• 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 217,000 Jobs in May, Unemployment Rate Stays at 6.3%[W:218]

Sure he is, weird

Reagan's 1983 State of the Union:

"The problems we inherited were far worse than most inside and out of government had expected; the recession was deeper than most inside and out of government had predicted. Curing those problems has taken more time and a higher toll than any of us wanted."

How long did it take Reagan to reduce the unemployme*nt rate to below 8%?

01/1981 - Unemployme*nt rate 7.5% …. Reagan sworn in.
02/1981 - 7.4%
03/1981 - 7.4%
04/1981 - 7.2%
05/1981 - 7.5%
06/1981 - 7.5%
07/1981 - 7.2%
08/1981 - 7.4% * Reagan CUTS taxes for top 1% and says unemployme*nt will DROP to 6.9%.
09/1981 - 7.6%
10/1981 - 7.9%
11/1981 - 8.3%
12/1981 - 8.5%
01/1982 - 8.6%
02/1982 - 8.9%
03/1982 - 9.0%
04/1982 - 9.3%
05/1982 - 9.4%
06/1982 - 9.6%
07/1982 - 9.8%
08/1982 - 9.8%
09/1982 - 10.1%
10/1982 - 10.4%
11/1982 - 10.8% * Unemployme*nt HITS a post WW2 RECORD of 10.8%.
12/1982 - 10.8%

01/1983 - 10.4%
02/1983 - 10.4%
03/1983 - 10.3%
04/1983 - 10.3%
05/1983 - 10.1%
06/1983 - 10.1%
07/1983 - 9.4%
06/1983 - 9.5%
07/1983 - 9.4%
08/1983 - 9.5%
09/1983 - 9.2%
10/1983 - 8.8%
11/1983 - 8.5%
12/1983 - 8.3%

01/1984 - 8.0%
02/1984 - 7.8%


It took Reagan 28 MONTHS to get unemployment rate back down below 8 percent.

Unemployment Rate « Extreme Liberal's Blog


HOW COULD THOSE 'JOB CREATORS' MAKE IT WORK WITH A TOP TAX RATE OF 50% FOR REAGAN'S FIRST 6 YEARS?

To which the appropriate reply is again: So what?:roll:
 
Of course, the description of the GWB economy as the weakest in decades was written before anyone had seen the even weaker BHO economy. And weren't you the one extolling consumption-led growth just a few posts ago? Hmm?:roll:

Weaker? Weird, you put US in a hole then CLAIM it's weaker? lol, Bush had 2.1% growth WITH a home ownership ponzi scheme, Obama has 2% growth, AND will have had a better 8 year period than Bush, guaranteed!

Consumption?

Manufacturing jobs have grown more under Obama than Bush

Manufacturing jobs have grown more under Obama than Bush - The Washington Post
 
Weaker? Weird, you put US in a hole then CLAIM it's weaker? lol, Bush had 2.1% growth WITH a home ownership ponzi scheme, Obama has 2% growth, AND will have had a better 8 year period than Bush, guaranteed!

Consumption?

Manufacturing jobs have grown more under Obama than Bush

Manufacturing jobs have grown more under Obama than Bush - The Washington Post

Different times, different dynamics. Let me know when BHO gets unemployment within shouting distance of GWB's average.:peace
 
To which the appropriate reply is again: So what?:roll:

I guess NOT all Prez's think ALL responsibility is theirs from day one, ONLY in CONservatives minds do you give Obama an economy dumping 700,000+ jobs A MONTH and say it's ALL on him, lol

There is a common rule with CONservatives though, ANYTHING bad is ALL Obama's fault, NO HISTORY OF PAST PREZ OR CONGRESSIONAL POLICY but ANYTHING that might be good, the GOP steps up and says, despite working against EVERYTHING Obama has presented, it wa a team effort, lol
 
Different times, different dynamics. Let me know when BHO gets unemployment within shouting distance of GWB's average.:peace

Average huh? lol. If it's ALL you got, I guess it's ALL you got. Bush lost 673,000+ PRIVATE sector jobs in 8 years, THERE ARE 5+ MILLION MORE JOBS IN THE PRIVATE SECTOR TODAY THAN WHEN OBAMA CAME INTO OFFICE!
 
I guess NOT all Prez's think ALL responsibility is theirs from day one, ONLY in CONservatives minds do you give Obama an economy dumping 700,000+ jobs A MONTH and say it's ALL on him, lol

There is a common rule with CONservatives though, ANYTHING bad is ALL Obama's fault, NO HISTORY OF PAST PREZ OR CONGRESSIONAL POLICY but ANYTHING that might be good, the GOP steps up and says, despite working against EVERYTHING Obama has presented, it wa a team effort, lol

On the contrary, RWR took complete responsibility for conditions on his watch, explained them and explained where he was going. Excellent leadership. Thanks for highlighting it.:peace
 
Like every other POTUS, BHO is responsible for everything from the moment he swears the oath.:peace

So you agree, Bush had 2 recessions, despite right wingers claiming it was a Clinton recession first time :)
 
On the contrary, RWR took complete responsibility for conditions on his watch, explained them and explained where he was going. Excellent leadership. Thanks for highlighting it.:peace

Yet it STILL took 28 months to get under 8% unemployment, go figure, WITH a Congress working with him...
 
And the pace over his six years to date?:peace
You were commenting on the monthly jobs report, were you not? 200 thousand plus jobs is not a dismal performance by any credible standard.
 
BUSH ENTERS OFFICE JAN 2001 111,859,000 IN THE PRIVATE SECTOR WORKFORCE

BUSH LEAVES OFFICE JAN 2009 111,397, LOSS of 673,000+ PRIVATE sector jobs in 8 years''

OBAMA ENTERS OFFICE Jan 2009 111,397,000 PRIVATE sector workers

May 2014 116,594,000 AND INCREASE OF OVER 5+ MILLION IN THE PRIVATE SECTOR WORKFORCE!

Notice: Data not available: U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics
You're killing me with your ignorance of the terms and what they mean. You're citing non-farm payroll jobs, but saying it's workers and workforce. A person can hold more than one job, and labor force (the official term) is employed plus unemployed.

You are citing the Current Employment Statistics: it asks businesses how many people are on their payrolls. It excludes agriculture, self-employed, those who work in other people's houses, unpaid family workers, and those working under the table. And a person working more than one job will be counted for each job.

So it's not number of workers, or private sector workforce, but private sector jobs, and yes, private sector and total jobs have gone up to pre-recession levels.

The labor force (employed plus unemployed, both derived from a household survey) has also gone above pre recession level (though as a percent of the population, it's way down). But total employment is still short. Employment from the household survey includes everyone 16 and older, excluding military, prisoners, and those in an institution who worked at least one hour for pay or 15 hours unpaid in a family business or farm. People are counted once, no matter how many jobs they have.
 
You're killing me with your ignorance of the terms and what they mean. You're citing non-farm payroll jobs, but saying it's workers and workforce. A person can hold more than one job, and labor force (the official term) is employed plus unemployed.

You are citing the Current Employment Statistics: it asks businesses how many people are on their payrolls. It excludes agriculture, self-employed, those who work in other people's houses, unpaid family workers, and those working under the table. And a person working more than one job will be counted for each job.

So it's not number of workers, or private sector workforce, but private sector jobs, and yes, private sector and total jobs have gone up to pre-recession levels.

The labor force (employed plus unemployed, both derived from a household survey) has also gone above pre recession level (though as a percent of the population, it's way down). But total employment is still short. Employment from the household survey includes everyone 16 and older, excluding military, prisoners, and those in an institution who worked at least one hour for pay or 15 hours unpaid in a family business or farm. People are counted once, no matter how many jobs they have.



NONSENSE. Total PRIVATE sector workforce (NON farm) has gone up by 5+ million since Obama came into office, AFTER Bush l;ost 673,000+ PRIVATE sector in the LABOR force!


After the hole Bush/GOP left US in, it's a wonder Obama has had 9+ million since hitting Bush's bottom March 2010!!!
 
Yes, but never the House. Just took a direct lightning hit. Out now.:peace

What's THAT got to do with Dems worked WITH Reagan and the GOP has NEVER tried to reach across the aisle with Obama?
 
NONSENSE. Total PRIVATE sector workforce (NON farm) has gone up by 5+ million since Obama came into office, AFTER Bush l;ost 673,000+ PRIVATE sector in the LABOR force!
Please show me on the BLS site where they define "private sector workforce. You won't find it. The labor force and non-farm payroll jobs are completely different and non-comparable.
Read Employment Situation Technical Note and try to use the correct terminology. It's just confusing. For example "Bush l;ost (sic) 673,000+ PRIVATE sector in the LABOR force!" It's not clear what you actually mean: jobs, employment, or the Labor Force. Three completely different things.
 
Back now on iPad. House Dems worked against RWR throughout.:peace


lol, Right,


TAX cuts, (After his tax cuts, Dems worked with Reagan 11 different times to get new revenues (EVEN Reagan understood basic math, unlike today's GOP) , AMNESTY, SS reform, Federal Employees Retirement System (reform), etc... Sure, Reagan didn't NEED to use executive powers like Obama NEEDS to!
 
lol, Right,


TAX cuts, (After his tax cuts, Dems worked with Reagan 11 different times to get new revenues (EVEN Reagan understood basic math, unlike today's GOP) , AMNESTY, SS reform, Federal Employees Retirement System (reform), etc... Sure, Reagan didn't NEED to use executive powers like Obama NEEDS to!

They never honored their spending cut pledges.:peace
 
Please show me on the BLS site where they define "private sector workforce. You won't find it. The labor force and non-farm payroll jobs are completely different and non-comparable.
Read Employment Situation Technical Note and try to use the correct terminology. It's just confusing. For example "Bush l;ost (sic) 673,000+ PRIVATE sector in the LABOR force!" It's not clear what you actually mean: jobs, employment, or the Labor Force. Three completely different things.


I'LL DUMB IT DOWN FOR YOU

BUSH ENTERS OFFICE JAN 2001 111,859,000 Total private
BUSH LEAVES OFFICE JAN 2009 111,397, LOSS of 673,000+Total private

OBAMA ENTERS OFFICE Jan 2009 111,397,000 Total private

May 2014 116,594,000 AND INCREASE OF OVER 5+ MILLION IN THE Total private (NON FARM)

Bureau of Labor Statistics Data
 
They never honored their spending cut pledges.:peace

RIGHT WING MYTH. I'm shocked you didn't know that?

The historical myth that Reagan raised $1 in taxes for every $3 in spending cuts


The Facts

Despite Reagan’s claim that he made a deal with the Democrats, the Senate at the time was controlled by Republicans. Sen. Bob Dole of Kansas — then chairman of the Finance Committee and later the majority leader and Republican nominee for president — was a driving force behind a big tax increase because he was concerned about soaring deficits after Reagan had boosted defense spending and slashed taxes.

Dole warned the White House that the final year of Reagan’s three-year tax cut was at risk unless revenue could be raised in other ways


..The Pinocchio Test

It is time to abandon this myth. Reagan may have convinced himself he had been snookered, but that belief is based on a fundamental misunderstanding of the deal he had reached.

Congress was never expected to match the tax increases with spending cuts on a 3-to-1 basis


The historical myth that Reagan raised $1 of taxes in exchange for $3 of spending cuts - The Washington Post


You're welcome
 
RIGHT WING MYTH. I'm shocked you didn't know that?

The historical myth that Reagan raised $1 in taxes for every $3 in spending cuts


The Facts

Despite Reagan’s claim that he made a deal with the Democrats, the Senate at the time was controlled by Republicans. Sen. Bob Dole of Kansas — then chairman of the Finance Committee and later the majority leader and Republican nominee for president — was a driving force behind a big tax increase because he was concerned about soaring deficits after Reagan had boosted defense spending and slashed taxes.

Dole warned the White House that the final year of Reagan’s three-year tax cut was at risk unless revenue could be raised in other ways


..The Pinocchio Test

It is time to abandon this myth. Reagan may have convinced himself he had been snookered, but that belief is based on a fundamental misunderstanding of the deal he had reached.

Congress was never expected to match the tax increases with spending cuts on a 3-to-1 basis


The historical myth that Reagan raised $1 of taxes in exchange for $3 of spending cuts - The Washington Post


You're welcome

An an answer based on a story of what Repubs did has nothing to do with Dems not keeping their word.:peace
 
I don't see what you think you are contributing.

Some of those fact thingies to rebut your claims that decline in labor force participation is just baby-boomers retiring. You missed it so I quoted my post for you.
 
Back
Top Bottom