• 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!

Employers add no net jobs in Aug.; rate unchanged

Status
Not open for further replies.
I can live with it, given the fact that Bush lost more jobs in the preceding four months than Obama lost in the following 30.
Most people either forget or just don't mention that credit was for the most part unavailable during Obama's first year which killed economic activity. This wasn't his fault, it was caused by the severe recession.
 
No, I blame Obama for the economic results of 2010 and 2011 as it was his economic policy that generated those results. Discouraged workers are his responsibility and the loss in consumer and business confidence is his responsibility. This is the Obama economy and the results are a disaster
Then why do you claim Obama's results gave us 3 million additionally underemployed since you have to start counting from February 1st, 2009, to reach? Seems to me you are attributing job loses to him that even you don't believe belong to him.
 
Last edited:
Most people either forget or just don't mention that credit was for the most part unavailable during Obama's first year which killed economic activity. This wasn't his fault, it was caused by the severe recession.

Are the 2011 results his fault? Seems that the credit problem was also ignored during the 2008 recessiion but Bush was still responsible for the results. Good leaders accept responsibility for what they inherited and solve the problem. Obama never accepts responsibility for anything.
 
Then why do you claim Obama's results gave us 3 million additionally underemployed since you have to start counting from February 1st, 2009, to reach? Seems to me you are attributing job loses to him that even you don't belong to him.[/QUOTE

Is Obama responsible for the 2011 results or do you want to blame someone else for those as well, probably Bush?
 
Number of people employed in February 2009: 140,105,000

Number of people employed in August 2011: 140,335,000

140,335,000{now} - 140,105,000{then} = + 230,000

source

doesn't the job seeker number increase every year? I think if you add in those entering the job market you'd come out in the negative.

j-mac
 
Then why do you claim Obama's results gave us 3 million additionally underemployed since you have to start counting from February 1st, 2009, to reach? Seems to me you are attributing job loses to him that even you don't belong to him.[/QUOTE

Is Obama responsible for the 2011 results or do you want to blame someone else for those as well, probably Bush?

Here's a novel idea: instead of just pointing to numbers and saying, "SEE!!", why don't you actually think about what should be attributed to Obama and what shouldn't? For example, is it Obama's fault that in 2004 - 2007, people paid way too much for housing, which has resulted in millions of mortgages being under water? If not, is it Obama's fault that the residential construction industry is still depressed, putting all of those construction and real estate people out of work? Is it Obama's fault that Greece is close to defaulting on its debt, causing our stock market to drop?
 
Here's a novel idea: instead of just pointing to numbers and saying, "SEE!!", why don't you actually think about what should be attributed to Obama and what shouldn't? For example, is it Obama's fault that in 2004 - 2007, people paid way too much for housing, which has resulted in millions of mortgages being under water? If not, is it Obama's fault that the residential construction industry is still depressed, putting all of those construction and real estate people out of work? Is it Obama's fault that Greece is close to defaulting on its debt, causing our stock market to drop?


Maybe Obama is in over his head just like his resume showed? Instead of buying the rhetoric next time check the resume
 
Are the 2011 results his fault? Seems that the credit problem was also ignored during the 2008 recessiion but Bush was still responsible for the results. Good leaders accept responsibility for what they inherited and solve the problem. Obama never accepts responsibility for anything.
Actually the results for the private sector are in the positive territory, I admit they could be much better. Many of the job loses are in the public sector where state and local governments have no money. Texas is one of them.
 
Here we have a month to month gains and losses in the public sector.

YearJanFebMarAprMayJunJulAugSepOctNovDecAnnual
200894515173934500-18-1517
200921-5-9113-60-64-13-16-2329-21-28
20103-144848410-257-142-169-13828-35-15
2011-26-26-25-24-46-55-71-17
 
Here we have a month to month gains and losses in the public sector.

YearJanFebMarAprMayJunJulAugSepOctNovDecAnnual
200894515173934500-18-1517
200921-5-9113-60-64-13-16-2329-21-28
20103-144848410-257-142-169-13828-35-15
2011-26-26-25-24-46-55-71-17

As has been pointed out there is a net job loss no matter how you spin it, guess that is the liberal compassion that isn't worried about the 16.2% U-6 that includes 25+ million unemployed and underemployed Americans TODAY, 2011. Think that 25 million is all public sector jobs?
 
As has been pointed out there is a net job loss no matter how you spin it, guess that is the liberal compassion that isn't worried about the 16.2% U-6 that includes 25+ million unemployed and underemployed Americans TODAY, 2011. Think that 25 million is all public sector jobs?

It isn't compassionate to complain endlessly about the situation without offering a realistic alternative that would improve things. I mean do you REALLY believe that reducing regulations by 2% will bring the economy around?
 
How about actually answering the question instead of falling back on wingnut talking points?

What question? All your questions have been answered but you don't like the answers so you ignore them. Obama campaigned for the job from the U.S. Senate and now claims he didn't know how bad things were. Maybe if he had campaigned less and actually did the job he was paid to do he would have had a better understanding of what he was taking on. Fact, his resume showed NO leadership or executive experience and thus is in over his head.
 
It isn't compassionate to complain endlessly about the situation without offering a realistic alternative that would improve things. I mean do you REALLY believe that reducing regulations by 2% will bring the economy around?

that alternative has been offered but you continue to support Obama rhetoric. I posted an article on govt. regulatoins and their costs. I have posted the consumer confidence and the right track/wrong track poll numbers and you ignored them all. So nothing I post is going to change your mind. You deserve Barack Obama, we don't
 
Is Obama responsible for the 2011 results or do you want to blame someone else for those as well, probably Bush?
Of course he is. See how easy it is to answer a question? So how come you didn't answer mine?
 
What question?

Questions, actually. You can pick them out by looking at the sentences that end in question marks:

For example, is it Obama's fault that in 2004 - 2007, people paid way too much for housing, which has resulted in millions of mortgages being under water? If not, is it Obama's fault that the residential construction industry is still depressed, putting all of those construction and real estate people out of work? Is it Obama's fault that Greece is close to defaulting on its debt, causing our stock market to drop?
 
Questions, actually. You can pick them out by looking at the sentences that end in question marks:

For example, is it Obama's fault that in 2004 - 2007, people paid way too much for housing, which has resulted in millions of mortgages being under water? If not, is it Obama's fault that the residential construction industry is still depressed, putting all of those construction and real estate people out of work? Is it Obama's fault that Greece is close to defaulting on its debt, causing our stock market to drop?

That question was answered, you don't like the answer. Obama as part of the Congress was indeed responsible for the results while he was in that Congress. Obama is responsible for the economy now and since the residential construction industry is still depressed 2 1/2 years after taking office yes he is responsible along with the Congress. Obama is in over his head and you simply cannot admit it. He doesn't have a clue
 
Yours wasn't relative to either the thread topic or to Obama which is part of the thread topic
So what? Neither was yours but I still mustered the courage to answer it. So why are you running away from my question?
 
Umm, it was that very same housing bubble which fueled the economy during the mid-2000's which led to the financial meltdown that occurred in 2008.

Exactly my point, Bush got a semi-favorable economy because Clinton signed on to export GDP to China, resulting in the source of low interest rates to fuel the bubble (current account surplus China). Although Bush had to cope with manufacturing jobs leaving the country ... he benefited from jobs being created by housing starts ... which kept unemployment low.

So Bush gets a decent economy through no action of his own ... and a bubble at the end of his second term. Obama gets an economy that has no manufacturing or housing starts ... and cannot be stimulated due to consumption issues.

As President ... which economy would you want handed to you? Me I'll take the one with less problems. Obama was fecked to begin with ... don't take that as support for him ... merely a nonpartisan observation.
 
Exactly my point, Bush got a semi-favorable economy because Clinton signed on to export GDP to China, resulting in the source of low interest rates to fuel the bubble (current account surplus China). Although Bush had to cope with manufacturing jobs leaving the country ... he benefited from jobs being created by housing starts ... which kept unemployment low.

So Bush gets a decent economy through no action of his own ... and a bubble at the end of his second term. Obama gets an economy that has no manufacturing or housing starts ... and cannot be stimulated due to consumption issues.

As President ... which economy would you want handed to you? Me I'll take the one with less problems. Obama was fecked to begin with ... don't take that as support for him ... merely a nonpartisan observation.

Totally disagree, I prefer taking on the challenge and the economy in disarray instead of the one that was less worse shape. I like the challenge and the benefits that I can create. Obama's resume showed he was in over his head and lacked the experience to handle the problem and the results showed that to be true
 
Totally disagree, I prefer taking on the challenge and the economy in disarray instead of the one that was less worse shape. I like the challenge and the benefits that I can create. Obama's resume showed he was in over his head and lacked the experience to handle the problem and the results showed that to be true

Most economists supported the stimulus ... I don't. The stimulus was misguided and/or at least in the way it was applied. I don't view the challenge of facing consumption issues a challenge ... merely swimming upstream. Manufacturing as a base takes a kick start much better then our economy which exported its manufacturing base. Hence you see Romney and Kucinich getting mouthy about Chinese business practices.

Also the higher unemployment and downward pressure on wages, eat away at the consumption that would drive small business growth ... stagnant or no small business growth.

We shall soon see, depending on the next stimulus being approved if a non-manufacturing based economy can be stimulated.
 
Most economists supported the stimulus ... I don't. The stimulus was misguided and/or at least in the way it was applied. I don't view the challenge of facing consumption issues a challenge ... merely swimming upstream. Manufacturing as a base takes a kick start much better then our economy which exported its manufacturing base. Hence you see Romney and Kucinich getting mouthy about Chinese business practices.

Also the higher unemployment and downward pressure on wages, eat away at the consumption that would drive small business growth ... stagnant or no small business growth.

We shall soon see, depending on the next stimulus being approved if a non-manufacturing based economy can be stimulated.

The problem with this Administration is that any benefits are offset by expenses on the other side, expenses like regulations, potential tax hikes, Obamacare. No business is going to hire with the uncertainties created by this Administration.

Regulation Nation: Drowning In Rules, Businesses Brace For Cost And Time For Compliance | Fox News
 
doesn't the job seeker number increase every year? I think if you add in those entering the job market you'd come out in the negative.

j-mac

Total employment is total employment. The claim was there are less jobs than when this administration began (as a strawman mind you), which is simply untrue. What explicitly are you stating that is "negative"?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom