US economy adds more jobs in June than expected

[Conservative]

You don't have any credibility among non-partisan members of this forum.



My definition of having credibility is being able to actually articulate the topics you wish to discuss. Given your lack of ability to do so, you have zero.

LOL, name for me the non partisan members of this forum?

Thank you for your opinion which is worth as much as the Democratic Congressional and Presidential results and the Obama legacy

 

[MTAtech]

That is not a chart, but rather a poorly formatted array of data that represents part time employment for economic reason. As one can clearly observe, the data set increases from 8.046 million to a peak of 9.233 million (March 2010)... an increase of 1.17 million or 14%. Furthermore, this data set declines to 5.598 million as of December 2016, which is a decrease of 3.6 million (nearly 40%) and 2.6 million (30%) from the peak and start respectively.

In other words... the data only invalidates your position.



Doubt it. They failed to pass any relevant legislation that pertains to the U.S. economy.



Once again: The data set increases from 8.046 million to a peak of 9.233 million (March 2010)... an increase of 1.17 million or 14%. Furthermore, this data set declines to 5.598 million as of December 2016, which is a decrease of 3.6 million (nearly 40%) and 2.6 million (30%) from the peak and start respectively. This is simply a matter of fact.

Moreover, the table undercuts the narrative that the ACA created more part-time jobs.

 

[Kushinator]

Declined dramatically?

Yes!

Then you tell me why Obama with such great numbers in your opinion didn't keep the Congress in 2014-2016 and the Democrats lost the Presidency?

Obama was re-elected with a 5+ million popular vote margin and 126 points in the EC. He wasn't running for Congress in 2010, 2012, 2014, or 2016 and certainly wasn't running for President for a third term.

So the debt is a function of the economy?

Sure.

Name for me another President in US history that added 9.3 trillion in 8 years? 842 was the cost of the stimulus for shovel ready jobs, 842 BILLION which apparently shows how poorly informed you are regarding reality

Meaningless question.

 

[Kushinator]

Moreover, the table undercuts the narrative that the ACA created more part-time jobs.

Without a doubt.

 

[Kushinator]

LOL, name for me the non partisan members of this forum?

I don't care to name anyone. You are a known hypocrite that isn't taken seriously here @ DP. That is a fact Jack!

 

[Conservative]

Yes!



Obama was re-elected with a 5+ million popular vote margin and 126 points in the EC. He wasn't running for Congress in 2010, 2012, 2014, or 2016 and certainly wasn't running for President for a third term.



Sure.



Meaningless question.

No but his policies were on the ballot and he even said his legacy and policies were on the ballot in 2016, nice revisionist history. LOL, meaningless question? Only to someone who spends someone else's money. The Obama economy ran up a 9.3 trillion dollar debt, not enough for you?

 

[Conservative]

I don't care to name anyone. You are a known hypocrite that isn't taken seriously here @ DP. That is a fact Jack!

Got it, just another wild accusation that you cannot back up. Your facts are nothing more than your opinions

 

[Kushinator]

No but his policies were on the ballot

Your desire to deflect only exemplifies your inability to articulate the topic. Clearly, you are out of ammunition.

 

[Kushinator]

Got it, just another wild accusation that you cannot back up. Your facts are nothing more than your opinions

:lamo

....

 

[Lord Zerg]

Based upon that chart would someone point out to me when those numbers got back to pre recession levels? this is a measurement the left wants to ignore. Between 7 and 9 million between 2009-2014 isn't something to be proud of but it sure made the unemployment rate look better. Wonder who these people voted for?

Lets get some more complete data. As you can see this has fallen to normal levels.


Here are the levels:
Sep 2006: 4,115,000 (Lowest)
Dec 2007: 4,618,000 (Pre-recession)
Dec 2008: 8,029,000 (Beginning of Obama)
Sep 2010: 9,246,000 (Worst of it)
Dec 2016: 5,598,000 (End of Obama)
Jun 2017: 5,326,000 (Today)

Your claim that Obama is responsible for this is mindblowing..

 

[Conservative]

Lets get some more complete data. As you can see this has fallen to normal levels.
View attachment 67219947

Here are the levels:
Sep 2006: 4,115,000 (Lowest)
Dec 2007: 4,618,000 (Pre-recession)
Dec 2008: 8,029,000 (Beginning of Obama)
Sep 2010: 9,246,000 (Worst of it)
Dec 2016: 5,598,000 (End of Obama)
Jun 2017: 5,326,000 (Today)

Your claim that Obama is responsible for this is mindblowing..

As stated if you took 8 years and added 9.3 trillion dollars to the debt to generate those numbers you would have been fired. Results matter except to the left where perception is reality and actual results don't matter

 

[Lord Zerg]

As stated if you took 8 years and added 9.3 trillion dollars to the debt to generate those numbers you would have been fired. Results matter except to the left where perception is reality and actual results don't matter

You think the president has sole accountability for everything that goes on in a massive economy when all he can really do is approve laws passed by Congress which stopped doing anything after 2 years? The economy was collapsing and this could have easily turned into another depression and Europe still hasn't recovered from this so I think taking 9 years isn't so bad. Reagan took 4 years and that was with a much smaller recession and an economy that recovered from recessions a lot more quickly. In addition Bush added 5 trillion to the debt (not factoring for the 25% inflation) in much better economic times, funding a disastrous war, started with a very good economy and ended with one in collapse.

 

[roughdraft274]

The economy is drastically different from when Obama left office, the entire attitude of the business community and the elimination of Obama era taxes on businesses has made the numbers much better.

I posted the chart showing the difference between June 2016 and June 2017, here it is again, let's see if you can figure out the difference? Hint 500,000 has something to do with the numbers



Obviously headlines trump context

The numbers are going down in the same fashion they were before Trump took office. Look at May for instance. 2015 was 6563 and 2016 was 5970. An improvement. And it improved again in 2017. But not in any kind of way that looks drastically different from what I can tell. The numbers tell the story that it plateaued in 2009/2010 because of the recession and have been improving ever since. Again, what is drastically different?

 

[roughdraft274]

Does post 294 confuse you? I find it quite telling how actual data confuses a lot of liberals and refutes the mainstream media headlines that promote the ideology of the left. The obvious way to quiet a liberal is to post verifiable data and that happens here a lot only to find the left ignoring the data, never responding but moving on like the data never existed in the first place.

What is different than in the past are the numbers of Part time for economic reasons and discouraged workers. We had strong growth in the labor market and now have a record number of people working in our economy. Obama had that opportunity but blew it. He created a lot of part time jobs as businesses responded to his economic policies by lowering costs through the hiring of part time employees or people who were then under employed. Hope that makes some sense to you

Why would you insult me for not understanding a post before I had even read that post? Give me a chance to respond at least before you start making **** up Con.

 

[Cigar]

God Bless Donald Trump :mrgreen:

Call me when he gets to Obama's Record :2razz:

 

[Conservative]

You think the president has sole accountability for everything that goes on in a massive economy when all he can really do is approve laws passed by Congress which stopped doing anything after 2 years? The economy was collapsing and this could have easily turned into another depression and Europe still hasn't recovered from this so I think taking 9 years isn't so bad. Reagan took 4 years and that was with a much smaller recession and an economy that recovered from recessions a lot more quickly. In addition Bush added 5 trillion to the debt (not factoring for the 25% inflation) in much better economic times, funding a disastrous war, started with a very good economy and ended with one in collapse.

No, I understand our economy completely just like I understand the responsibilities of leadership. Maybe you ought to figure both those out as well. You buy the media spin, the economy wasn't collapsing it was coming out of Recession due to TARP that started in December 2007. Your claim that Reagan had a much smaller recession is laughable. How old were you then? I lived and worked during both and you are out of touch with reality but keep buying the liberal spin. the 81-82 recession was every bit as bad as this one and actually affected more people due to the fact that inflation played a role, check out the misery index in both.

Too many people want to prop up the Obama legacy but that is too late, his actual results speak for themselves as do Reagan's whose stimulus was ALL tax cuts, NO SPENDING, Economic Recovery Act of 1981 and Reagan's plan wasn't even passed until August after taking office in January, Obama's was signed in February. Reagan cut taxes three years in a row, doubled GDP, created almost 17 million jobs(99 million to 116 Million), grew FIT Revenue over 60% with those tax revenues.

Stop buying the rhetoric and get the actual facts, bea.gov, bls.gov, and Treasury.org

 

[Conservative]

The numbers are going down in the same fashion they were before Trump took office. Look at May for instance. 2015 was 6563 and 2016 was 5970. An improvement. And it improved again in 2017. But not in any kind of way that looks drastically different from what I can tell. The numbers tell the story that it plateaued in 2009/2010 because of the recession and have been improving ever since. Again, what is drastically different?

Look, when you spend as much money as Obama did the numbers better come down, the problem is it took 7 years to get there after going up and staying up so long. I does look drastically different but that isn't what you want to see because context is being ignored. The kind of jobs being created today, manufacturing, mining, construction are all improving to decade old numbers all because of taxes and regulations being lowered

 

[Conservative]

Why would you insult me for not understanding a post before I had even read that post? Give me a chance to respond at least before you start making **** up Con.

Seemed like a very logical question to me, sorry if you think that was an insult

 

[Conservative]

God Bless Donald Trump :mrgreen:

Call me when he gets to Obama's Record :2razz:

What record would that be, debt, part time for economic reasons, discouraged workers, labor participation rate, no year of GDP Growth of 3%? Seems you have very low standards

 

[American]

Microsoft Expected to Cut “Three Thousand” of Jobs

Microsoft to Lay Off 3K Sales Employees, Will Focus on Cloud | Fortune.com


Next!

Was that due to the poor economy?

 

[roughdraft274]

Seemed like a very logical question to me, sorry if you think that was an insult

A logical question to ask someone why they don't understand a question before they are able to read the question? How logical of you. :roll:

 

[roughdraft274]

Look, when you spend as much money as Obama did the numbers better come down, the problem is it took 7 years to get there after going up and staying up so long. I does look drastically different but that isn't what you want to see because context is being ignored. The kind of jobs being created today, manufacturing, mining, construction are all improving to decade old numbers all because of taxes and regulations being lowered

But on that chart you can find decreases similar to that of 2017. The decreases from 2014 to 2015 to 2016 are not very different than from 2016 to 2017. If you want to change the topic and now instead argue that the big difference is that the jobs created now are in mining and manufacturing and construction and are some how better paying and more helpful to the economy I'm all ears. Again, I'm not saying that the economy has gotten worse, I just don't see how anyone can say that it's drastically different.

 

[Conservative]

But on that chart you can find decreases similar to that of 2017. The decreases from 2014 to 2015 to 2016 are not very different than from 2016 to 2017. If you want to change the topic and now instead argue that the big difference is that the jobs created now are in mining and manufacturing and construction and are some how better paying and more helpful to the economy I'm all ears. Again, I'm not saying that the economy has gotten worse, I just don't see how anyone can say that it's drastically different.

View attachment 67219965
View attachment 67219966

You seem to miss the point, Obama had 8 years and added 9.3 trillion to the debt doing nothing for the jobs market other than creating part time jobs for economic reasons, In 6 months with the elimination of taxes and regulations on those businesses the numbers are better than any that Obama ever created and Trump didn't implement an 842 billion stimulus to generate them. It is all about results in context and if your expectations were that it would take this long to get back to pre recession levels then your expectations are quite low as is your knowledge of how those numbers got there.

Obama was anti business, pro class warfare and business saw that through their higher taxes and EPA regulations. the entire mood of our business community has changed positively with the election of Trump

 

[Conservative]

A logical question to ask someone why they don't understand a question before they are able to read the question? How logical of you. :roll:

Logical yes, practical no. You still don't seem to understand how long it took to gain these numbers nor the damage he did to the economy and business. The election results gave you the answer but too many choose not to accept those results. Had Obama generated the positive economic numbers the left wants to claim he wouldn't have lost the Congress in 2014-2016 and Democrats would have retained the WH. The problem is the numbers represent real people and the part time employees for economic reasons gives you and idea what the true picture of the economy was along with the final U-6 number he left the country with. Improvement from the historic highs HE GENERATED, yes, but at what cost and over what period of time?

 

[Kushinator]

No, I understand our economy completely

We know this isn't true.

just like I understand the responsibilities of leadership.

Highly doubtful.

the economy wasn't collapsing it was coming out of Recession due to TARP that started in December 2007.

The economy wasn't going into recession due to insufficient banking capital. To the contrary, we went into an economic decline primarily for two reasons: 1.) a reduction (and then subsequent plunge) in private domestic investment 2.) the interest rate environment was not conducive in allowing for proper re-payment of private credit. That isn't to say a real estate bubble and then a financial didn't occur... oh no, that happened much later.

Please keep in mind the differences between real GDP and the labor market.

Your claim that Reagan had a much smaller recession is laughable. How old were you then? I lived and worked during both and you are out of touch with reality but keep buying the liberal spin. the 81-82 recession was every bit as bad as this one and actually affected more people due to the fact that inflation played a role, check out the misery index in both.

In 1981, the Fed induced an economic downturn in order to fight inflation. Clearly this isn't even comparable with the great recession, given the Fed made extraordinary moves in order to soften the blow in late 2008.

Too many people want to prop up the Obama legacy but that is too late, his actual results speak for themselves as do Reagan's whose stimulus was ALL tax cuts, NO SPENDING, Economic Recovery Act of 1981 and Reagan's plan wasn't even passed until August after taking office in January, Obama's was signed in February. Reagan cut taxes three years in a row, doubled GDP, created almost 17 million jobs(99 million to 116 Million), grew FIT Revenue over 60% with those tax revenues.

As stated on multiple occasions, they were entirely different downturns with unique origins.

Stop buying the rhetoric and get the actual facts, bea.gov, bls.gov, and Treasury.org

Stop pretending to have anything of value to say in this discussion.