• 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!

Obama announces his Candidacy for 2012.

Sheik Yerbuti said:
No, you don't know what I'm talking about. First of all, I was talking about those no longer in the labor force, secondly, 921K is the total amount, not the monthly change. And it's the monthly change which affects the rate. Thirdly, I posted a link to the BLS.gov website to confirm the number I posted.

By the way, even the numbers you show of discouraged workers indicates there were almost 100,000 fewer in March than there were in February.
Click to expand...

You don't even know what you are talking about, discouraged workers and not in the labor force are two different numbers. Notice the change between discouraged workers in February and March, that isn't 11,000, so keep spinning all in support of an empty suit in the WH. I can see why you need him.
 
Conservative said:
Not embarrassed at all but irrelevant.
Click to expand...
No, not irrelevant; demonstrating that you're a hypocrite. You are accusing people here who say they are thinking of voting for Obama next year of not voting based on results, yet you yourself voted for a loser. Texas ranked among the worst state by most measures while Bush was governor. And as president, he did nothing to prevent 9.11, saw unemployment swell by more than 2 million, and invaded a country over weapons which weren't there and you still voted for him anyway.

Conservative said:
Told you how many times I voted for Bush for Governor and President.
Click to expand...
And in how many primaries?
 
Sheik Yerbuti said:
No, not irrelevant; demonstrating that you're a hypocrite. You are accusing people here who say they are thinking of voting for Obama next year of not voting based on results, yet you yourself voted for a loser. Texas ranked among the worst state by most measures while Bush was governor. And as president, he did nothing to prevent 9.11, saw unemployment swell by more than 2 million, and invaded a country over weapons which weren't there and you still voted for him anyway.


And in how many primaries?
Click to expand...

Love people who claim to be experts on TX and use percentages as that tool. Seems that Texans disagree with you but then again they got it wrong and you are right. Seems that Bush won TX in a landslide and people see percentages for what they are, distorted numbers that don't consider the TX location and the impact that illegals have on the state, illegals that the Federal Govt. cannot stop from infiltrating the country.

Interesting that with those terrible economic numbers that you claim exist that TX has created more jobs in the Obama economy than the rest of the country combined. It is a pro growth state, no state income taxes, a part time legislature,and a growing economy. I can see the jealousy of liberals all over the nation as more and more businesses continue to relocate to TX including a lot of Caterpillar from Obama's home state. TX continues to get it right, Obama lost TX by over a million votes and in the 2010 TX re-elected Governor Perry in a landslide, and added to is majority in the Legislature and is no filibuster proof. Yes, TX is a disaster and we love it.
 
Conservative said:
By the way not in the labor force is different than discouraged workers or people who have dropped out of the labor force. You really are desparate to distort this President's results. 921,000 people are removed from the unemployment count in March. What affect does that have on the unemployment rate? Obama supporters are just too easy.
Click to expand...
WTF??

You're looking at the cumulative numbers again, Con! :lamo :lamo

The number of discourage workers dropped by 99,000 in March...

BLS.gov: Discouraged (1-Month Net Change)
 
j-mac said:
And in Bush's first 45 months, were there any incidents that may have caused a recession?

j-mac
Click to expand...
The 2001 recession ended nearly 3 years before Bush's reelection.
 
What I find rather funny is folks spending all this time talking about Bush instead of this exciting news that Obama will be seeking re-election. :ssst:
 
Sheik Yerbuti said:
The 2001 recession ended nearly 3 years before Bush's reelection.
Click to expand...

Right, and Bush won re-election with improving economic numbers and a pro growth economic plan. Obama's plan is the exact opposite, bigger govt. and the nanny state which seems to motivate people like you.
 
ReverendHellh0und said:
What I find rather funny is folks spending all this time talking about Bush instead of this exciting news that Obama will be seeking re-election. :ssst:
Click to expand...

That is all Obama supporters can do, to divert from the Obama record. Sorry but I have to do a better job not letting them sidetrack the thread.
 
I would like to see Romney in office. I like his economic stance, foreign policies as well as focusing more on home instead of THE U.S. Police force. Plus both men are very good speakers that would lead to some interesting debates. I believe the edge would go to Romney with his experience. Obama was a fun little distraction with all the change and such, but I am ready for a functional president that can talk AND do...
 
Conservative said:
Fact 921,000 have been dropped from the labor force and are no longer counted as unemployed. What affect does that have on the unemployment rate?
Click to expand...

the same effect it's always had, which is why the rate is relative. give it up.
 
Conservative said:
It is all about jobs and jobs gained as jobs can be counted but regarding unemployment, here are the results. 670K fewer unemployed in October 2004 vs 2003 and the economy improving dramatically. still want to divert to Bush, wonder why? "Your" guy is in the office now and the results are worse today than when Bush left office and that is after added 4 trillion to the debt. That to a liberal is a success.

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
Click to expand...
As those numbers reveal, there were 2,038,000 more people unemployed when you voted for Bush, yet you deride people who say they will vote for Obama.

By the time you voted for Bush, the unemployment rate increased 31%. So far under Obama, the unemployment rate has increased 14%.

Yet for some reason, you feel justified in your vote for Bush but don't feel Democrats are justified for voting for Obama.

You're a hypocrite.
 
Conservative said:
You don't even know what you are talking about, discouraged workers and not in the labor force are two different numbers. Notice the change between discouraged workers in February and March, that isn't 11,000, so keep spinning all in support of an empty suit in the WH. I can see why you need him.
Click to expand...
Look back at my post. I was talking about those not in the labor force, not just those who dropped from the labor force because they were discouraged. You then responded to my post with discouraged workers.

And as far as discouraged workers, there were 99,000 fewer in March.

Where's your applause? Doesn't that make you happy?
 
liblady said:
the same effect it's always had, which is why the rate is relative. give it up.
Click to expand...

Uh, no, not quite, but nice try. Keep ignoring reality. That stimulus did quite a job in 2010, didn't it? Please tell me why such loyalty to Obama with results like these?


Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
1994 600 489 533 502 436 532 542 489 521 460 447 445
1995 440 439 454 385 398 364 456 410 341 412 401 425
1996 409 455 451 403 352 414 423 415 391 374 346 334
1997 397 364 356 379 338 353 311 311 328 302 331 345
1998 374 361 343 344 268 311 374 280 317 333 310 358
1999 339 271 295 245 256 220 290 265 289 271 272 267
2000 236 267 258 331 280 309 266 203 253 232 236 269
2001 301 287 349 349 328 294 310 337 285 331 328 348
2002 328 375 330 320 414 342 405 378 392 359 385 403
2003 449 450 474 437 482 478 470 503 388 462 457 433
2004 432 484 514 492 476 478 504 534 412 429 392 442
2005 515 485 480 393 392 476 499 384 362 392 404 451
2006 396 386 451 381 323 481 428 448 325 331 349 274
2007 442 375 381 399 368 401 367 392 276 320 349 363
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 921
 
Sheik Yerbuti said:
The 2001 recession ended nearly 3 years before Bush's reelection.
Click to expand...

You made the point that Bush had a 2 million job loss in the first 45 months of his Presidency, and I asked you to tell me what factors played into that, not when his recession ended....Could you answer the question asked please?

j-mac
 
Sheik Yerbuti said:
Look back at my post. I was talking about those not in the labor force, not just those who dropped from the labor force because they were discouraged. You then responded to my post with discouraged workers.

And as far as discouraged workers, there were 99,000 fewer in March.


Where's your applause? Doesn't that make you happy?
Click to expand...

I will applaud when the economic results reflect the results that will lower the debt and get the unemployment back to where it belongs and where it was under Clinton and Bush.
 
Conservative said:
Interesting that with those terrible economic numbers that you claim exist that TX has created more jobs in the Obama economy than the rest of the country combined.
Click to expand...
I hope you noticed, that's without Bush as governor of Texas.
 
SheWolf said:
I said that about McCain... but then he had to pick Palin
Click to expand...

Yeah. He had my vote until he chose her.

I'll only be voting for Obama if the GOP candidate scares the crap out of me. It's going to be 2004 all over again: Who sucks the least?
 
Conservative said:
Fact 921,000 have been dropped from the labor force and are no longer counted as unemployed. What affect does that have on the unemployment rate?
Click to expand...
But they weren't all dropped in March. That number is cumulative.

There were 99,000 fewer discouraged workers in March and the effect, along with job growth, was a lower unemployment rate.
 
Sheik Yerbuti said:
Look back at my post. I was talking about those not in the labor force, not just those who dropped from the labor force because they were discouraged. You then responded to my post with discouraged workers.

And as far as discouraged workers, there were 99,000 fewer in March.

Where's your applause? Doesn't that make you happy?
Click to expand...


Look, I'll give a golf clap to the fact that 200K jobs were created this last month, however I remain skeptical of the metrics involved in counting these supposed jobs.

But, the experts say that we need a sustained 250K jobs per month just to break even in those that are lost in this country. So, the 200K is a start, and a trend in the right direction, but, no where near what would be considered coming out of the recession by any means....To date, Obama is still 8 million in the hole, and increasing in jobless numbers overall.

As to those dropping out of the job market, you see that as a good thing? Really? I see increased welfare roles, increased poor, people losing their homes, and the standard of living in this country falling....Yeah, great job.

j-mac
 
Sheik Yerbuti said:
But they weren't all dropped in March. That number is cumulative.

There were 99,000 fewer discouraged workers in March and the effect, along with job growth, was a lower unemployment rate.
Click to expand...

do not expect conservative to be rational on the subject of obama. you will be beating your head against a wall.
 
Sheik Yerbuti said:
But they weren't all dropped in March. That number is cumulative.

There were 99,000 fewer discouraged workers in March and the effect, along with job growth, was a lower unemployment rate.
Click to expand...


It only proves statistics lie. Discouraged workers is not good at all.

j-mac
 
liblady said:
do not expect conservative to be rational on the subject of obama. you will be beating your head against a wall.
Click to expand...

Is it rational to applaud a number being hailed as the be all and end all in jobs in this country when it is based on a lie?

j-mac
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom