• 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!

Unemployment dips to 8.9 pct., 192K jobs added

Maybe. But any improvement in jobs should be good news for all of us.
 
I'll be interested in some of the cover and run that will be displayed by those who are shorting America.
 
Maybe. But any improvement in jobs should be good news for all of us.

Now for the rest of the story, since Obama has taken office over a million people per month have dropped out of the labor market. Guess that is a success to liberals.

Labor Force Statistics from the Current Population Survey
Original Data Value

Series Id: LNS13000000
Seasonally Adjusted
Series title: (Seas) Unemployment Level
Labor force status: Unemployed
Type of data: Number in thousands
Age: 16 years and over
Years: 2000 to 2010

Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
2000 5708 5858 5733 5481 5758 5651 5747 5853 5625 5534 5639 5634
2001 6023 6089 6141 6271 6226 6484 6583 7042 7142 7694 8003 8258
2002 8182 8215 8304 8599 8399 8393 8390 8304 8251 8307 8520 8640
2003 8520 8618 8588 8842 8957 9266 9011 8896 8921 8732 8576 8317
2004 8370 8167 8491 8170 8212 8286 8136 7990 7927 8061 7932 7934
2005 7784 7980 7737 7672 7651 7524 7406 7345 7553 7453 7566 7279
2006 7059 7185 7075 7122 6977 6998 7154 7097 6853 6728 6883 6784
2007 7085 6898 6725 6845 6765 6966 7113 7096 7200 7273 7284 7696
2008 7628 7435 7793 7631 8397 8560 8895 9509 9569 10172 10617 11400
2009 11919 12714 13310 13816 14518 14721 14534 14993 15159 15612 15340 15267
2010 14837 14871 15005 15260 14973 14623 14599 14860 14767 14843 15119 14485
2011 13863 13673
Discouraged workers
2008 467 396 401 412 400 420 461 381 467 484 608 642
2009 734 731 685 740 792 793 796 758 706 808 861 929
2010 1065 1204 994 1197 1083 1207 1185 1110 1209 1219 1282 1318
2011 993 1020

Unemployed + Discouraged
2008 8095 7831 8194 8043 8797 8980 9356 9890 10036 10656 11225 12042
2009 12653 13445 13995 14556 15310 15514 15330 15751 15865 16420 16201 16196
2010 15902 16075 15999 16457 16056 15830 15784 15970 15976 16062 16401 15803
2011 14856 14693

Apparently 14.693 million unemployed is a success to a liberal. The only liberals touting these numbers must be the ones that are either in school or have a job.

Since the Obama "recovery" began 20 months ago, the national unemployment rate has fallen only half a point, from 9.4 percent in July 2009 to 8.9 percent today. Contrast those anemic results with the robust job growth that occurred during the Reagan recovery in the ’80s. By the 20-month mark of the Reagan recovery, unemployment had dropped from 10.8 percent to 7.5 percent – a 3.3-point drop.
Source: http://blog.heritage.org/2011/03/04/...eaving-behind/
 
Unemployment dips to 8.9 pct., 192K jobs added - Yahoo! News

If this keeps up. Like him or not, Obama will be unbeatable in 2012.

Uh, no. Healthcare, massive increases to the debt and deficit, multiple foreign relations embarassments, and smaller issues like calling a cop a racist from the president's podium, are ladled all over this over-exposed, completely unqualified joke of a president.

Plus, this is one month.

Good news, but wake me when we string 6 to 8 of these together in a row. Get unemployment down to 4-5 percent, and the added tax base will make things look a lot shinier.
 
Maybe. But any improvement in jobs should be good news for all of us.

You are right. Regardless of what party you belong to, this has to be great news for the country.
 
Now for the rest of the story, since Obama has taken office over a million people per month have dropped out of the labor market. Guess that is a success to liberals.

Labor Force Statistics from the Current Population Survey
Original Data Value

Series Id: LNS13000000
Seasonally Adjusted
Series title: (Seas) Unemployment Level
Labor force status: Unemployed
Type of data: Number in thousands
Age: 16 years and over
Years: 2000 to 2010

Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
2000 5708 5858 5733 5481 5758 5651 5747 5853 5625 5534 5639 5634
2001 6023 6089 6141 6271 6226 6484 6583 7042 7142 7694 8003 8258
2002 8182 8215 8304 8599 8399 8393 8390 8304 8251 8307 8520 8640
2003 8520 8618 8588 8842 8957 9266 9011 8896 8921 8732 8576 8317
2004 8370 8167 8491 8170 8212 8286 8136 7990 7927 8061 7932 7934
2005 7784 7980 7737 7672 7651 7524 7406 7345 7553 7453 7566 7279
2006 7059 7185 7075 7122 6977 6998 7154 7097 6853 6728 6883 6784
2007 7085 6898 6725 6845 6765 6966 7113 7096 7200 7273 7284 7696
2008 7628 7435 7793 7631 8397 8560 8895 9509 9569 10172 10617 11400
2009 11919 12714 13310 13816 14518 14721 14534 14993 15159 15612 15340 15267
2010 14837 14871 15005 15260 14973 14623 14599 14860 14767 14843 15119 14485
2011 13863 13673
Discouraged workers
2008 467 396 401 412 400 420 461 381 467 484 608 642
2009 734 731 685 740 792 793 796 758 706 808 861 929
2010 1065 1204 994 1197 1083 1207 1185 1110 1209 1219 1282 1318
2011 993 1020

Unemployed + Discouraged
2008 8095 7831 8194 8043 8797 8980 9356 9890 10036 10656 11225 12042
2009 12653 13445 13995 14556 15310 15514 15330 15751 15865 16420 16201 16196
2010 15902 16075 15999 16457 16056 15830 15784 15970 15976 16062 16401 15803
2011 14856 14693

Apparently 14.693 million unemployed is a success to a liberal. The only liberals touting these numbers must be the ones that are either in school or have a job.

This is nearly 2,000,000 less than the maximum critical point shown in the data. Like it or not, things are getting better, and will continue to do so for forseable future.

Since the Obama "recovery" began 20 months ago, the national unemployment rate has fallen only half a point, from 9.4 percent in July 2009 to 8.9 percent today. Contrast those anemic results with the robust job growth that occurred during the Reagan recovery in the ’80s. By the 20-month mark of the Reagan recovery, unemployment had dropped from 10.8 percent to 7.5 percent – a 3.3-point drop.
Source: http://blog.heritage.org/2011/03/04/...eaving-behind/

And as you have been informed multiple times, this was a much more severe economic contraction, as evident by the volume of job losses, financial asset deflation, and a housing market that is argued to be worse than that of the 30's.

A deflationary recession and a stagflationary recession are completely different. Volker manufactured the employment situation to stem inflation. Try to keep up!
 
And as you have been informed multiple times, this was a much more severe economic contraction, as evident by the volume of job losses, financial asset deflation, and a housing market that is argued to be worse than that of the 30's.

A deflationary recession and a stagflationary recession are completely different. Volker manufactured the employment situation to stem inflation. Try to keep up!

Where have you been lately?

Anyway, I'll respond with my usual answer that this is artificial growth doomed to another crash. And the cycle starts all over again.
 
This is nearly 2,000,000 less than the maximum critical point shown in the data. Like it or not, things are getting better, and will continue to do so for forseable future.



And as you have been informed multiple times, this was a much more severe economic contraction, as evident by the volume of job losses, financial asset deflation, and a housing market that is argued to be worse than that of the 30's.

A deflationary recession and a stagflationary recession are completely different. Volker manufactured the employment situation to stem inflation. Try to keep up!

So adding 3.5 trillion to the debt to get these numbers and still have 14.7 million reported to be unemployed is a positive for you? If you generated these kind of numbers after spending this kind of money would you still be employed?

As has been explained to you as well, 17% interest rates, double digit unemployment was worse then than now but maybe you didn't get your new IPhone which makes it a depression.
 
This is nearly 2,000,000 less than the maximum critical point shown in the data. Like it or not, things are getting better, and will continue to do so for forseable future.



And as you have been informed multiple times, this was a much more severe economic contraction, as evident by the volume of job losses, financial asset deflation, and a housing market that is argued to be worse than that of the 30's.

A deflationary recession and a stagflationary recession are completely different. Volker manufactured the employment situation to stem inflation. Try to keep up!

I think that it is really sad that in this country people (Republicans and Democrats) would prefer failure over success if the other party is in power. Why can't we all be happy for success regardless of who is in power instead of poking holes in it. I have alot of friends out of work right now who were happy about the turn of the country.
 
Where have you been lately?

Anyway, I'll respond with my usual answer that this is artificial growth doomed to another crash. And the cycle starts all over again.

No matter how it is spun, the govt. cannot spend our way to prosperity.

Debt by year

09/30/2010 13,561,623,030,891.79
09/30/2009 11,909,829,003,511.75
09/30/2008 10,024,724,896,912.49
 
Unemployment dips to 8.9 pct., 192K jobs added - Yahoo! News

If this keeps up. Like him or not, Obama will be unbeatable in 2012.

ROTFLOL...

1. Let's wait for the "correction".

2. Unbeatable? This guy has made a bigger mess than a dog that ate itself silly followed it up with a kilo of Exlax and was left in the house with the doors locked.

Obama has a record of ineptness and hostility now. No teleprompteur speeches, no hollow tag lines, no Greek columns will put this Humpty Dumpty back together again.

There aren't enough Kool-Aid drinkers. You did notice Scott Brown winning the Dead Kennedy seat, the historic ass kicking midterms, etc... did you not? Obama was an anomoly. A wabbit from da hat... just as the Libs used Foley in the 06 midterms.

They'z aints gots no mo wabbits.

.

.
 
Where have you been lately?

Work and school take about 90 hours of my week :2brickwal

Anyway, I'll respond with my usual answer that this is artificial growth doomed to another crash. And the cycle starts all over again.

And ill retort with how this is still better than your alternative; once every 79 years as opposed to once every 5 seems more efficient to me!
 
So adding 3.5 trillion to the debt to get these numbers and still have 14.7 million reported to be unemployed is a positive for you? If you generated these kind of numbers after spending this kind of money would you still be employed?

The debt would have increased by nearly by a fraction greater than (1/2) of that total, given that increases in unemployment in the financial sector greatly reduces tax receipts (this is one of the higher earning employment demographics). The additional spending was necessary to prevent that other number you provided from reaching 25 million.

As has been explained to you as well

You have explained nothing.


17% interest rates, double digit unemployment was worse then than now but maybe you didn't get your new IPhone which makes it a depression.

First off i rock a droid x.

Secondly, you are wrong based on real wealth loss differentials alone. Americans witnessed nearly $14 trillion in wealth vanish within a year. That is remarkably close to 100% of GDP.
 
The debt would have increased by nearly by a fraction greater than (1/2) of that total, given that increases in unemployment in the financial sector greatly reduces tax receipts (this is one of the higher earning employment demographics). The additional spending was necessary to prevent that other number you provided from reaching 25 million.



You have explained nothing.




First off i rock a droid x.

Secondly, you are wrong based on real wealth loss differentials alone. Americans witnessed nearly $14 trillion in wealth vanish within a year. That is remarkably close to 100% of GDP.

Sorry but when I gave you the numbers for 1981 I would have thought that you would understand the numbers, apparently not. Try buying a home for 17% interest rates? 10.8% Unemployment! So you don't know what you think you know but like all other intellectual elites you have no problem spouting your opinions off as fact. Those of us that lived and worked during the 81 recession are better equiped to compare that recession to the one we are in now and Obama "never let a good crisis go to waste" to sell his agenda which has failed.

14 trillion in wealth vanished? Amazing, 14.3 trillion in debt also appeared. as stated the govt. cannot spend us to prosperity.
 
Sorry but when I gave you the numbers for 1981 I would have thought that you would understand the numbers, apparently not. Try buying a home for 17% interest rates? 10.8% Unemployment! So you don't know what you think you know but like all other intellectual elites you have no problem spouting your opinions off as fact. Those of us that lived and worked during the 81 recession are better equiped to compare that recession to the one we are in now and Obama "never let a good crisis go to waste" to sell his agenda which has failed.

Opinionated drivel counts as squat, again do try and keep up!

14 trillion in wealth vanished? Amazing, 14.3 trillion in debt also appeared. as stated the govt. cannot spend us to prosperity.

$14.3 trillion did not appear in the span of a year. The republican administrations you so blindly support have a great deal to do with it; more than this current administration.

Since you like to post figures, lets up the stakes with some real analysis. Can you find the composition of total debt by each administration in terms of 4 years? Then for more fun, calculate which administrations had the greatest percentage increases in the federal debt. The results would hopefully give you some much needed perspective.

You cannot spend your way to prosperity, but you can stave off a greater depression.
 
Last edited:
ROTFLOL...

1. Let's wait for the "correction".

2. Unbeatable? This guy has made a bigger mess than a dog that ate itself silly followed it up with a kilo of Exlax and was left in the house with the doors locked.

Obama has a record of ineptness and hostility now. No teleprompteur speeches, no hollow tag lines, no Greek columns will put this Humpty Dumpty back together again.

There aren't enough Kool-Aid drinkers. You did notice Scott Brown winning the Dead Kennedy seat, the historic ass kicking midterms, etc... did you not? Obama was an anomoly. A wabbit from da hat... just as the Libs used Foley in the 06 midterms.

They'z aints gots no mo wabbits.

.

.

And yet through all that rhetoric the polls show that he would beat any of your leading republican candidates in a presidential race. What does that say about your field of candidates when they are not favored to beat " a president who has made a bigger mess than a dog that ate itself silly followed it up with a kilo of Exlax and was left in the house with the doors locked. With a 9 percent unemployment rate btw."
 
Opinionated drivel counts as squat, again do try and keep up!



$14.3 trillion did not appear in the span of a year. The republican administrations you so blindly support have a great deal to do with it; more than this current administration.

Since you like to post figures, lets up the stakes with some real analysis. Can you find the composition of total debt by each administration in terms of 4 years? Then for more fun, calculate which administrations had the greatest percentage increases in the federal debt. The results would hopefully give you some much needed perspective.

Let's see how you answer the following: An employee is hired to create jobs and clean up a previous employees mess. That employee spends over a trillion dollars, adds 3.5 trillion to the debt and has 2 million less business than he had when he started. Does he keep his job?

What I love are intellectual elites spinning a 2 million reduction in employment and 3.5 trillion added to the debt as positive by using percentages to keep from focusing on real people. 2 million less PEOPLE are working today than when Obama took office. Tell me they appreciate the fact that the percentage is lower?
 
Hopefully we are starting create many more jobs that were lost in the Bush recession.

Let me know when the employment numbers gets back to the level it was when Obama took office?
 
And yet through all that rhetoric the polls show that he would beat any of your leading republican candidates in a presidential race. What does that say about your field of candidates when they are not favored to beat " a president who has made a bigger mess than a dog that ate itself silly followed it up with a kilo of Exlax and was left in the house with the doors locked. With a 9 percent unemployment rate btw."

What it tells me is that "your" rock star President who reads a good speech has sold the people on the rhetoric instead of having them verify the accuracy of the rhetoric. Please explain to me how having 2 million fewer employed today vs. when he took office and adding 3.5 trillion to the debt is positive?
 
Last edited:
Let's see how you answer the following: An employee is hired to create jobs and clean up a previous employees mess. That employee spends over a trillion dollars, adds 3.5 trillion to the debt and has 2 million less business than he had when he started. Does he keep his job?

What I love are intellectual elites spinning a 2 million reduction in employment and 3.5 trillion added to the debt as positive by using percentages to keep from focusing on real people. 2 million less PEOPLE are working today than when Obama took office. Tell me they appreciate the fact that the percentage is lower?

Barack Obama was elected to be POTUS, he wasn't hired for anything.
 
Barack Obama was elected to be POTUS, he wasn't hired for anything.

So Obama didn't tell the electorate that he would "clean up the mess?" Interesting how you say Obama wasn't elected to create jobs but Bush is blamed for losing jobs. Standards are so low for liberals.
 
Now for the rest of the story, since Obama has taken office over a million people per month have dropped out of the labor market. Guess that is a success to liberals.

Labor Force Statistics from the Current Population Survey
Original Data Value

Series Id: LNS13000000
Seasonally Adjusted
Series title: (Seas) Unemployment Level
Labor force status: Unemployed
Type of data: Number in thousands
Age: 16 years and over
Years: 2000 to 2010

Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
2000 5708 5858 5733 5481 5758 5651 5747 5853 5625 5534 5639 5634
2001 6023 6089 6141 6271 6226 6484 6583 7042 7142 7694 8003 8258
2002 8182 8215 8304 8599 8399 8393 8390 8304 8251 8307 8520 8640
2003 8520 8618 8588 8842 8957 9266 9011 8896 8921 8732 8576 8317
2004 8370 8167 8491 8170 8212 8286 8136 7990 7927 8061 7932 7934
2005 7784 7980 7737 7672 7651 7524 7406 7345 7553 7453 7566 7279
2006 7059 7185 7075 7122 6977 6998 7154 7097 6853 6728 6883 6784
2007 7085 6898 6725 6845 6765 6966 7113 7096 7200 7273 7284 7696
2008 7628 7435 7793 7631 8397 8560 8895 9509 9569 10172 10617 11400
2009 11919 12714 13310 13816 14518 14721 14534 14993 15159 15612 15340 15267
2010 14837 14871 15005 15260 14973 14623 14599 14860 14767 14843 15119 14485
2011 13863 13673
Discouraged workers
2008 467 396 401 412 400 420 461 381 467 484 608 642
2009 734 731 685 740 792 793 796 758 706 808 861 929
2010 1065 1204 994 1197 1083 1207 1185 1110 1209 1219 1282 1318
2011 993 1020

Unemployed + Discouraged
2008 8095 7831 8194 8043 8797 8980 9356 9890 10036 10656 11225 12042
2009 12653 13445 13995 14556 15310 15514 15330 15751 15865 16420 16201 16196
2010 15902 16075 15999 16457 16056 15830 15784 15970 15976 16062 16401 15803
2011 14856 14693

Apparently 14.693 million unemployed is a success to a liberal. The only liberals touting these numbers must be the ones that are either in school or have a job.

Since the Obama "recovery" began 20 months ago, the national unemployment rate has fallen only half a point, from 9.4 percent in July 2009 to 8.9 percent today. Contrast those anemic results with the robust job growth that occurred during the Reagan recovery in the ’80s. By the 20-month mark of the Reagan recovery, unemployment had dropped from 10.8 percent to 7.5 percent – a 3.3-point drop.
Source: http://blog.heritage.org/2011/03/04/...eaving-behind/

To my knowledge most economists consider 4-5% unemployment as full employment, due to various factors that keep a country from having 0% unemployment. So basically we have 100% more people unemployed than is optimal.
 
Back
Top Bottom