Harry Reid says PRIVATE SECTOR jobs doing fine--it's GOV jobs that are suffering

[Samson]

The responses from the left in here are comical. So blind from partisanship. Unemployment is 9.1 but everything is a okay. Laughable

There goes a nutter.

Nobody said everything is a-okay. All that has been said is that the economy is better off now than it was the day Obama took over. The facts are clear. PRIVATE SECTOR job losses have stopped and GDP is up. These are facts.

Losses in the public sector......due to the foolish cuts in spending that have taken place in many states....have dampened the recovery.

You, Gramps, are being lied to. Nutters who buy the lies about our economy usually do so for one of three reasons:

They have been frightened by bullshit rhetoric on talk radio and FOX.

They are sociially conservative and care more about abortions and gay sex than about jobs.

They are bigots and want nothing more than to have Obama out of office.

What is your reason for believing things that are just not true?

Fox? Bigots? Gay sex?



What the fuck is wrong with you? Please seek help... you desperately need it.

LoneLaughter was attempting to parody himself?

 

[cbirch2]

John Chambers S&P Head Explains Why They Decided To Downgrade The U.S. Credit Rating - YouTube

specifically says that projected deficits came second to political instability when making their decision

One again you've proven my point. John Chambers is specifically asked whether S&P wanted to see spending cuts or revenue increases and he responds by saying the S&P does not take stands on how a deficit reduction is achieved. Sorry, but you're full of hot air.

He also does not put deficits "second" to political instability...he cites them equally as problems...but what's important is that the reason they are concerned about the political instability is that they don't think deficit reduction can be achieved with the political polarization now present in Washington.

"Compared with previous projections, our revised base case scenario now assumes that the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts, due to expire by the end of 2012, remain in place. We have changed our assumption on this because the majority of Republicans in Congress continue to resist any measure that would raise
revenues, a position we believe Congress reinforced by passing the act."

I will admit that entitlement programs contribute to their analysis. Of course they do. But in their report the do mention the $700 billion in revenue from the repeal of the tax cuts, and of course a lot about medicare.

 

[Frolicking Dino]

Cbirch is correct - S & P cited the brinksmanship as the reason for the downgrade and warned the US that it was going to happen if they failed to reach a compromise roughly 10 days before the deadline. This was front page news in the foreign press, but the US media was making up reasons to suit their agendas.

They also cited the failure to allow the Bush-era tax cuts to expire as a strong secondary reason.

 

[Oldstyle]

Straight from the report-

"We lowered our long-term rating on the U.S. because we believe that the
prolonged controversy over raising the statutory debt ceiling and the related
fiscal policy debate indicate that further near-term progress containing the
growth in public spending, especially on entitlements, or on reaching an
agreement on raising revenues is less likely than we previously assumed and
will remain a contentious and fitful process."


So while the ability to pay bond holders is of course a chief concern, the problem their addressing is our inability to do anything. cause by republicans.

But i would just like to say that the director of S&P did directly single out repeal of the bush tax cuts, as well as warning against austerity that would harm economic growth. That is fact.

What you just quoted was S&P's concerns over our ability in "containing the growth in public spending, especially entitlements...". Do you not understand what that's in reference to? That's S&P saying they don't think Washington is serious about cutting the deficit.

As for the Director singling out the repeal of the Bush tax cuts? Let's see his quote if he did so. I think you're misinformed.

"Compared with previous projections, our revised base case scenario now assumes that the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts, due to expire by the end of 2012, remain in place. We have changed our assumption on this because the majority of Republicans in Congress continue to resist any measure that would raise
revenues, a position we believe Congress reinforced by passing the act."

I'm not sure what your point is. The Bush tax cuts were extended because both Republicans AND many Democrats realized that letting them expire would bring what little economic growth we do have to a grinding halt. S&P adjusted their projections to take that into account. If we had allowed the Bush tax cuts to expire and revenues declined from a slow down of the economy then S&P would have adjusted their projections for that scenario as well.

 

[Trajan]

So when you said it was manipulated you didn't mean the data was manipulated?

OK then. Move along.

there can be manipulation in the final product, as to how it got there as the date is charted.... while using acruate data...you get that...right?

so read my post, beginning to end, its quite clear what I am referring to and I why I used the term 'mischaracterization' as well, ...if you are playing games don't waste my fucking time...ok?

I read your post just fine, thanks.

What part of the presentation of the data is inaccurate or...emmm..."manipulated"?

if you can't answer that question don't waste my fucking time....ok?

you are fixated on a small part pf what my post says and are still asking the wrong question becasue you apparently are incapable of parsing a post in its entity, you stopped reading and comprehending where it was convenient for you......



so;

a) what is the present labor force part. rate?

b) how many jobs are required to be created to meet the level of new entrants into the job force per month?

c) there are 'new' jobs created every month, of ever year, of every decade, even during the depression, there is always a churn in the labor market.


ispo- saying they are creating new jobs means exactly squat, its a throw away dazzle them with bullshit graph/ chart/ statement , the NET jobs pic has not improved, see? its like me saying ....I saved your arm but both your legs are mashed, who cares? "New" is a phony political term in this context.

Get it now?

 

[Lovebears65]

What part does the left not get .. You need more private sector jobs to pay the paychecks of the public sector. They are paid by our tax dollars. If you dont have a solid private sector there is no way they can hire public employees especially the ones that are union because they want the highest pay and benefits.

 

[Rocko]

The responses from the left in here are comical. So blind from partisanship. Unemployment is 9.1 but everything is a okay. Laughable

And conservatives pretend that somehow an economy adding 100,000 jobs a month is somehow worse off than an economy shedding 800,000.

That right there is full on idiot.

The economy is growing faster under obama than it did under bush. The problem is that the economy under bush contracted the most in 100 years and obama now has to dig out of that hole.

Those stats are pointless when you need 250k just to keep up with population growth.

Its 250K

Obama inherited a recession that was coming to an end...the economy is cyclical, and under Obama we were do for a recovery....Under Obama the growth has been revised to lower than expected consistantly since he's been president.....we have seen anemic growth under this administration and might be headed for a double dip.

 

[Oldstyle]

Cbirch is correct - S & P cited the brinksmanship as the reason for the downgrade and warned the US that it was going to happen if they failed to reach a compromise roughly 10 days before the deadline. This was front page news in the foreign press, but the US media was making up reasons to suit their agendas.

That's a crock, Dino...S&P was warning the US far in advance of the deadline that we would be downgraded if we didn't address our deficit problem seriously. I believe they put the US on two separate "warnings"...the first back in the early Spring and the other in June or July. In response you had people like Timothy Geithner pooh poohing the warnings, guaranteeing that we wouldn't be downgraded.

 

[Trajan]

And conservatives pretend that somehow an economy adding 100,000 jobs a month is somehow worse off than an economy shedding 800,000.

That right there is full on idiot.



The economy is growing faster under obama than it did under bush. The problem is that the economy under bush contracted the most in 100 years and obama now has to dig out of that hole.

Those stats are pointless when you need 250k just to keep up with population growth.

Those stats are pointless? how is that pointless? That is US GDP, which is used to measure our ability to pay off debt, and the industrial production index.

So now GDP and amount of industrial production mean absolutely nothing? wow, your one intelligent economist....

The reason we dont have 250k growth is a) lack of stimulus b) public sector job cuts.

But not to mention...

Anyone that claims an economy adding 100,000 jobs in spite of austerity measures (now) is worse than an economy shedding 800,000 jobs with massive spending is a totally oblivious moron.

oh for god sakes why yes of course one of mr. Enron Pauls banana chompers......

oh and here ya go...cheese strawman for you ........

 

[cbirch2]

John Chambers S&P Head Explains Why They Decided To Downgrade The U.S. Credit Rating - YouTube

specifically says that projected deficits came second to political instability when making their decision

One again you've proven my point. John Chambers is specifically asked whether S&P wanted to see spending cuts or revenue increases and he responds by saying the S&P does not take stands on how a deficit reduction is achieved. Sorry, but you're full of hot air.

He also does not put deficits "second" to political instability...he cites them equally as problems...but what's important is that the reason they are concerned about the political instability is that they don't think deficit reduction can be achieved with the political polarization now present in Washington.

http://www.standardandpoors.com/ser...lobwhere=1243942957443&blobheadervalue3=UTF-8

read the report yourself. There is considerably more about unstable policy making than there is about the actual payment of our debt. At one point it says by 2021 would be "high relative to our peers" but thats about it.

 

[8537]

there can be manipulation in the final product, as to how it got there as the date is charted.... while using acruate data...you get that...right?

so read my post, beginning to end, its quite clear what I am referring to and I why I used the term 'mischaracterization' as well, ...if you are playing games don't waste my fucking time...ok?

I read your post just fine, thanks.

What part of the presentation of the data is inaccurate or...emmm..."manipulated"?

if you can't answer that question don't waste my fucking time....ok?

you are fixated on a small part pf what my post says and are still asking the wrong question becasue you apparently are incapable of parsing a post in its entity, you stopped reading and comprehending where it was convenient for you......



so;

a) what is the present labor force part. rate?

The labor force was 154,185,000 when Obama took office. It's now 154,017. And the economy has created private-sector jobs for well over a year.

b) how many jobs are required to be created to meet the level of new entrants into the job force per month?

That depends on how many people enter the job force each month.

c) there are 'new' jobs created every month, of ever year, of every decade, even during the depression, there is always a churn in the labor market.

The jobs number is a net figure, not a gross.

ispo- saying they are creating new jobs means exactly squat, its a throw away dazzle them with bullshit graph/ chart/ statement , the NET jobs pic has not improved, see? its like me saying ....I saved your arm but both your legs are mashed, who cares? "New" is a phony political term in this context.

The net job picture has improved - and dramatically so. We've gone from a net loss of 800,000 jobs per month to a net gain averaging about 100K per month over the past year.

Get it now?

 

[cbirch2]

Those stats are pointless when you need 250k just to keep up with population growth.

Those stats are pointless? how is that pointless? That is US GDP, which is used to measure our ability to pay off debt, and the industrial production index.

So now GDP and amount of industrial production mean absolutely nothing? wow, your one intelligent economist....

The reason we dont have 250k growth is a) lack of stimulus b) public sector job cuts.

But not to mention...

Anyone that claims an economy adding 100,000 jobs in spite of austerity measures (now) is worse than an economy shedding 800,000 jobs with massive spending is a totally oblivious moron.

oh for god sakes why yes of course one of mr. Enron Pauls banana chompers......

oh and here ya go...cheese strawman for you ........

how is that a strawman? your saying the economy is worse off and im saying your a retard.

 

[cbirch2]

Cbirch is correct - S & P cited the brinksmanship as the reason for the downgrade and warned the US that it was going to happen if they failed to reach a compromise roughly 10 days before the deadline. This was front page news in the foreign press, but the US media was making up reasons to suit their agendas.

That's a crock, Dino...S&P was warning the US far in advance of the deadline that we would be downgraded if we didn't address our deficit problem seriously. I believe they put the US on two separate "warnings"...the first back in the early Spring and the other in June or July. In response you had people like Timothy Geithner pooh poohing the warnings, guaranteeing that we wouldn't be downgraded.

"The political brinksmanship of recent months highlights what we see as
America's governance and policymaking becoming less stable, less effective,
and less predictable than what we previously believed. The statutory debt
ceiling and the threat of default have become political bargaining chips in
the debate over fiscal policy. Despite this year's wide-ranging debate, in our
view, the differences between political parties have proven to be"
extraordinarily difficult to bridge"

Fuck you.

 

[cbirch2]

And conservatives pretend that somehow an economy adding 100,000 jobs a month is somehow worse off than an economy shedding 800,000.

That right there is full on idiot.

The economy is growing faster under obama than it did under bush. The problem is that the economy under bush contracted the most in 100 years and obama now has to dig out of that hole.

Those stats are pointless when you need 250k just to keep up with population growth.

Its 250K

Obama inherited a recession that was coming to an end...the economy is cyclical, and under Obama we were do for a recovery....Under Obama the growth has been revised to lower than expected consistantly since he's been president.....we have seen anemic growth under this administration and might be headed for a double dip.

Are you serious? Economists were predicting 25% unemployment in 2008. This wasnt part of the normal business cycle. Look at the first graph at the top. This was the largest single drop in US GDP and industrial output in its entire history. Look at the effects of the business cycle throughout the entire 20th century in the graph of industrial production. Theyre all tiny bumps that follow a single trend line. The bush recession dipped below that. Look at the new trend line in industrial production. Its as if the 90's boom never happened.

And despite that the growth of industrial production under obama was still faster than even under bushes bubble.

 

[Rocko]

Those stats are pointless when you need 250k just to keep up with population growth.

Its 250K

Obama inherited a recession that was coming to an end...the economy is cyclical, and under Obama we were do for a recovery....Under Obama the growth has been revised to lower than expected consistantly since he's been president.....we have seen anemic growth under this administration and might be headed for a double dip.

Are you serious? Economists were predicting 25% unemployment in 2008. This wasnt part of the normal business cycle. Look at the first graph at the top. This was the largest single drop in US GDP and industrial output in its entire history. Look at the effects of the business cycle throughout the entire 20th century in the graph of industrial production. Theyre all tiny bumps that follow a single trend line. The bush recession dipped below that. Look at the new trend line in industrial production. Its as if the 90's boom never happened.

And despite that the growth of industrial production under obama was still faster than even under bushes bubble.

I was talking about GDP...I know it may sound like a broken record, but by the administrations own standards, they said the stimulus would keep us under 8% unemployment....Should we not judge them by their own standards?

What about all the deficits? does that not matter? What has he done to fuel industrial growth?

 

[Rocko]

And let me also say the fed nor the treasury secretary from the last administration ever predicted 25% unemployment...Maybe if well known economists were that bearish, maybe they were referring to the real unemployment rate.

 

[cbirch2]

Its 250K

Obama inherited a recession that was coming to an end...the economy is cyclical, and under Obama we were do for a recovery....Under Obama the growth has been revised to lower than expected consistantly since he's been president.....we have seen anemic growth under this administration and might be headed for a double dip.

Are you serious? Economists were predicting 25% unemployment in 2008. This wasnt part of the normal business cycle. Look at the first graph at the top. This was the largest single drop in US GDP and industrial output in its entire history. Look at the effects of the business cycle throughout the entire 20th century in the graph of industrial production. Theyre all tiny bumps that follow a single trend line. The bush recession dipped below that. Look at the new trend line in industrial production. Its as if the 90's boom never happened.

And despite that the growth of industrial production under obama was still faster than even under bushes bubble.

I was talking about GDP...I know it may sound like a broken record, but by the administrations own standards, they said the stimulus would keep us under 8% unemployment....Should we not judge them by their own standards?

What about all the deficits? does that not matter? What has he done to fuel industrial growth?

GDP for 2008 was revised down considerably, should we not also take that into account??
GDP Revisions: Deeper 2008-09 Contraction, Milder 2001 Recession - Real Time Economics - WSJ

 

[Rocko]

Are you serious? Economists were predicting 25% unemployment in 2008. This wasnt part of the normal business cycle. Look at the first graph at the top. This was the largest single drop in US GDP and industrial output in its entire history. Look at the effects of the business cycle throughout the entire 20th century in the graph of industrial production. Theyre all tiny bumps that follow a single trend line. The bush recession dipped below that. Look at the new trend line in industrial production. Its as if the 90's boom never happened.

And despite that the growth of industrial production under obama was still faster than even under bushes bubble.

I was talking about GDP...I know it may sound like a broken record, but by the administrations own standards, they said the stimulus would keep us under 8% unemployment....Should we not judge them by their own standards?

What about all the deficits? does that not matter? What has he done to fuel industrial growth?

GDP for 2008 was revised down considerably, should we not also take that into account??
GDP Revisions: Deeper 2008-09 Contraction, Milder 2001 Recession - Real Time Economics - WSJ

How many time was it revised down after 2008? Should we not take that into account?

 

[cbirch2]

And let me also say the fed nor the treasury secretary from the last administration ever predicted 25% unemployment...Maybe if well known economists were that bearish, maybe they were referring to the real unemployment rate.

Paulson: 25% unemployment rate without AIG bailout - MarketWatch

"Facing criticism on Capitol Hill, former Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson on Wednesday defended his decision to complete a $182 billion bailout of American International Group Inc., arguing that the unemployment rate would have risen easily to 25% without the bailout."

 

[cbirch2]

I was talking about GDP...I know it may sound like a broken record, but by the administrations own standards, they said the stimulus would keep us under 8% unemployment....Should we not judge them by their own standards?

What about all the deficits? does that not matter? What has he done to fuel industrial growth?

GDP for 2008 was revised down considerably, should we not also take that into account??
GDP Revisions: Deeper 2008-09 Contraction, Milder 2001 Recession - Real Time Economics - WSJ

How many time was it revised down after 2008? Should we not take that into account?

Lol i thought you did about 2 posts ago when you judged them by their own standards. Stop trying to one up me.

After the stimulus was passed GDP was revised down considerably. There was no way they could have known the extent of the problem.