U.S. Nonfarm Payrolls Grew by 164,000 in July

Conservative said:

then why did he run and why did you vote for him? You have a very selective memory and certainly not a centrist. What were the economic numbers when he announced?

Click to expand...

He ran because he wanted to be President for any number of reasons. And I didn’t vote for Obama either time.

Conservative said:

Your opinion noted, why did you vote for Obama?

Click to expand...

It's not an opinion. That's a textbook example of cherry picking.

This thread isn't about who others vote or have voted for. You turn every single thread into an Obama bash thread, even though, as you've said, he's been out of office for 2 years and 8 months.

Conservative said:

You are showing how easily it is to indoctrinate someone, the deficit?? Do you have any idea what the deficit was in 2018 and why? Stop buying rhetoric and do some research. 2018 was Trump's first deficit year and all the increase was due to debt service and entitlement spending

Click to expand...

Obama was shrinking the deficit. Trump is not. He's also exploding the debt. No doubt you ignored talking about that deliberately.

Again, you are buying what others tell you, the GDP growth was 1.6% that Trump took over and GDP dollar growth declining. Trump's GDP in 2 years is 2.4 trillion, Obama's for 8 was 4.2 trillion including the 842 billion stimulus. It does seem that pro growth policies are something you don't understand nor actual data

Click to expand...

And yet, in 2 years, despite all the promises made of 4-5-6% GDP by Trump, he's yet to do better than Obama, even with the tax cuts.

What he did inherit was the worst recovery in the history of the United States. Bleeding jobs? Again left wing talking points, He has created 5 million jobs in 2 1/2 years Obama 6 million in 8

Click to expand...

"Worst recovery"-speaking of talking points. It was the 2nd worst US economic downturn. Are you suggesting the economy wasn't bleeding jobs when Obama took over? We've had unprecedented job growth that began under Obama after the bleeding stopped. None of this is untrue.

You are making the same argument the left has made since Trump took office.

Click to expand...

I'm simply stating the facts as they exist. You can choose not to like them, but facts they remain.

Conservative said:

There you go again talking Trends, The U-6 never got back to pre recession levels under Obama, 9.2% as he left us with 9.3% at a cost of 9.3 trillion dollars

Click to expand...

I didn't say it got back to prerecession levels. I said U6, along with other measures you mentioned, were trending better under Obama, and that success continued under Trump. This facts are not up for dispute.

Conservative said:

Isn't that why he was hired, to return us to pre-recession numbers? Wasn't he part of the Democratic Congress that generated the results from 2007-2011? Didn't he inherit a Democratic Congress, TARP, NO approved budget, and have his stimulus passed almost day 1?

Click to expand...

I mean...you're picking some pretty hefty nits right now.

Using your numbers, it was 9.2 when Obama took office, 9.2 the month before he left office, and 9.3 the day he left office...then 9.1 the month after he left office, and continued to trend downward, before Trump ever had a chance to actually do anything to have an impact.

I don't think Obama ever stated that U6 would be smaller the day he left office than the day he assumed office, especially given the trend that was happening when he took office-that U3 and U6 were skyrocketing, just like they were both shrinking when Trump took office. Amazing that you ignore that.

The bleeding stopped, and we entered an unprecedented era of long-term job growth that has continued...CONTINUED...under Trump. That growth neither began, nor accelerated, under Trump. Simply continued.

Kushinator said:

It's not an opinion. That's a textbook example of cherry picking.

This thread isn't about who others vote or have voted for. You turn every single thread into an Obama bash thread, even though, as you've said, he's been out of office for 2 years and 8 months.

Click to expand...

NO data was cherry picked and you know it,

party free said:

Obama was shrinking the deficit. Trump is not. He's also exploding the debt. No doubt you ignored talking about that deliberately.





And yet, in 2 years, despite all the promises made of 4-5-6% GDP by Trump, he's yet to do better than Obama, even with the tax cuts.




"Worst recovery"-speaking of talking points. It was the 2nd worst US economic downturn. Are you suggesting the economy wasn't bleeding jobs when Obama took over? We've had unprecedented job growth that began under Obama after the bleeding stopped. None of this is untrue.





I'm simply stating the facts as they exist. You can choose not to like them, but facts they remain.

Click to expand...

Again, shrinking the deficit and adding 9.3 trillion to the debt may make you feel good but it just goes to show you don't understand the difference between the deficit and debt. Trump has only had one year of deficits and that entire deficit increase was due to entitlement spending(SS and Medicare) along with debt service

party free said:

I didn't say it got back to prerecession levels. I said U6, along with other measures you mentioned, were trending better under Obama, and that success continued under Trump. This facts are not up for dispute.

Click to expand...

No, we are trending better in all components under Trump but you don't understand how do put data into context. Trump inherited a 1.6% GDP growth in 2016 that wasn't a positive trend

party free said:

I mean...you're picking some pretty hefty nits right now.

Using your numbers, it was 9.2 when Obama took office, 9.2 the month before he left office, and 9.3 the day he left office...then 9.1 the month after he left office, and continued to trend downward, before Trump ever had a chance to actually do anything to have an impact.

I don't think Obama ever stated that U6 would be smaller the day he left office than the day he assumed office, especially given the trend that was happening when he took office-that U3 and U6 were skyrocketing, just like they were both shrinking when Trump took office. Amazing that you ignore that.

The bleeding stopped, and we entered an unprecedented era of long-term job growth that has continued...CONTINUED...under Trump. That growth neither began, nor accelerated, under Trump. Simply continued.

Click to expand...

That just goes to show what little expectations the left has with a Democratic office. How can there be record employment and in 9 years only 6 million jobs created? Obama was part of the Congress that gave us that record employment and the 9.3% U6. After 8 years of Obama the employment was 152 million and U-6 9-3%. The bleeding stopped before Obama took office with TARP

What Ended the Great Recession?

Conservative said:

Again, shrinking the deficit and adding 9.3 trillion to the debt may make you feel good but it just goes to show you don't understand the difference between the deficit and debt.

Click to expand...

I get the difference. Knock off the personal ****, k? Play partisan games with someone stupid enough to play them with you. The deficit was shrinking. The tea party blew a gasket at Obama over BOTH, so where is the TP now? Why aren't they protesting BOTH right now because BOTH are looking bad under Trump. BOTH.

Trump has only had one year of deficits and that entire deficit increase was due to entitlement spending(SS and Medicare) along with debt service

Click to expand...

Do we need to copy/paste what he said about both when he was running and then compare them to what they look like today?

How is the GDP versus what he promised?

You can argue until you're blue in the face that Trump came along and suddenly made everything better the day he took office, but the reality is that Trump inherited an economy that was trending positively for years. Those facts are not up for dispute.

Conservative said:

No, we are trending better in all components under Trump but you don't understand how do put data into context. Trump inherited a 1.6% GDP growth in 2016 that wasn't a positive trend

Click to expand...

And the parsing and goalpost shifting begins!

Here we go!

Conservative said:

That just goes to show what little expectations the left has with a Democratic office. How can there be record employment and in 9 years only 6 million jobs created?

Click to expand...

Sustained growth, which is what we've been talking about. Trends. Why am I having to spell this out?

Obama was part of the Congress that gave us that record employment and the 9.3% U6. After 8 years of Obama the employment was 152 million and U-6 9-3%. The bleeding stopped before Obama took office with TARP

What Ended the Great Recession?

Click to expand...

No, the bleeding didn't stop before Obama took office. We were bleeding jobs and tanking stocks when Obama took office.

These are facts no up for dispute.

Look, I get you want to lavish Trump with a lot of credit for something he only continued, but the facts remain we were trending a direction when he took office, and we are STILL trending that direction. He gets credit for continuing it.

I understand your incessant need to flop, parse, deflect, and shift. The facts are that U6 was trending down, just like U3, just like black/hispanic/etc. when Obama left office. Trump doesn't get credit for starting those trends.

party free said:

I get the difference. Knock off the personal ****, k? Play partisan games with someone stupid enough to play them with you. The deficit was shrinking. The tea party blew a gasket at Obama over BOTH, so where is the TP now? Why aren't they protesting BOTH right now because BOTH are looking bad under Trump. BOTH.



Do we need to copy/paste what he said about both when he was running and then compare them to what they look like today?

How is the GDP versus what he promised?

You can argue until you're blue in the face that Trump came along and suddenly made everything better the day he took office, but the reality is that Trump inherited an economy that was trending positively for years. Those facts are not up for dispute.

Click to expand...

What is it about liberalism that creates this kind of loyalty? What exactly did Obama propose or do to lower the deficit? You don't get it, do you? Lowering the deficit and generating a 9.3 trillion dollar debt means that the debt could have been worse had those deficits not been lowered but as it is he created more debt in 8 years than Reagan GHW and GW Bush combined in 20 years

I was a Democrat, but that party left me and is now run by a group of radicals that you seem to support making you part of the problem not part of the solution. I posted links to the budget deficit in 2018 which obviously you ignored as 2018 was Trump's first full year of budgetary responsibility and the ENTIRE deficit increase was due to Entitlement spending and debt service on the debt he inherited. His discretionary budget spending was 1.28 trillion dollars funded by 1.8 Trillion dollars in FIT and corporate tax revenue so tell me how did revenue of 1.8 trillion to fund 1.28 Trump spending show he exploded the deficit?

The GDP growth vs. "what he promised"? Wow, you buy rhetoric and ignore results NO he didn't achieve the massive GDP growth he "promised" but had the best two yars of any President in history. Actual data is a foreign concept to you so let me know you a comparison. Do you understand that it is dollars that matter not percentage change?

GDP Growth 2013 to 2018

2013 16974.9
2014 17521.7 736.8
2015 18129.3 607.6
2016 18707.2 577.8
2017 19485.4 778.2
2018 20494.1 1008.7
2019 23337.9

And he accomplished those numbers with 7 interest rate hikes that increased consumer costs thus reduced consumer spending. In addition, Obama added 4.2 trillion to the GDP in 8 years INCLUDING the 842 billion stimulus which was increased gov't spending. Trump has added 2.4 trillion 2 1/2 years.

Stop buying what the left tells you because they are using you and making you look like a fool

party free said:

And the parsing and goalpost shifting begins!

Here we go!

Click to expand...

What goal post shifting apparently to you having GDP dollar growth declining and 1.6% GDP growth in 2016 is a positive trend? Where did you get your math education? here we go is right, continue to ignore context and let the left make a fool out of you

party free said:

Sustained growth, which is what we've been talking about. Trends. Why am I having to spell this out?



No, the bleeding didn't stop before Obama took office. We were bleeding jobs and tanking stocks when Obama took office.

These are facts no up for dispute.

Look, I get you want to lavish Trump with a lot of credit for something he only continued, but the facts remain we were trending a direction when he took office, and we are STILL trending that direction. He gets credit for continuing it.

I understand your incessant need to flop, parse, deflect, and shift. The facts are that U6 was trending down, just like U3, just like black/hispanic/etc. when Obama left office. Trump doesn't get credit for starting those trends.

Click to expand...

Sustained Growth means nothing more than an upward trend with declining dollar growth meaning apparently no population growth or inflation? You don't seem to understand much at all as flopping, parsing, deflecting and shifting is what the left does when they lose the issues debate. You love trends, I prefer results and the recovery from the worst recession since the Great Depression led by an 842 billion stimulus which boosted gov't spending thus GDP could only muster 4.2 trillion GDP dollars in 8 years and topping out at 2.9% growth in Obama's 7th year. Such low standards you have!

Conservative said:

NO data was cherry picked and you know it,

Click to expand...

Wikipedia has a wonderful example:

Cherry-picking is often used in science denial such as climate change denial. For example with deliberately cherry picking appropriate time periods, here 1998-2012, an artificial "pause" can be created, even when there is an ongoing warming trend.

Click to expand...

Kushinator said:

Wikipedia has a wonderful example:

Click to expand...

LOL, more diversion and distortion of reality as you have lost the fact and issues debate. This thread is about 164,000 jobs created added to the previous jobs which now are over 5.1 million since Trump took office. You want to show how that is cherry picking data? You want to claim that Trump has exploded the deficit when 2018 deficit was his first full year and I posted the actual expenditures vs. the line items in the budget and proved beyond any doubt that it wasn't Trump spending that caused the deficit increase but rather debt service and entitlement spending increases none of which had anything to do with the FIT cuts!

party free said:

Sustained growth, which is what we've been talking about. Trends. Why am I having to spell this out?



No, the bleeding didn't stop before Obama took office. We were bleeding jobs and tanking stocks when Obama took office.

These are facts no up for dispute.

Look, I get you want to lavish Trump with a lot of credit for something he only continued, but the facts remain we were trending a direction when he took office, and we are STILL trending that direction. He gets credit for continuing it.

I understand your incessant need to flop, parse, deflect, and shift. The facts are that U6 was trending down, just like U3, just like black/hispanic/etc. when Obama left office. Trump doesn't get credit for starting those trends.

Click to expand...

Made a mistake in posting the GDP dollar growth but not the fact that GDP dollar growth was a declining amount per the following. you will note that 736.8 to 607.6 to 577.8 billion isn't an upward trend but declining dollar growth showing that the the GDP upward trend isn't the story but the slowdown was thus the declining dollars that picked up AFTER Trump took office.

My sport's analogy is right on, a lot of winning coaches showed positive trends losing their jobs because there are other issues involved including costs. If you worked in the private sector and had the Obama results you wouldn't have lasted 3 years let alone 8. Positive GDP trend at a cost of 9.3 trillion to the debt isn't positive economic performance and warranting positive support.

GDP Growth 2013 to 2018

2013 16974.9
2014 17521.7 736.8
2015 18129.3 607.6
2016 18707.2 577.8
2017 19485.4 778.2
2018 20494.1 1008.7
2019 21337.9

Conservative said:

No, we are trending better in all components under Trump but you don't understand how do put data into context. Trump inherited a 1.6% GDP growth in 2016 that wasn't a positive trend

Click to expand...

Trump knew what the 2016 GDP number was when he promised 3, 4, 5, and 6% growth -- none of which was achieved. Don't pretend that 2% and below were surprises to Trump and therefore his predictions no longer count. The fact is that even with his tax-cuts and increased government spending he failed to achieve the economic growth that was the cornerstone of what they said conservative policies would yield.

MTAtech said:

Trump knew what the 2016 GDP number was when he promised 3, 4, 5, and 6% growth -- none of which was achieved. Don't pretend that 2% and below were surprises to Trump and therefore his predictions no longer count. The fact is that even with his tax-cuts and increased government spending he failed to achieve the economic growth that was the cornerstone of what they said conservative policies would yield.

Click to expand...

It really bothers you that he didn't hit the target of 3,4,5 or 6% growth because all you want to post are negatives. Think the American people who are benefiting from the Trump economy and have given him an over 50% approval rating are as upset as you are for him not meeting the percentage change chart? It is amazing how trends don't support your claims because of your biased partisan opinion and desire for a massive central govt. Looks to me like the trends that Trump inherited were declining dollar growth not increases and it is dollars that benefit people not percentage change

GDP Growth 2013 to 2018

2013 16974.9
2014 17521.7 736.8
2015 18129.3 607.6
2016 18707.2 577.8
2017 19485.4 778.2
2018 20494.1 1008.7
2019 21337.9

Conservative said:

This thread is about 164,000 jobs created added to the previous jobs which now are over 5.1 million since Trump took office.

Click to expand...

It's almost comical how ignorant you can be.

The 164k figure comes from the non-farm payroll data set.
In terms of total non-farm payrolls:

There were 145.697 million on January 2017. As of July of 2019, there are 151.431 million, which is an increase of 5.734 million.

However, when you site the 164k figure, for some extremely strange reason, you then claim 5.1 million new jobs while citing the Civilian Employment figure. There were 151.128 million people employed in January of 2017. A of July of 2019, there are 157.228 million people employed, which is an increase of 5.1 million.



The Civilian Employment Level and Total Non-Farm Payrolls are two distinct data sets that tell us different things. One is to used to calculate unemployment rates, while the other is there to represent totality.

You've just used the totality figure with the figure that used to calculate ratios... which is what someone who really has no idea what they're talking about when it comes to data analysis of employment figures.

And furthermore, when you make the "hired to get us back to pre-recession levels" or "1.6% in 2016" arguments, they are textbook examples of cherry-picking. It's what the forum has come to expect, as you have no real argument other than fallacy.

Conservative said:

It really bothers you that he didn't hit the target of 3,4,5 or 6% growth

Click to expand...

It clearly bothers you.

It is amazing how trends don't support your claims because of your biased partisan opinion and desire for a massive central govt.

Click to expand...

The actual data doesn't support his claims because you say he is a biased partisan and has a desire for massive central government control? :lamo

the trends that Trump inherited were declining dollar growth

Click to expand...

More cherry-picking!

Kushinator said:

It clearly bothers you.



The actual data doesn't support his claims because you say he is a biased partisan and has a desire for massive central government control? :lamo



More cherry-picking!

Click to expand...

Nope, doesn't bother me a bit, I continue to celebrate the Trump successes and love the economic activity being created and enjoy watching the Radical Democrats self destruct

Kushinator said:

It's almost comical how ignorant you can be.

The 164k figure comes from the non-farm payroll data set.
In terms of total non-farm payrolls:

There were 145.697 million on January 2017. As of July of 2019, there are 151.431 million, which is an increase of 5.734 million.

However, when you site the 164k figure, for some extremely strange reason, you then claim 5.1 million new jobs while citing the Civilian Employment figure. There were 151.128 million people employed in January of 2017. A of July of 2019, there are 157.228 million people employed, which is an increase of 5.1 million.

The Civilian Employment Level and Total Non-Farm Payrolls are two distinct data sets that tell us different things. One is to used to calculate unemployment rates, while the other is there to represent totality.

You've just used the totality figure with the figure that used to calculate ratios... which is what someone who really has no idea what they're talking about when it comes to data analysis of employment figures.

And furthermore, when you make the "hired to get us back to pre-recession levels" or "1.6% in 2016" arguments, they are textbook examples of cherry-picking. It's what the forum has come to expect, as you have no real argument other than fallacy.

Click to expand...

Yes, they are but tax revenue is collected from all income earners including farmers and I continue to use the data from BLS used to report the official employment and unemployment rates and data.

Conservative said:

Nope, doesn't bother me a bit, I continue to celebrate the Trump successes and love the economic activity being created and enjoy watching the Radical Democrats self destruct

Click to expand...

If by self-destruct, you mean retake control of the House, narrowing the Republican Senate majority, while Trump's trade war is looking more and more like the catalyst for the recession?