• Please read the Announcement concerning missing posts from 10/8/25-10/15/25.
  • 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!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

I refuse to vote for Mitt Romney

Here is how all government jobs grew during the Reagan presidency:

Series Id:
CES9000000001
Seasonally Adjusted

Super Sector:
Government

Industry:
Government

NAICS Code:
-

Data Type:
ALL EMPLOYEES, THOUSANDS



[TABLE="class: grid"]
[TR]
[TD]Year[/TD]
[TD]Jan[/TD]
[TD]Feb[/TD]
[TD]Mar[/TD]
[TD]Apr[/TD]
[TD]May[/TD]
[TD]Jun[/TD]
[TD]Jul[/TD]
[TD]Aug[/TD]
[TD]Sep[/TD]
[TD]Oct[/TD]
[TD]Nov[/TD]
[TD]Dec[/TD]
[TD]Total[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]1981[/TD]
[TD]-13[/TD]
[TD]-14[/TD]
[TD]-54[/TD]
[TD]-32[/TD]
[TD]-62[/TD]
[TD]-39[/TD]
[TD]16[/TD]
[TD]-65[/TD]
[TD]-79[/TD]
[TD]38[/TD]
[TD]9[/TD]
[TD]-5[/TD]
[TD]-300[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]1982[/TD]
[TD]-32[/TD]
[TD]-30[/TD]
[TD]13[/TD]
[TD]-14[/TD]
[TD]-7[/TD]
[TD]13[/TD]
[TD]-126[/TD]
[TD]40[/TD]
[TD]-7[/TD]
[TD]33[/TD]
[TD]21[/TD]
[TD]4[/TD]
[TD]-92[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]1983[/TD]
[TD]42[/TD]
[TD]-19[/TD]
[TD]1[/TD]
[TD]-15[/TD]
[TD]15[/TD]
[TD]15[/TD]
[TD]-9[/TD]
[TD]5[/TD]
[TD]26[/TD]
[TD]-56[/TD]
[TD]11[/TD]
[TD]11[/TD]
[TD]27[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]1984[/TD]
[TD]2[/TD]
[TD]15[/TD]
[TD]5[/TD]
[TD]45[/TD]
[TD]28[/TD]
[TD]24[/TD]
[TD]45[/TD]
[TD]52[/TD]
[TD]31[/TD]
[TD]19[/TD]
[TD]37[/TD]
[TD]-29[/TD]
[TD]274[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]1985[/TD]
[TD]54[/TD]
[TD]13[/TD]
[TD]46[/TD]
[TD]35[/TD]
[TD]44[/TD]
[TD]24[/TD]
[TD]122[/TD]
[TD]-1[/TD]
[TD]19[/TD]
[TD]16[/TD]
[TD]20[/TD]
[TD]20[/TD]
[TD]412[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]1986[/TD]
[TD]21[/TD]
[TD]44[/TD]
[TD]-4[/TD]
[TD]10[/TD]
[TD]25[/TD]
[TD]-11[/TD]
[TD]0[/TD]
[TD]21[/TD]
[TD]110[/TD]
[TD]59[/TD]
[TD]36[/TD]
[TD]16[/TD]
[TD]327[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]1987[/TD]
[TD]24[/TD]
[TD]-9[/TD]
[TD]28[/TD]
[TD]45[/TD]
[TD]3[/TD]
[TD]12[/TD]
[TD]36[/TD]
[TD]12[/TD]
[TD]-37[/TD]
[TD]134[/TD]
[TD]30[/TD]
[TD]48[/TD]
[TD]326[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]1988[/TD]
[TD]18[/TD]
[TD]24[/TD]
[TD]58[/TD]
[TD]5[/TD]
[TD]29[/TD]
[TD]34[/TD]
[TD]-21[/TD]
[TD]50[/TD]
[TD]90[/TD]
[TD]36[/TD]
[TD]76[/TD]
[TD]-10[/TD]
[TD]389[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Total[/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[TD]1363[/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]

As the chart for private sector jobs shows, 14.7 million private sector jobs were created during the Reagan term of the 16.8 million jobs created meaning 2.1 million government jobs. Pretty good percentage difference.
 
And saving a job doesn't add to unemployment....now are you going some where with this or not?

Exactly, now show me where jobs saved are calculated anywhere verifiable and official? Saved jobs is a trumped up number that Obama supporters have bought from the liar in chief.
 
Exactly, now show me where jobs saved are calculated anywhere verifiable and official? Saved jobs is a trumped up number that Obama supporters have bought from the liar in chief.

Gawd you're lazy:

HOW RECOVERY AWARD RECIPIENTS CALCULATE JOBS
recoverysign.jpg
Recipients of Recovery Act contracts, grants, and loans are required to report quarterly on the number of jobs paid for with Recovery funds. The method or formula for calculating jobs was simplified after the first round of recipient reporting.
How did the job estimate guidance change?

  • The initial guidance captured jobs for a period of time longer than a quarter (February through September). The new guidance captures jobs for a single quarter (e.g., October through December). In addition, the new guidance eliminates the distinction between a job created and a job retained. Jobs are now simply based on the number of hours worked in a quarter that were paid for by Recovery funds.
It does not matter if the hours were worked by a person who was newly hired, a person whose job was saved by the Recovery Act, or a person who is in an existing position that is now being funded by the Recovery Act.
In December 2009, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) issued the changes in guidance to align with the recommendations of the Government Accountability Office. OMB believes the new formula will help improve the overall quality of recipient reporting.

The Math

  • If a normal full-time schedule is 40 hours a week, multiply 40 hours x 52 weeks = 2,080 Total Hours per year
  • Divide 2,080 Total Hours by 4 to equal 520 regular quarterly hours.
  • If two full-time employees each worked 520 hours (1,040 hours) for the quarter and another half-time employee worked 260 hours, the Total Hours for the three employees is 1300 (520 + 520 + 260 = 1300).
  • Divide 1300 by 520 to equal 2.5 Recovery funded jobs during that quarter.
The revisions are detailed in the Office of Management and Budget's

How Jobs are Calculated
 
As the chart for private sector jobs shows, 14.7 million private sector jobs were created during the Reagan term of the 16.8 million jobs created meaning 2.1 million government jobs. Pretty good percentage difference.
Holy ****!

You really think you can subtract payroll data from household survey data to conclude 2.1 million were government jobs???


:screwy:screwy:screwy
 
Gawd you're lazy:

HOW RECOVERY AWARD RECIPIENTS CALCULATE JOBS
recoverysign.jpg
Recipients of Recovery Act contracts, grants, and loans are required to report quarterly on the number of jobs paid for with Recovery funds. The method or formula for calculating jobs was simplified after the first round of recipient reporting.
How did the job estimate guidance change?

  • The initial guidance captured jobs for a period of time longer than a quarter (February through September). The new guidance captures jobs for a single quarter (e.g., October through December). In addition, the new guidance eliminates the distinction between a job created and a job retained. Jobs are now simply based on the number of hours worked in a quarter that were paid for by Recovery funds.
It does not matter if the hours were worked by a person who was newly hired, a person whose job was saved by the Recovery Act, or a person who is in an existing position that is now being funded by the Recovery Act.
In December 2009, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) issued the changes in guidance to align with the recommendations of the Government Accountability Office. OMB believes the new formula will help improve the overall quality of recipient reporting.

The Math

  • If a normal full-time schedule is 40 hours a week, multiply 40 hours x 52 weeks = 2,080 Total Hours per year
  • Divide 2,080 Total Hours by 4 to equal 520 regular quarterly hours.
  • If two full-time employees each worked 520 hours (1,040 hours) for the quarter and another half-time employee worked 260 hours, the Total Hours for the three employees is 1300 (520 + 520 + 260 = 1300).
  • Divide 1300 by 520 to equal 2.5 Recovery funded jobs during that quarter.
The revisions are detailed in the Office of Management and Budget's


How Jobs are Calculated

So in other words there is no verifiable source like BLS to calculate those numbers. Thanks
 
Looks to me like the unemployment data, hardly saved jobs. You really have been brainwashed
But I got the number from you when you said 3.5 million jobs were saved/created.

December, 2010: 14,485,000

According to you, that number would have been 18 million unemployed.

Given how much you celebrate gloom and doom, no doubt you would have been much happier with 18 million unemployed instead if 14½ million unemployed.
 
It reflects saved jobs.

In your dream, show me any definition on the BLS site that defines saved jobs. You want badly to believe what Obama tells you but all that does is make you look more foolish than you are.
 
LOL, hardly, there is nothing in BLS that calculates saved jobs. Neither the Household or Establishmet surveys capture saved jobs.

Well if you want to support your rehtoric about saved jobs you better hop to it. If not it is just rhtoric.
 
Well if you want to support your rehtoric about saved jobs you better hop to it. If not it is just rhtoric.

Obama supporters are the ones claiming saved jobs, not me. I don't buy the numbers because as you accurately pointed out it can be whatever they want it to be. BLS is the keeper of the data and BLS doesn't calculate a saved job and I believe you know that.
 
Obama supporters are the ones claiming saved jobs, not me. I don't buy the numbers because as you accurately pointed out it can be whatever they want it to be. BLS is the keeper of the data and BLS doesn't calculate a saved job and I believe you know that.

And yet we know that many jobs WERE saved via direct stimulus to the states that the states used to avoid layoffs. Ergo, the bls data that you read like pornography is incomplete.
 
And yet we know that many jobs WERE saved via direct stimulus to the states that the states used to avoid layoffs. Ergo, the bls data that you read like pornography is incomplete.

no, we don't know that, but were told that and you believed it, I don't. It was the states responsibility to pay for those jobs not the Federal Taxpayers.

I can see why you don't like bls data, it is verifiable, it is non partisan, and it doesn't present what have been told and want to believe.
 
LOL....Conservative you KILL us with the irony of your posts......too funny.

Looking for Obama to bail your state out, aren't you? Why should the taxpayers of the other states bailout California? With the Obama record I wouldn't be concerned about someone else's competence.
 
no, we don't know that, but were told that and you believed it, I don't. It was the states responsibility to pay for those jobs not the Federal Taxpayers.

I can see why you don't like bls data, it is verifiable, it is non partisan, and it doesn't present what have been told and want to believe.

Regardless of who's responsibility it was, the FACT is that the states were able to retain many workers who they would have had to lay off but for the stimulus. That's not even debatable. Hell, even YOUR state recently used close to $10 billion in stimulus funds to close its budget gap.
 
Regardless of who's responsibility it was, the FACT is that the states were able to retain many workers who they would have had to lay off but for the stimulus. That's not even debatable. Hell, even YOUR state recently used close to $10 billion in stimulus funds to close its budget gap.

How do you know the states would have laid off those employees? You bought the rhetoric but have no idea whether it was accurate or not. It is totally debatable except to the liberal kool-aid drinkers. my state used stimulus money to help pay for Federal mandates like increases in unemployment and Medicaid. Who do you think should pay for Federal Mandates?

As for state jobs, why is it my state's responsibility to pay for teachers and police in your community? Is there no end to what liberals expect from taxpayers in other areas?
 
How do you know the states would have laid off those employees?

Uh, because they said so? Because it's obvious? Because they would have had no choice? You pick -- all three are valid.
 
Back
Top Bottom