First Texas bus drops off migrants blocks from US Capitol in Washington, DC

[Mina]

No it is indeed very simple to understand, returning jobs started late 2020 and continued as states reopened having nothing to do with Biden policies. Governors got the vaccine distributed but like that good little liberal that you are you bought the rhetoric

I dropped nothing because I understand the U.S. economy unlike you, a returning job isn't a new job created and that won't happen until the February 2020 results are exceeded. until that time they are all returning jobs

Boomers are being replaced by entitlement spoiled brat liberals that my generation has created, entitlement liberals asking what their country can do for them.

You want to be like France? Move there

Your entire argument is all about the vaccine and yet that had nothing to do with me getting my first shot in January 6 but everything to do with what my governor did. Are covid results better in 2021, NO. Did Biden unite the country like he said? NO, Are we better off today than a year ago, not according to the study I have posted and the now 8.5% inflation. Have you even listened to Biden talk, who is pulling his strings? What an embarrassment and more important the joke is on the 81 million that supposed voted for him

now continue to make fun of Trump when the real joke is on people like you

Yes, we had good job creation in mid-2020, as lock-downs ended, and companies called back furloughed workers. What worried me, though, is that it already seemed to have run its course by the end of 2020, and we were moving in the wrong direction in December. That's why it was so encouraging to have month after month of uninterrupted extraordinary job creation once Biden took the helm. And that has been spread widely across the country, regardless of what party is in control of the governorships in each state. We've got states with sub-3% unemployment as politically diverse as Nebraska and Indiana, on the one hand, and Minnesota and Wisconsin, on the other. And while there are a few states that are still not under 5% (AK, NV, and NM), even that is quite good in historical terms.

Anyway, I understand your emotional attachment to calling these "returning jobs" instead of created jobs. That line of rhetoric has been pushed hard by conservative media, and it can be hard for those who spend their days mainlining such talking points to show any independence from that. Most will dutifully parrot whatever phrasing the apparatchiks assign to them. But this notion that we can only count job creation once we've reached a new all-time high is, of course, a convention that has not been embraced outside that little subculture. Going back decades, any time jobs were added it was counted as "job creation" without requiring we reach a new all-time high first.

For example:

One Cheer for the Treasury Tax Plan

(Archived document, may contain errors)

www.heritage.org

As you can see, the right-wing Heritage Foundation says "four million new jobs were created in 1983 alone." That's the figure you get if you count every net job added in the year as a job created. But what if you followed this brand new notion that you can't refer to job creation until we've reached a new all-time high. Then only 629,000 jobs were "created" in 1983, because you don't get to count until you have exceeded the prior record set in 1981.

Similarly:

Fact Sheet: September 2004 Jobs and Economy

In September 2004, the Bush White House was bragging about how over 1.9 million jobs had been created since August 2003. And that's correct, using the age-old convention of referring to all added jobs as job creation. But what if they'd embraced this bizarre new wingnut rule that says you can't talk about job creation until you've passed the old record high? Well, then, they couldn't claim even a single job had been created on Bush's watch until February 2005, when finally the old record was passed.

Of course nobody takes that new rhetorical gambit seriously. Even the wingnuts will abandon it the moment there's a Republican president again. But it's adorable to watch them "try to make fetch happen."

 

[Conservative]

Yes, we had good job creation in mid-2020, as lock-downs ended, and companies called back furloughed workers. What worried me, though, is that it already seemed to have run its course by the end of 2020, and we were moving in the wrong direction in December. That's why it was so encouraging to have month after month of uninterrupted extraordinary job creation once Biden took the helm. And that has been spread widely across the country, regardless of what party is in control of the governorships in each state. We've got states with sub-3% unemployment as politically diverse as Nebraska and Indiana, on the one hand, and Minnesota and Wisconsin, on the other. And while there are a few states that are still not under 5% (AK, NV, and NM), even that is quite good in historical terms.

If you bothered to check the employment data you would see that blue states were leading the nation in unemployment well into 2021 and when they reopened the employment picked up again, but what ou still cannot seem to grasp is that returning jobs aren't new jobs and Biden had nothing to do with the states reopening as those are under the control of the governor

Anyway, I understand your emotional attachment to calling these "returning jobs" instead of created jobs. That line of rhetoric has been pushed hard by conservative media, and it can be hard for those who spend their days mainlining such talking points to show any independence from that. Most will dutifully parrot whatever phrasing the apparatchiks assign to them. But this notion that we can only count job creation once we've reached a new all-time high is, of course, a convention that has not been embraced outside that little subculture. Going back decades, any time jobs were added it was counted as "job creation" without requiring we reach a new all-time high first.

the line of reason is logical, a business has 100 employees and shuts down laying off those employees who are then counted as unemployed, they reopen and bring those employees back those aren't new jobs but returning jobs. It may be job creation because of reopening but it isn't new job creation it is returning jobs

For example:
As you can see, the right-wing Heritage Foundation says "four million new jobs were created in 1983 alone." That's the figure you get if you count every net job added in the year as a job created. But what if you followed this brand new notion that you can't refer to job creation until we've reached a new all-time high. Then only 629,000 jobs were "created" in 1983, because you don't get to count until you have exceeded the prior record set in 1981.

Sorry but the reality remains 99 million employed when the recession stated 116 million jobs when Reagan left office that is 17 million NEW jobs created, booming economic growth that actually doubled and 49 states won.

Similarly:

In September 2004, the Bush White House was bragging about how over 1.9 million jobs had been created since August 2003. And that's correct, using the age-old convention of referring to all added jobs as job creation. But what if they'd embraced this bizarre new wingnut rule that says you can't talk about job creation until you've passed the old record high? Well, then, they couldn't claim even a single job had been created on Bush's watch until February 2005, when finally the old record was passed.

Of course nobody takes that new rhetorical gambit seriously. Even the wingnuts will abandon it the moment there's a Republican president again. But it's adorable to watch them "try to make fetch happen."

Sorry but liberal economics doesn't promote the private sector just gov't spending and creation of a dependent class. Bush's results are distorted just like Obama's as apparently Congress is irrelevant in the liberal world. Democrats controlled the Congress from January 2017 to January 2011 and the results are quite telling, results that you and the left want to ignore. 146 million were employed April 2008 under a Democrat Congress and we didn't get back to 146 million until 2012. There was 152 million when Obama left office that is 6 million new jobs created from April 2008 to January 2017, 159 million February 2020

 

[Mina]

Of course you don't Project warp speed gave us the vaccine in record time and Biden, Harris, and Democrat supporters said that couldn't happen nor would they trust it, that is the division the left wanted and the division that gave us Biden

No, that isn't normal with the economic results you claim he created. He promised to unite the country and failed, He failed in Afghanistan, he failed at the border, he failed with Iran, China, NK, and Russia, he failed on the economy but the D and perception is all that matters

Widely respected by who? You make generalization and again ignore basic civics, Obama lost over 60 House seats in 2010 due to his failed stimulus and failed policies, want to wager that Biden does worse. You continue to buy rhetoric and ignore reality, Republicans took the Congress in 2014-2016, do you know what Congress does?

When did Biden say it couldn't happen and that he wouldn't trust it? If you could provide a link, that would be helpful.

Anyway, I wasn't holding out hope that Biden would unite the country. When was the last time anyone can really be said to have done that? I suppose Osama Bin Laden did it briefly, but otherwise the general trend has been for us to get more divided over time. So, I didn't expect him to succeed there and haven't been disappointed. What I was expecting to happen is for Biden, like Obama and Trump before him, to abandon his promise to get us out of Afghanistan. I fully expected him to go down Trump's course of kicking the can down the road against and again, always promising an exit just on the horizon, but never delivering. Then, to my pleasant astonishment, he got us out of Afghanistan in just his first few months in office. That's part of why I went from being lukewarm, at best, on Biden, to being pretty pleased with his leadership. The man delivers.

As for Obama being widely respected, he was chosen as the world's most admired man in 2020, according to a Yougov poll.

 

[Mina]

If you bothered to check the employment data you would see that blue states were leading the nation in unemployment well into 2021 and when they reopened the employment picked up again, but what ou still cannot seem to grasp is that returning jobs aren't new jobs and Biden had nothing to do with the states reopening as those are under the control of the governor

the line of reason is logical, a business has 100 employees and shuts down laying off those employees who are then counted as unemployed, they reopen and bring those employees back those aren't new jobs but returning jobs. It may be job creation because of reopening but it isn't new job creation it is returning jobs

Sorry but the reality remains 99 million employed when the recession stated 116 million jobs when Reagan left office that is 17 million NEW jobs created, booming economic growth that actually doubled and 49 states won.

Sorry but liberal economics doesn't promote the private sector just gov't spending and creation of a dependent class. Bush's results are distorted just like Obama's as apparently Congress is irrelevant in the liberal world. Democrats controlled the Congress from January 2017 to January 2011 and the results are quite telling, results that you and the left want to ignore. 146 million were employed April 2008 under a Democrat Congress and we didn't get back to 146 million until 2012. There was 152 million when Obama left office that is 6 million new jobs created from April 2008 to January 2017, 159 million February 2020

Look, I get it: you really want to make "fetch" happen. But it's not going to happen. The convention of referring to all added jobs as job creation, rather than only after we exceeded a former all-time high, has been a nonpartisan thing for generation after generation. The mere fact it makes you feel icky how good that sounds for Biden isn't going to change all that.

 

[Conservative]

Look, I get it: you really want to make "fetch" happen. But it's not going to happen. The convention of referring to all added jobs as job creation, rather than only after we exceeded a former all-time high, has been a nonpartisan thing for generation after generation. The mere fact it makes you feel icky how good that sounds for Biden isn't going to change all that.

Liberal logic, 100 layoffs due to Covid, 100 job lost due to President Trump, 100 rehired when the company reopens, 100 new jobs created by Biden, Got it

 

[Conservative]

When did Biden say it couldn't happen and that he wouldn't trust it? If you could provide a link, that would be helpful.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/biden-trump-coronavirus-vaccine/2020/09/16/2ffbea6a-f831-11ea-a275-1a2c2d36e1f1_story.html

Anyway, I wasn't holding out hope that Biden would unite the country. When was the last time anyone can really be said to have done that? I suppose Osama Bin Laden did it briefly, but otherwise the general trend has been for us to get more divided over time. So, I didn't expect him to succeed there and haven't been disappointed. What I was expecting to happen is for Biden, like Obama and Trump before him, to abandon his promise to get us out of Afghanistan. I fully expected him to go down Trump's course of kicking the can down the road against and again, always promising an exit just on the horizon, but never delivering. Then, to my pleasant astonishment, he got us out of Afghanistan in just his first few months in office. That's part of why I went from being lukewarm, at best, on Biden, to being pretty pleased with his leadership. The man delivers.

As for Obama being widely respected, he was chosen as the world's most admired man in 2020, according to a Yougov poll.

Tell what in the liberal economic policies supports the private sector and doesn't create victims? Creating victims isn't unifying

Why did you admire Obama? Do actual results resonate with you? Trump was also person of the year

Time Person of the Year - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[Mina]

Liberal logic, 100 layoffs due to Covid, 100 job lost due to President Trump, 100 rehired when the company reopens, 100 new jobs created by Biden, Got it

This isn't about logic. It's about language. For as long as the BLS has been doing monthly jobs reports, the standard rhetorical convention is to refer to added jobs in a month as job creation. You've been handed your latest edition of the Newspeak dictionary by your right-wing media handlers and told to reject that generations-long convention and insist a job is only created once the nation has hit a new all-time jobs total. And it upsets you people aren't going along with it.

 

[Conservative]

This isn't about logic. It's about language. For as long as the BLS has been doing monthly jobs reports, the standard rhetorical convention is to refer to added jobs in a month as job creation. You've been handed your latest edition of the Newspeak dictionary by your right-wing media handlers and told to reject that generations-long convention and insist a job is only created once the nation has hit a new all-time jobs total. And it upsets you people aren't going along with it.

Right added jobs is job growth, not new job creation, a returning job is job growth but NOT new job creation

This isn't about logic. It's about language. For as long as the BLS has been doing monthly jobs reports, the standard rhetorical convention is to refer to added jobs in a month as job creation. You've been handed your latest edition of the Newspeak dictionary by your right-wing media handlers and told to reject that generations-long convention and insist a job is only created once the nation has hit a new all-time jobs total. And it upsets you people aren't going along with it.

This is about reality, the people got it, Trump had an over 60% approval rating on the economy, Biden's is 36% why?? Biden didn't create one job, Trump policies created almost 7 million. You still haven't told me why I got my first shot on January 6, 2020 and what Biden had to do with that?

 

[Mina]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/biden-trump-coronavirus-vaccine/2020/09/16/2ffbea6a-f831-11ea-a275-1a2c2d36e1f1_story.html

Tell what in the liberal economic policies supports the private sector and doesn't create victims? Creating victims isn't unifying

Why did you admire Obama? Do actual results resonate with you? Trump was also person of the year

Time Person of the Year - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Did you not read the article, or did you just assume I wouldn't? Again, the question was "When did Biden say it couldn't happen and that he wouldn't trust it?" He didn't say either of those things in the article. He simply said his trust would be dependent on getting honest answers to questions about safety, effectiveness and equitable distribution.

As for which liberal economics policies support the private sector, nearly all of them do. Why do you think private sector job creation is so much better, historically, under Democratic presidents than Republican ones? I grand cosmic coincidence?

I didn't say I admire Obama. But, yes, he was widely admired. And yes, actual results resonate with me. Obama may have had the most "across the board" improvements of any presidential era in living memory. It's hard to name a major indicator that DIDN'T improve on his watch. When he left, we had lower unemployment, higher stock values, lower deficits, higher real incomes, lower poverty rates, lower violent crime rates, lower incarceration rates, higher home values, and so on. Can you name any other presidential era for which you can say those things?

As for the Time Person of the Year designation, that's not an indicator of respect, but just influence. Hitler got it. Stalin got it twice.

 

[Mina]

Right added jobs is job growth, not new job creation, a returning job is job growth but NOT new job creation

This is about reality, the people got it, Trump had an over 60% approval rating on the economy, Biden's is 36% why?? Biden didn't create one job, Trump policies created almost 7 million. You still haven't told me why I got my first shot on January 6, 2020 and what Biden had to do with that?

To be clear, I totally understand the Newspeak rules you are trying to impose here. I'm just pointing out it goes against 80+ years of consistent financial writing and business communications. It's a semantic game you're trying to get people to adopt, just for the length of Biden's presidency, because it makes you sad how many jobs we've created on his watch.

Also, as you no doubt know, Trump inherited an economy with 145.6 million jobs and left one with 143.0 million. It was massive net job destruction of a magnitude not seen since Herbert Hoover.

 

[Conservative]

Did you not read the article, or did you just assume I wouldn't? Again, the question was "When did Biden say it couldn't happen and that he wouldn't trust it?" He didn't say either of those things in the article. He simply said his trust would be dependent on getting honest answers to questions about safety, effectiveness and equitable distribution.

LOL, pretty simple to me he didn't trust Trump and the vaccine, Not exactly sure what your issue is but I am obviously not going to change your mind or you change mine. Trust getting honest answers is quite suspicious, answers from who?

As for which liberal economics policies support the private sector, nearly all of them do. Why do you think private sector job creation is so much better, historically, under Democratic presidents than Republican ones? I grand cosmic coincidence?

then why does Biden have a 36% approval rating on the economy when Trump's was over 60%, that is typical leftwing rhetoric that you want to believe. The people know better.

I didn't say I admire Obama. But, yes, he was widely admired. And yes, actual results resonate with me. Obama may have had the most "across the board" improvements of any presidential era in living memory. It's hard to name a major indicator that DIDN'T improve on his watch. When he left, we had lower unemployment, higher stock values, lower deficits, higher real incomes, lower poverty rates, lower violent crime rates, lower incarceration rates, higher home values, and so on. Can you name any other presidential era for which you can say those things?

And yet Obama lost over 60 house seats in 2010, lost the House again in 12 and the Congress in 14-16, why? You keep ignoring official results buying rhetoric. The people voted his policies down and that is something you cannot seem to grasp

As for the Time Person of the Year designation, that's not an indicator of respect, but just influence. Hitler got it. Stalin got it twice.

Neither are Yougov poll numbers.

 

[Conservative]

To be clear, I totally understand the Newspeak rules you are trying to impose here. I'm just pointing out it goes against 80+ years of consistent financial writing and business communications. It's a semantic game you're trying to get people to adopt, just for the length of Biden's presidency, because it makes you sad how many jobs we've created on his watch.

Also, as you no doubt know, Trump inherited an economy with 145.6 million jobs and left one with 143.0 million. It was massive net job destruction of a magnitude not seen since Herbert Hoover.

It goes against logic, common sense and the American people's perception of results. A returning job isn't a new job created. Destruction of what magnitude? businesses closing down were going to reopen and many did. Biden wasn't involved in any of those reopening and if his results benefited the American people who wouldn't have a 36% approval rating on the economy.

There you go again, 146 million jobs inherited and 143 million when he left totally ignoring the 159 million in February 2020 as once again you speak out of both sides of your mouth claiming you wanted businesses shutdown to stop the spread of the virus when the reality is you wanted the poor economic numbers to blame on Trump. You got your wish and the country got the disaster we have in the WH right now. Your understanding of the private sector and civics is incredibly naive and wrong.

 

[Mina]

LOL, pretty simple to me he didn't trust Trump and the vaccine, Not exactly sure what your issue is but I am obviously not going to change your mind or you change mine. Trust getting honest answers is quite suspicious, answers from who?

then why does Biden have a 36% approval rating on the economy when Trump's was over 60%, that is typical leftwing rhetoric that you want to believe. The people know better.

And yet Obama lost over 60 house seats in 2010, lost the House again in 12 and the Congress in 14-16, why? You keep ignoring official results buying rhetoric. The people voted his policies down and that is something you cannot seem to grasp

Neither are Yougov poll numbers.

It was indeed pretty simple: he conditioned his trust on honest answers. It's telling that even a right-winger would take a lack of honesty from Trump as such a given that conditioning trust on honesty would be seen as equivalent to withholding trust no matter what.

As for Biden's approval rating on the economy, there's a long-running tendency for Democrats to poll worse but perform much, much better on that front. I think that's partly because they focus more on producing results for the nation, and less on self promotion.

As for Obama losing seats, it's really telling that you'd say "you keep ignoring official results." It's not that I'm ignoring official results. It's that we each are focused on a different area of results. For me, the goal of government is to improve people's lives. So, the results that matter to me for Obama is what happened to the poverty rate, real incomes, crime levels, etc. Those results matter. But for you, the goal of government is to acquire ever more power for the leaders, and so from that perspective Obama was a failure, since his party lost ground during his presidency and then ended up losing even the presidency. It all comes down to what you value.

 

[ElChupacabra]

This isn't about logic. It's about language. For as long as the BLS has been doing monthly jobs reports, the standard rhetorical convention is to refer to added jobs in a month as job creation. You've been handed your latest edition of the Newspeak dictionary by your right-wing media handlers and told to reject that generations-long convention and insist a job is only created once the nation has hit a new all-time jobs total. And it upsets you people aren't going along with it.

Apparently BLS is doing it all wrong. Clearly they have missed an opportunity to have internet randos dictate their statistical methodology.

 

[Mina]

Apparently BLS is doing it all wrong. Clearly they have missed an opportunity to have internet randos dictate their statistical methodology.

I would be more tolerant of that line of argument if I thought it was in good faith -- if I thought these "Internet randos" would apply their rhetorical rules consistently (e.g., that when someone talked about job creation in Bush's first term they'd chime in and say there was no job creation in Bush's first term, since we didn't get past the previous all-time-high job count until his second term). But they aren't in good faith. They invent new rules for the convenience of the moment, and will just as readily dispose of them when it's no longer convenient.

 

[Cope]

This isn't about logic. It's about language. For as long as the BLS has been doing monthly jobs reports, the standard rhetorical convention is to refer to added jobs in a month as job creation. You've been handed your latest edition of the Newspeak dictionary by your right-wing media handlers and told to reject that generations-long convention and insist a job is only created once the nation has hit a new all-time jobs total. And it upsets you people aren't going along with it.

I think it isn't he that is upset people aren't buying it.
I guess we will see come November

 

[Mina]

I think it isn't he that is upset people aren't buying it.
I guess we will see come November

In November, I fully expect the Republicans to win both houses of Congress. After all, we just came off the best job creation and economic growth in almost 40 years. Remember that Democrats are campaigning on a social safety net, while Republicans campaign on upper-class tax cuts. Which of those two is favored when years of strong economic growth have people thinking they'll soon be rich and won't ever need a safety net again?

There's a reason Dems lost both houses in 1994 and 2010. The better things are, the tastier Republican snake oil sounds. Often it takes a deep swig of that filth for the public to remember why they rejected it in the first place. And even then, it's incredibly hard for Dems to hold onto power for long. In 1952, 1968, 2000, and 2016, we had very low unemployment and the complacency that comes with such prosperity, and Democrats were shown the door. It's almost impossible for a Democrat to win an election when unemployment rates are under 5%, because that kind of prosperity has more voters thinking in terms of tax cuts and fewer thinking in terms of social safety nets.

Basically, Democrats succeed their way out of office, and only get back after the Republicans have sufficiently trashed the place to remind the voters how incompetent the GOP is. November 2020, with 6.7% unemployment, is favorable ground for Democrats to campaign on, but right now unemployment rates are 3.6% and falling, and that makes voters think they're temporarily embarrassed millionaires who will be well served by the right.