Jobs Report
Options
Replies
-
Graphs are always fun. Here is the first, showing private-sector job creation under Bush and Obama:
And here is the second, showing public-sector jobs:
That pretty much sums it up. I actually posted these graphs in an earlier discussion on a similar topic. The facts are that millions of new jobs have been created in the private sector--moreso than during the same period of the Bush administration. The difference is due to the drastic cuts in public sector jobs during this same period.
If you go back to the ARRA, you will remember that a big chunk of the bill was providing funds to states to maintain the jobs of teachers, police, and firefighters--all part of the public sector. The right wing has always lied about this as a "Obama payoff to unions", instead of what it really was. After that money was gone, and the jobs have been eliminated, we can clearly see the effects.
I don't want to lay everything at the feet of "republican obstructionism", but it cannot be ignored or denied that those political tactics have played a big role in the slow jobs recovery. As has the fact that the eurozone is slipping back into recession (many think it is due to application of the same "austerity" measures republicans want to try here), and that growth is slowing in China and India.
There are a number of economists right now who are saying there is not much anyone can do right now
http://economywatch.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/09/07/13728411-weak-jobs-growth-beyond-governments-control?lite
So we are kind of stuck. There is no political will to do the things that are known to help (e.g. stimulus-type actions); uncertainly about what to do with one sector still dragging everything down (housing), and the other alternative being offered (from republicans) are actions that about 90 percent of economists agree would make things worse (except for a very select few).
Right now, that's the story of the election: a lot of people are disappointed in the performance of the Obama administration, but they are reasonably certain that republicans suck and they are absolutely certain that Romney sucks. That is why you continue to see the odds strongly in favor of Obama's re-election, although I sill think a lot of the numbers are soft. As I pointed out in another article I cited in a previous discussion, a number of people like Obama, but are looking for Romney to give them a reason to vote for him. Luckily, so far, Romney only continues to give them reasons to think he's a d!ck.
But there are debates coming up, and Romney has at least $300 million to buy himself a lot of "truthiness", so I still think this is anyone's race.
Graphs are fun. They tell the story you want told.
http:/www./factcheck.org/2012/06/obamas-economic-sleight-of-hand/
The real story is there are only 300k more people working now then when Obama got elected. Work force participation is at the lowest it's been since 1981. Obama has a tough sell.
btw... Democrats talking about money makes me giggle like a school girl.
http://www.factcheck.org/2008/11/advertising-money-mccain-vs-obama/0 -
Graphs are always fun. Here is the first, showing private-sector job creation under Bush and Obama:
And here is the second, showing public-sector jobs:
That pretty much sums it up. I actually posted these graphs in an earlier discussion on a similar topic. The facts are that millions of new jobs have been created in the private sector--moreso than during the same period of the Bush administration. The difference is due to the drastic cuts in public sector jobs during this same period.
If you go back to the ARRA, you will remember that a big chunk of the bill was providing funds to states to maintain the jobs of teachers, police, and firefighters--all part of the public sector. The right wing has always lied about this as a "Obama payoff to unions", instead of what it really was. After that money was gone, and the jobs have been eliminated, we can clearly see the effects.
I don't want to lay everything at the feet of "republican obstructionism", but it cannot be ignored or denied that those political tactics have played a big role in the slow jobs recovery. As has the fact that the eurozone is slipping back into recession (many think it is due to application of the same "austerity" measures republicans want to try here), and that growth is slowing in China and India.
There are a number of economists right now who are saying there is not much anyone can do right now
http://economywatch.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/09/07/13728411-weak-jobs-growth-beyond-governments-control?lite
So we are kind of stuck. There is no political will to do the things that are known to help (e.g. stimulus-type actions); uncertainly about what to do with one sector still dragging everything down (housing), and the other alternative being offered (from republicans) are actions that about 90 percent of economists agree would make things worse (except for a very select few).
Right now, that's the story of the election: a lot of people are disappointed in the performance of the Obama administration, but they are reasonably certain that republicans suck and they are absolutely certain that Romney sucks. That is why you continue to see the odds strongly in favor of Obama's re-election, although I sill think a lot of the numbers are soft. As I pointed out in another article I cited in a previous discussion, a number of people like Obama, but are looking for Romney to give them a reason to vote for him. Luckily, so far, Romney only continues to give them reasons to think he's a d!ck.
But there are debates coming up, and Romney has at least $300 million to buy himself a lot of "truthiness", so I still think this is anyone's race.
Graphs are fun. They tell the story you want told.
http:/www./factcheck.org/2012/06/obamas-economic-sleight-of-hand/
The real story is there are only 300k more people working now then when Obama got elected. Work force participation is at the lowest it's been since 1981. Obama has a tough sell.
btw... Democrats talking about money makes me giggle like a school girl.
http://www.factcheck.org/2008/11/advertising-money-mccain-vs-obama/
Well, if everyone is done giggling now, I have some things to add. So since Obama took office, we have only gained 300K jobs. Well....if that is true, that would mean that he had had some job growth. If this is the argument that I shouldn't vote for him and go back to the Republicans....why couldn't they fix the economy in the 8 years we were in decline when GWB was in office and bottomed out in 2008? Even if you could make the case that some how the economic downturn was Clintons fault, they still had 8 years of Bush to fix it...and he didn't, it just got worse. Why does Obama only get 4 years? So why should I vote for a Republicans who are clearly embracing almost all of GWBs fiscal and foreign policies if they had no tanked the economy completely? Sounds to me like this is weird debating tactic, that Obama has only been minorly successful, so let's relect a party that was completly unsuccessful?0 -
Graphs are always fun. Here is the first, showing private-sector job creation under Bush and Obama:
And here is the second, showing public-sector jobs:
That pretty much sums it up. I actually posted these graphs in an earlier discussion on a similar topic. The facts are that millions of new jobs have been created in the private sector--moreso than during the same period of the Bush administration. The difference is due to the drastic cuts in public sector jobs during this same period.
If you go back to the ARRA, you will remember that a big chunk of the bill was providing funds to states to maintain the jobs of teachers, police, and firefighters--all part of the public sector. The right wing has always lied about this as a "Obama payoff to unions", instead of what it really was. After that money was gone, and the jobs have been eliminated, we can clearly see the effects.
I don't want to lay everything at the feet of "republican obstructionism", but it cannot be ignored or denied that those political tactics have played a big role in the slow jobs recovery. As has the fact that the eurozone is slipping back into recession (many think it is due to application of the same "austerity" measures republicans want to try here), and that growth is slowing in China and India.
There are a number of economists right now who are saying there is not much anyone can do right now
http://economywatch.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/09/07/13728411-weak-jobs-growth-beyond-governments-control?lite
So we are kind of stuck. There is no political will to do the things that are known to help (e.g. stimulus-type actions); uncertainly about what to do with one sector still dragging everything down (housing), and the other alternative being offered (from republicans) are actions that about 90 percent of economists agree would make things worse (except for a very select few).
Right now, that's the story of the election: a lot of people are disappointed in the performance of the Obama administration, but they are reasonably certain that republicans suck and they are absolutely certain that Romney sucks. That is why you continue to see the odds strongly in favor of Obama's re-election, although I sill think a lot of the numbers are soft. As I pointed out in another article I cited in a previous discussion, a number of people like Obama, but are looking for Romney to give them a reason to vote for him. Luckily, so far, Romney only continues to give them reasons to think he's a d!ck.
But there are debates coming up, and Romney has at least $300 million to buy himself a lot of "truthiness", so I still think this is anyone's race.
Graphs are fun. They tell the story you want told.
http:/www./factcheck.org/2012/06/obamas-economic-sleight-of-hand/
The real story is there are only 300k more people working now then when Obama got elected. Work force participation is at the lowest it's been since 1981. Obama has a tough sell.
btw... Democrats talking about money makes me giggle like a school girl.
http://www.factcheck.org/2008/11/advertising-money-mccain-vs-obama/
So, basically you are saying you don't have a substantive response.0 -
Graphs are always fun. Here is the first, showing private-sector job creation under Bush and Obama:
And here is the second, showing public-sector jobs:
That pretty much sums it up. I actually posted these graphs in an earlier discussion on a similar topic. The facts are that millions of new jobs have been created in the private sector--moreso than during the same period of the Bush administration. The difference is due to the drastic cuts in public sector jobs during this same period.
If you go back to the ARRA, you will remember that a big chunk of the bill was providing funds to states to maintain the jobs of teachers, police, and firefighters--all part of the public sector. The right wing has always lied about this as a "Obama payoff to unions", instead of what it really was. After that money was gone, and the jobs have been eliminated, we can clearly see the effects.
I don't want to lay everything at the feet of "republican obstructionism", but it cannot be ignored or denied that those political tactics have played a big role in the slow jobs recovery. As has the fact that the eurozone is slipping back into recession (many think it is due to application of the same "austerity" measures republicans want to try here), and that growth is slowing in China and India.
There are a number of economists right now who are saying there is not much anyone can do right now
http://economywatch.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/09/07/13728411-weak-jobs-growth-beyond-governments-control?lite
So we are kind of stuck. There is no political will to do the things that are known to help (e.g. stimulus-type actions); uncertainly about what to do with one sector still dragging everything down (housing), and the other alternative being offered (from republicans) are actions that about 90 percent of economists agree would make things worse (except for a very select few).
Right now, that's the story of the election: a lot of people are disappointed in the performance of the Obama administration, but they are reasonably certain that republicans suck and they are absolutely certain that Romney sucks. That is why you continue to see the odds strongly in favor of Obama's re-election, although I sill think a lot of the numbers are soft. As I pointed out in another article I cited in a previous discussion, a number of people like Obama, but are looking for Romney to give them a reason to vote for him. Luckily, so far, Romney only continues to give them reasons to think he's a d!ck.
But there are debates coming up, and Romney has at least $300 million to buy himself a lot of "truthiness", so I still think this is anyone's race.
Graphs are fun. They tell the story you want told.
http:/www./factcheck.org/2012/06/obamas-economic-sleight-of-hand/
The real story is there are only 300k more people working now then when Obama got elected. Work force participation is at the lowest it's been since 1981. Obama has a tough sell.
btw... Democrats talking about money makes me giggle like a school girl.
http://www.factcheck.org/2008/11/advertising-money-mccain-vs-obama/
Well, if everyone is done giggling now, I have some things to add. So since Obama took office, we have only gained 300K jobs. Well....if that is true, that would mean that he had had some job growth. If this is the argument that I shouldn't vote for him and go back to the Republicans....why couldn't they fix the economy in the 8 years we were in decline when GWB was in office and bottomed out in 2008? Even if you could make the case that some how the economic downturn was Clintons fault, they still had 8 years of Bush to fix it...and he didn't, it just got worse. Why does Obama only get 4 years? So why should I vote for a Republicans who are clearly embracing almost all of GWBs fiscal and foreign policies if they had no tanked the economy completely? Sounds to me like this is weird debating tactic, that Obama has only been minorly successful, so let's relect a party that was completly unsuccessful?
I think a lot of people feel that way, which is why Obama is still out in front in an election that, by historical standards, he has no business even being competitive.
That and the fact that republicans have backed themselves into a demographic corner by making "angry white guys" the cornerstone of their electoral strategy, and excluding all African Americans, 2/3 of Latinos, and 60% of women.
The recent conventions drew a sharp contrast between the two candidates and the two parties in a way that has rarely happened during my lifetime. Basically, deep down, Americans want to feel positive and I think most of them want to feel they are a part of a shared community with a shared purpose. Republicans have based their future on the tea party, which at its peak only had about a 30% approval rating. And Bill Clinton made a lot of people feel like it was OK to support Obama again (which still mystifies me that he has that kind of appeal, even now).
I still think that this election is going to be unique enough that the old historical patterns do not offer a reliable template for predicting the outcome. But I also feel at this point that the Romney/Ryan team has yet to give anyone a reason to vote for them, other than as an "anti-Obama" alternative. And since neither of them can take a consistent position for even a full day, it's hard to see how that will change.0 -
Graphs are always fun. Here is the first, showing private-sector job creation under Bush and Obama:
And here is the second, showing public-sector jobs:
That pretty much sums it up. I actually posted these graphs in an earlier discussion on a similar topic. The facts are that millions of new jobs have been created in the private sector--moreso than during the same period of the Bush administration. The difference is due to the drastic cuts in public sector jobs during this same period.
If you go back to the ARRA, you will remember that a big chunk of the bill was providing funds to states to maintain the jobs of teachers, police, and firefighters--all part of the public sector. The right wing has always lied about this as a "Obama payoff to unions", instead of what it really was. After that money was gone, and the jobs have been eliminated, we can clearly see the effects.
I don't want to lay everything at the feet of "republican obstructionism", but it cannot be ignored or denied that those political tactics have played a big role in the slow jobs recovery. As has the fact that the eurozone is slipping back into recession (many think it is due to application of the same "austerity" measures republicans want to try here), and that growth is slowing in China and India.
There are a number of economists right now who are saying there is not much anyone can do right now
http://economywatch.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/09/07/13728411-weak-jobs-growth-beyond-governments-control?lite
So we are kind of stuck. There is no political will to do the things that are known to help (e.g. stimulus-type actions); uncertainly about what to do with one sector still dragging everything down (housing), and the other alternative being offered (from republicans) are actions that about 90 percent of economists agree would make things worse (except for a very select few).
Right now, that's the story of the election: a lot of people are disappointed in the performance of the Obama administration, but they are reasonably certain that republicans suck and they are absolutely certain that Romney sucks. That is why you continue to see the odds strongly in favor of Obama's re-election, although I sill think a lot of the numbers are soft. As I pointed out in another article I cited in a previous discussion, a number of people like Obama, but are looking for Romney to give them a reason to vote for him. Luckily, so far, Romney only continues to give them reasons to think he's a d!ck.
But there are debates coming up, and Romney has at least $300 million to buy himself a lot of "truthiness", so I still think this is anyone's race.
Graphs are fun. They tell the story you want told.
http:/www./factcheck.org/2012/06/obamas-economic-sleight-of-hand/
The real story is there are only 300k more people working now then when Obama got elected. Work force participation is at the lowest it's been since 1981. Obama has a tough sell.
btw... Democrats talking about money makes me giggle like a school girl.
http://www.factcheck.org/2008/11/advertising-money-mccain-vs-obama/
Fixed my link
http://factcheck.org/2012/06/obamas-economic-sleight-of-hand/0 -
Graphs are always fun. Here is the first, showing private-sector job creation under Bush and Obama:
And here is the second, showing public-sector jobs:
That pretty much sums it up. I actually posted these graphs in an earlier discussion on a similar topic. The facts are that millions of new jobs have been created in the private sector--moreso than during the same period of the Bush administration. The difference is due to the drastic cuts in public sector jobs during this same period.
If you go back to the ARRA, you will remember that a big chunk of the bill was providing funds to states to maintain the jobs of teachers, police, and firefighters--all part of the public sector. The right wing has always lied about this as a "Obama payoff to unions", instead of what it really was. After that money was gone, and the jobs have been eliminated, we can clearly see the effects.
I don't want to lay everything at the feet of "republican obstructionism", but it cannot be ignored or denied that those political tactics have played a big role in the slow jobs recovery. As has the fact that the eurozone is slipping back into recession (many think it is due to application of the same "austerity" measures republicans want to try here), and that growth is slowing in China and India.
There are a number of economists right now who are saying there is not much anyone can do right now
http://economywatch.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/09/07/13728411-weak-jobs-growth-beyond-governments-control?lite
So we are kind of stuck. There is no political will to do the things that are known to help (e.g. stimulus-type actions); uncertainly about what to do with one sector still dragging everything down (housing), and the other alternative being offered (from republicans) are actions that about 90 percent of economists agree would make things worse (except for a very select few).
Right now, that's the story of the election: a lot of people are disappointed in the performance of the Obama administration, but they are reasonably certain that republicans suck and they are absolutely certain that Romney sucks. That is why you continue to see the odds strongly in favor of Obama's re-election, although I sill think a lot of the numbers are soft. As I pointed out in another article I cited in a previous discussion, a number of people like Obama, but are looking for Romney to give them a reason to vote for him. Luckily, so far, Romney only continues to give them reasons to think he's a d!ck.
But there are debates coming up, and Romney has at least $300 million to buy himself a lot of "truthiness", so I still think this is anyone's race.
Graphs are fun. They tell the story you want told.
http:/www./factcheck.org/2012/06/obamas-economic-sleight-of-hand/
The real story is there are only 300k more people working now then when Obama got elected. Work force participation is at the lowest it's been since 1981. Obama has a tough sell.
btw... Democrats talking about money makes me giggle like a school girl.
http://www.factcheck.org/2008/11/advertising-money-mccain-vs-obama/
Well, if everyone is done giggling now, I have some things to add. So since Obama took office, we have only gained 300K jobs. Well....if that is true, that would mean that he had had some job growth. If this is the argument that I shouldn't vote for him and go back to the Republicans....why couldn't they fix the economy in the 8 years we were in decline when GWB was in office and bottomed out in 2008? Even if you could make the case that some how the economic downturn was Clintons fault, they still had 8 years of Bush to fix it...and he didn't, it just got worse. Why does Obama only get 4 years? So why should I vote for a Republicans who are clearly embracing almost all of GWBs fiscal and foreign policies if they had no tanked the economy completely? Sounds to me like this is weird debating tactic, that Obama has only been minorly successful, so let's relect a party that was completly unsuccessful?
GWB had 9/11 and inherited a recession in his first term. He also had two wars, one of which I don't agree with but that is for another thread. Despite that, the economy was in recovery by the time he was up for reelection. In addition, the unemployment rate was >2% less then it is right now when he was up for reelection. Has any sitting president been reelected with an unemployment rate over 8%? I am too lazy to look it up but I don't think so.
You and other Libs would vote for a stick figure with a D in his title. Why should an independent vote for Obama with his current record? Right now the only thing Obama has going for him is he is running against Romney which we don't want either.0 -
Graphs are always fun. Here is the first, showing private-sector job creation under Bush and Obama:
And here is the second, showing public-sector jobs:
That pretty much sums it up. I actually posted these graphs in an earlier discussion on a similar topic. The facts are that millions of new jobs have been created in the private sector--moreso than during the same period of the Bush administration. The difference is due to the drastic cuts in public sector jobs during this same period.
If you go back to the ARRA, you will remember that a big chunk of the bill was providing funds to states to maintain the jobs of teachers, police, and firefighters--all part of the public sector. The right wing has always lied about this as a "Obama payoff to unions", instead of what it really was. After that money was gone, and the jobs have been eliminated, we can clearly see the effects.
I don't want to lay everything at the feet of "republican obstructionism", but it cannot be ignored or denied that those political tactics have played a big role in the slow jobs recovery. As has the fact that the eurozone is slipping back into recession (many think it is due to application of the same "austerity" measures republicans want to try here), and that growth is slowing in China and India.
There are a number of economists right now who are saying there is not much anyone can do right now
http://economywatch.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/09/07/13728411-weak-jobs-growth-beyond-governments-control?lite
So we are kind of stuck. There is no political will to do the things that are known to help (e.g. stimulus-type actions); uncertainly about what to do with one sector still dragging everything down (housing), and the other alternative being offered (from republicans) are actions that about 90 percent of economists agree would make things worse (except for a very select few).
Right now, that's the story of the election: a lot of people are disappointed in the performance of the Obama administration, but they are reasonably certain that republicans suck and they are absolutely certain that Romney sucks. That is why you continue to see the odds strongly in favor of Obama's re-election, although I sill think a lot of the numbers are soft. As I pointed out in another article I cited in a previous discussion, a number of people like Obama, but are looking for Romney to give them a reason to vote for him. Luckily, so far, Romney only continues to give them reasons to think he's a d!ck.
But there are debates coming up, and Romney has at least $300 million to buy himself a lot of "truthiness", so I still think this is anyone's race.
Graphs are fun. They tell the story you want told.
http:/www./factcheck.org/2012/06/obamas-economic-sleight-of-hand/
The real story is there are only 300k more people working now then when Obama got elected. Work force participation is at the lowest it's been since 1981. Obama has a tough sell.
btw... Democrats talking about money makes me giggle like a school girl.
http://www.factcheck.org/2008/11/advertising-money-mccain-vs-obama/
Well, if everyone is done giggling now, I have some things to add. So since Obama took office, we have only gained 300K jobs. Well....if that is true, that would mean that he had had some job growth. If this is the argument that I shouldn't vote for him and go back to the Republicans....why couldn't they fix the economy in the 8 years we were in decline when GWB was in office and bottomed out in 2008? Even if you could make the case that some how the economic downturn was Clintons fault, they still had 8 years of Bush to fix it...and he didn't, it just got worse. Why does Obama only get 4 years? So why should I vote for a Republicans who are clearly embracing almost all of GWBs fiscal and foreign policies if they had no tanked the economy completely? Sounds to me like this is weird debating tactic, that Obama has only been minorly successful, so let's relect a party that was completly unsuccessful?
GWB had 9/11 and inherited a recession in his first term. He also had two wars, one of which I don't agree with but that is for another thread. Despite that, the economy was in recovery by the time he was up for reelection. In addition, the unemployment rate was >2% less then it is right now when he was up for reelection. Has any sitting president been reelected with an unemployment rate over 8%? I am too lazy to look it up but I don't think so.
You and other Libs would vote for a stick figure with a D in his title. Why should an independent vote for Obama with his current record? Right now the only thing Obama has going for him is he is running against Romney which we don't want either.
GWB had a recession to inherit. The only person I have ever heard claim this was Sean Hannity. That right there should be enough for any rational person to question it. As to 9/11......ok, if it caused financial hardship, why couldn't Bush fix it in 7 years....why did it keep getting worse with a metldown at the end of his presidency? If two wars are the reason he couldn't, Obama also had those wars, so doesn't he get that excuse as well?
As far as libs voting for anyone with a D....are you seriously making the case the conservatives aren't as biased? Is this a joke? As a matter of fact, the libs are actually known to be a lot more disorganized because of their failure to band together because of differences on issues. Republicans have always been the party that falls in line.
ic
And once again in this thread as in on others, you seem to be lacking basic reading comprehension skills. Never once did I say I was voting for Obama in my post. I simply asked questions and pointed out extremely flawed logic in your arguments. As far as being a liberal....yeah, I'm really liberal on social issues, probably more of a libertarian on those issues. But as far as fiscal ideology goes, the conservatives have never shown once that they are any more capable of running an econmy than the liberals are. Not once. Trickle down economics is a failure in the global economy. I just read an article last week that with the tax cuts GWB gave the top 1%, that in spite of the recession this nation has more wealth than we ever had before.
It's just all at the top. But instead of reinvesting it and being "job creators" the filthy rich are hording it like dragons and when they do invest it, it's in third world countries with no worker protection rights, making sneakers with 7 years old child labor and crap like that.0 -
I will have to find it again, but recently I have been reading articles that state that companies are bringing their work back from overseas, because it is more beneficial for them to have their workforce here.
Oh yes and isn't that the greatest news? Another supposed tale of humility and redemption. Just google "resourcing" and the hits are immense. What the news doesn't recount, however, except in fine print, is the net gain or loss by net production wages and benefits. Workers are hired back at lower wages and less or non-existent benefits such as health. The only redemption from this latest slight of hand is the PR spin towards beleagured corporate employers.0 -
Aww China! The communist country that has benefitted from our "capitalism".
Capitalism knows no political ideaological boundaries. Don't you love it? Stalin used it all by himself to bring his country into the Industrial Age. He didn't even need U.S. help. ha!0 -
At least we're going up, not down. I do have to say you can't really blame or credit Obama for anything over the last 2 years, because congress refuses to pass any of his legislation and the senate shoots down anything passed by the house, so the president never even has anything to sign or veto. I for one think Democratic policies are better for the economy, but neither side really understands the problem.0
-
It's just all at the top. But instead of reinvesting it and being "job creators" the filthy rich are hording it like dragons and when they do invest it, it's in third world countries with no worker protection rights, making sneakers with 7 years old child labor and crap like that.
Exactly. When the workers have money, they spend it, making everybody, including the rich, richer. When only the rich have money, they have no way to really grow their wealth in a meaningful way and end up just inflating asset bubbles.0
