysis
Last Revised on: June 26, 2013 - Next Release Date July 31, 2013

Line 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989
1 Gross domestic product 2788.1 3126.8 3253.2 3534.6 3930.9 4217.5 4460.1 4736.4 5100.4 5482.1
 
You are very good at changing topics and ignoring the data posted because the data posted shows Obama to be exactly who he is, a total and complete incompetent failure.

Projecting again. :lamo:lamo:lamo
 
Ever figure out what that massive increase in military spending was under Reagan? 200 billion when he took office to 350 billion in 1988. Keep reading your textbooks while ignoring the mess Obama has created for actual people today.

Um, you are not adjusting for inflation (again), Reagan nearly doubled defense spending.

So now that you have the proof of the levels of increases during Reagan, what are you going to deny next?
 
Yes, really. You can look up the numbers if you don't believe me.

Tell your story to the 21 plus million unemployed/under employed/discouraged workers out there and the hundreds of thousands of contract employees and business owners who have lost their jobs and businesses. I posted the actual numbers so you have some explaining to do, how can 7.2 million jobs be created and still have fewer people working than 2007 by 2 million and only 177,000 less employed today than when Obama took office. Apparently that is a success to a liberal with such low expectations. Is that how you operate in real life, low expectations, low results means satisfaction? Are you ready to admit that Obama hasn't met your expectations or are they really this low?
 
Um, you are not adjusting for inflation (again), Reagan nearly doubled defense spending.

So now that you have the proof of the levels of increases during Reagan, what are you going to deny next?


Why would I adjust for inflation, the numbers are what they were at the time and people lived with those numbers and those expenses. Reagan took defense spending from 200 billion to 350 and left Clinton with a Peace dividend. A 150 billion increase over 8 years isn't much of an increase at all to win the cold war and to leave us a peace dividend.
 
Real means adjusted for inflation and expenses and revenue during the time period involved have nothing to do with inflation. Keep spinning. Must be tough being on the wrong side of history.
If the numbers were on your side, you wouldn't be lying like you do.:coffeepap:
 
NO...it merely means on the day they answered the question they were not.
No. The questions are about the previous week. So for June, the Census workers went out on the week on June 16-22 and asked about labor force activity for the week of June 9-15. If someone worked (or temporarily absent) they were classified as Employed. If they didn't work they were asked if they had looked for work anytime between May 19-June 15. If yes, then they were classified as Unemployed. For those Not in the labor force, it means that for those 28 days they were not participating in the labor market.

Uh...if you are asking about reasons given by the unemployed? NO, for the most part they are telling the TRUTH about their reasons. Why would you think I thought the unemployed were lying?
Your originally claimed in Post #908 that "Furthermore, the government creates a class of "not seeking work" containing over 80 million people, at least 40 million of which are able to work, old enough, and may actually be seeking work but have not been hired yet." I replied that if they were seeking work they'd be classified as Unemployed and then you responded that "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."" But since all the info on job search and availability comes from the respondents, it certainly seems like you're questioning the validity of the classifications. You seem to be implying that they really are looking, yet are classified as not.

Duh, you already know it...count everyone of legal age and capable of working, minus prisoners, soldiers, retirees, and disabled on public assistance based on info garnered from tax records. Basically counting everyone else including the "Hidden Unemployed."
So basically, do a complete census every month. Otherwise you couldn't get that kind of info.

For the Employment Statistics a (mostly) complete count based on tax records is done...the Quarterly Census of Employment and Wages (QCEW). That takes 7 months to publish preliminary results for a quarter and that's just finding out people on payrolls and average wages and hours. For the full details required for everyone over 16 would take a huge number of people over a year. But you think it can be done every month?

As for the accuracy of the surveys, the official jobs numbers (Current Employment Survey) is benchmarked against the QCEW comparing the actual numbers from March to the estimate. In March 2012, estimate was 132,081,000 and the real number was 132,505,000. A difference of 0.3% I think that's a reasonable level of accuracy.

The data from the household survey is a bit less accurate...about +/-0.4% for total employed and about +/- 3% for unemployed.

....blah blah blah. If you are of legal age, capable of working, and can make yourself available for work THEN YOU ARE UNEMPLOYED! Period! That's because at any time of any working day you have the potential of seeking work.
POTENTIAL. Why do you want to measure potential instead of actual? The main number is, as it should be, the actual number seeking work, with the Potential listed seperately.

Analogy time. Let's say you run a giveaway of Item X every week. Last week you gave away 1,000 and you want to know the max you could have given away that day. You get interviews from everyone who was in town that day...1,695 people. You ask them
Did you get Item X? 1,000 say yes
If no, did you want one? 134 say yes, 561 say no.
If yes, could you have stopped by and received one? 102 say yes, 31 say no.
If yes, did you try to get one (show up, ask family/friend to get one or if there were any available)? 85 say yes, 18 say no.
If no, why didn't you try or ask? 11 say they were just busy doing other things and never got around to it, and 7 say they just didn't think they'd get one.

So....(and I realize you hate word problems)....If you had more, how many would you have given away? (assuming only that you had more..not that you could have convinced people to take one).
Obviously it's at least 1,000. Could you have given them away to the people who didn't want one? No.
And the people who were unable to come by and could not have picked one up? Obviously not.
The people who made an attempt and failed to get one? Sure, so that's 85 for a total of 1,085
And the people who didn't try or even ask if there were any? No, because no matter how many you had they wouldn't know you had enough, regardless of why they didn't go or ask.

So I would say you could have given away a total of 1,085. But you would include some of the people who said they didn't want one.....why? How could they, or the people who didn't try to get one, have gotten one? (again, only talking about having more, not about doing anything different.
 
For claims of cause and effect, studies are usually required, even here. Such as studies provided that showed taxes and regulations had minimal effect. You'll find those posted earlier. Even a link to business people supporting regulations.

Well, you see, that's the thing about numbers and figures.

I posted something about my experience.

You don't possess the ability to refute what I posted, because you don't know anything about me, or my experience. Attempting to do so only denegrates your claims.

Your figures have no relevance. As anyone can prove, numbers are available to support any position, no matter how fallacious.

Considering how many people have been taught to believe the country began to disintegrate the moment Reagan finished saying the oath of office, I can appreciate the tremendous effort to come up with anything to support the lesson plan.
 
Really? then why is the employment number still 2 million less than 2007 and the unemployed only 177,000 less than when Obama took office? you have such low expectations and simply buy what you are told. So much invested in the failed ideology of liberalism.
We are no longer in the housing bubble, how many times do I need to tell you?
 
Why would I adjust for inflation, the numbers are what they were at the time and people lived with those numbers and those expenses. Reagan took defense spending from 200 billion to 350 and left Clinton with a Peace dividend. A 150 billion increase over 8 years isn't much of an increase at all to win the cold war and to leave us a peace dividend.
Um, you adjust for inflation....because you are comparing spending INCREASES OVER the 8 years.....and comparing it to defense spending decreases NOW.

even with your inflation free numbers, Reagan increased spending by 75% (which by ANY standard is a big increase).
 
Unemployment Rate Definition, Example & Formula | InvestingAnswers


Unemployment Rate = Number of Unemployed / Total Labor Force
True.

In short..

Labor force = those employed.
No, and it doesn't say that in your link, either.
Labor Force is the number of Employed plus the number of Unemployed. Where did you learn math where you can have something in the numerator that's not in the denominator?

Number of those unemployed = those receiving unemployment benefits.
Stop! Where are you getting that definition????? Certainly not from your link.

Why are you giving a link that doesn't support your claims? Not that any link could, since your claim is false.

I showed you the official definition. I showed you in bold where it said UI benefits were not a factor.
 
Last edited:
For someone who complains about military spending, your focus is on the wrong President

CHARTS: U.S. Military Spending Is Totally Out Of Control And Can't Last - Business Insider

Good grief, you missed that in the graph I already posted, the big increases occurred under GWB, not Obama.



fy13histmilitaryspend.gif
 
We are no longer in the housing bubble, how many times do I need to tell you?

Unfortunately we also aren't recovering like we should. You always look backwards and complain vs. looking forward with optimism. Not surprising as I have never seen a happy liberal and with Obama in the WH there isn't much to be happy about. You may get to marry your gay friend though but then again your friend may not have a job. oh, well, liberal priorities.
 
Um, you adjust for inflation....because you are comparing spending INCREASES OVER the 8 years.....and comparing it to defense spending decreases NOW.

even with your inflation free numbers, Reagan increased spending by 75% (which by ANY standard is a big increase).

Reagan increased employment 17 million, doubled GDP, and put respect back into the vocabulary of the world. I will take that any day over the misery and pain of liberalism that always places blame but never responsibility.
 
Good grief, you missed that in the graph I already posted, the big increases occurred under GWB, not Obama.



fy13histmilitaryspend.gif

Yes, that is what happens when this country is attacked, interesting that increases in the budget continue with the war ending in Iraq and the draw down in Afghanistan. Yes, continue to buy the rhetoric and ignore the results. Obama defense spending is higher than any defense spending under Bush.

http://www.businessinsider.com/char...pending-that-will-blow-your-mind-2011-10?op=1
 
Well, you see, that's the thing about numbers and figures.

I posted something about my experience.

You don't possess the ability to refute what I posted, because you don't know anything about me, or my experience. Attempting to do so only denegrates your claims.

Your figures have no relevance. As anyone can prove, numbers are available to support any position, no matter how fallacious.

Considering how many people have been taught to believe the country began to disintegrate the moment Reagan finished saying the oath of office, I can appreciate the tremendous effort to come up with anything to support the lesson plan.

Of course not, but I don't have to refute your story, only the idea that it is true on the whole. And that is been done, objectively.
 
Reagan increased employment 17 million, doubled GDP, and put respect back into the vocabulary of the world. I will take that any day over the misery and pain of liberalism that always places blame but never responsibility.
So you are down to the last two remaining talking points of employment (which I have been pointing out are a combination of the short term employment decreases ending after the inflationary oil shocks passed along with massive govt spending INCREASES that boosted employment........and debt) and your GDP (which was DIRECTLY boosted by the doubling of federal spending).

So let see, did I cover the Reagan spending increases caused employment/GDP gains?
Yes, I did.

So what do you have now?
 
So you are down to the last two remaining talking points of employment (which I have been pointing out are a combination of the short term employment decreases ending after the inflationary oil shocks passed along with massive govt spending INCREASES that boosted employment........and debt) and your GDP (which was DIRECTLY boosted by the doubling of federal spending).

So let see, did I cover the Reagan spending increases caused employment/GDP gains?
Yes, I did.

So what do you have now?

I wonder if you ever are going to come to grips with reality that liberalism has made a fool out of you as has Obama. Results matter and the poor Obama results are what you ignore. Obama was your choice so are you ever going to admit that he hasn't met your expectations? Are you ever going to admit that liberalism is a failure? Wonder what it is about people like you who have such low expectations of your own leadership?
 
Yes, that is what happens when this country is attacked, interesting that increases in the budget continue with the war ending in Iraq and the draw down in Afghanistan. Yes, continue to buy the rhetoric and ignore the results. Obama defense spending is higher than any defense spending under Bush.
This is silly, defense spending under Obama has increased @ 6% since 2009, you would expect that since the burden of caring for those vets will continue to increase for the next 40 years. That is less than an order of magnitude of increases we saw under Reagan.....and we did not even have an active war going on.
 
Last edited:
I wonder if you ever are going to come to grips with reality that liberalism has made a fool out of you as has Obama. Results matter and the poor Obama results are what you ignore. Obama was your choice so are you ever going to admit that he hasn't met your expectations? Are you ever going to admit that liberalism is a failure? Wonder what it is about people like you who have such low expectations of your own leadership?
Laugh, you have once again fallen back into your comfortable rhetoric hole because your Ronnie Raygun numbers comparison has fallen flat.

You can't face the fact that Reagan doubled spending, tripled the debt, increased defense spending by over 75% to get us out of the 80's recession.
 
How do economies typically recover after a severe financial crisis?

by stimulating the private sector and consumer spending. The only ones benefiting from the Obama recovery are the banks. The Average American isn't being reported in your textbooks.
 
Laugh, you have once again fallen back into your comfortable rhetoric hole because your Ronnie Raygun numbers comparison has fallen flat.

You can't face the fact that Reagan doubled spending, tripled the debt, increased defense spending by over 75% to get us out of the 80's recession.

For someone in college during the Reagan years you really don't have a lot of credibility in discussing that which you hardly understand.

Let's see, 17 million jobs created, doubling the GDP, growing Govt. revenue, improving our standing in the world and leaving a peace dividend. Works for me and the majority in this country. It was a double dip recession in 81-82 compounded by a financial crisis of high inflation, high unemployment leading to a terrible misery index which you didn't have to face.
 
Back
Top Bottom