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

[cbirch2]

What has he done to fuel industrial growth?

Maybe you should take a quick peek at that graph ive posted of US industrial output through the 20th century. Under obama it has grown faster than even under bush's bubble.

 

[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.

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."

Fear mongering to pass through legislation.

EDIT: at least that's what I think, we will never know.

 

[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."

Fear mongering to pass through legislation.

That was two years after the legislation was passed friend

 

[Rocko]

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."

Fear mongering to pass through legislation.

That was two years after the legislation was passed friend

Ok, so he defended the controversial legislation, it's irrelevant, because it did pass, and Obama became president with the bail outs passed.

 

[cbirch2]

Fear mongering to pass through legislation.

That was two years after the legislation was passed friend

Ok, so he defended the controversial legislation, it's irrelevant, because it did pass, and Obama became president with the bail outs passed.

So your basic defense is that Paulson is just lying? Hmmm...solid argument! lol

and i hope you know obama didnt bail out the banks...if you were implying that...

 

[Rocko]

That was two years after the legislation was passed friend

Ok, so he defended the controversial legislation, it's irrelevant, because it did pass, and Obama became president with the bail outs passed.

So your basic defense is that Paulson is just lying? Hmmm...solid argument! lol

and i hope you know obama didnt bail out the banks...if you were implying that...

Paulson was defending what they did, and there's no way to tell whether he's right.

I wasn't implying it, but if you bring it up, then yes, he voted for it didn't he?

 

[cbirch2]

Ok, so he defended the controversial legislation, it's irrelevant, because it did pass, and Obama became president with the bail outs passed.

So your basic defense is that Paulson is just lying? Hmmm...solid argument! lol

and i hope you know obama didnt bail out the banks...if you were implying that...

Paulson was defending what they did, and there's no way to tell whether he's right.

I wasn't implying it, but if you bring it up, then yes, he voted for it didn't he?

Yes he did vote for it. I would have to. It was the only option. You cant just let the entire financial system collapse.

 

[cbirch2]

And the point was not that paulsen was able to tell the future, but that the treasury secretary was forcasting 25% unemployment. You specifically said he was not.

 

[Rocko]

And the point was not that paulsen was able to tell the future, but that the treasury secretary was forcasting 25% unemployment. You specifically said he was not.

He wasn't forecasting into the future, he was talking about what would have happened, had they not passed this piece of legislation.

 

[cbirch2]

And the point was not that paulsen was able to tell the future, but that the treasury secretary was forcasting 25% unemployment. You specifically said he was not.

He wasn't forecasting into the future, he was talking about what would have happened, had they not passed this piece of legislation.

Ok ill say this slowly....

The. treasury. secretary. thinks. unemployment. would. have. been. 25%. without. the. bailouts.

simple enough?

 

[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.

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.

actually I think its closer to 135-150k a month*shrugs*

 

[Trajan]

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.

please direct me to where I said that please.


..the debate is reids comments on prvt vs. public sector......

 

[Trajan]

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.

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?

oh for gods sake.

a)Labor Force Participation Rate Drops To 63.9%, Lowest Since January 1984

Labor Force Participation Rate Drops To 63.9%, Lowest Since January 1984 | ZeroHedge

b)" the economy needs to create close to 150,000 jobs a month just to keep up with population growth".
You do realize that those jobs add up and have to be accounted for before you can add a net + , right?

5 Questions About Today's Jobs Report - NYTimes.com

c) we are right back to the example I used, are we bleeding like we were in 08 and early 09? No, no argument there, is there a recovery where in more jobs have been created than lost, or a net gain in total employment over his tenure? no.

The net total job count is minus 2.9 million ( according to Veronique de Rugy at Reason magazine) and 3.3 million according to Heritage, since Heritage is touted as right of center,fine, I will go with Veronique's who writes for the Libertarian Reason magazine grp. ( and her figure was from exactly one year ago, Oct 2010).


you are being intellectually dishonest dude, you know that, right?

 

[bucs90]

Left wingers all think like this. The place for a person to be employed, or at least get a paycheck from, is the government.

The private sector is only for greedy white people who aren't good enough victims to depend on the government.

 

[LoneLaugher]

Nope. I don't think like that. You fail.

 

[8537]

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.

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




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?

oh for gods sake.

a)Labor Force Participation Rate Drops To 63.9%, Lowest Since January 1984

Labor Force Participation Rate Drops To 63.9%, Lowest Since January 1984 | ZeroHedge

Why would you quote an August figure? I gave you the actual numbers.

b)" the economy needs to create close to 150,000 jobs a month just to keep up with population growth".
You do realize that those jobs add up and have to be accounted for before you can add a net + , right?

No, the economy typically needs to add between 100,000 and 300,000 but the demographics of the job market are a critical factor. Ten years from now it will need to add less because people will be retiring at a faster rate than young people are entering the work force.

c) we are right back to the example I used, are we bleeding like we were in 08 and early 09? No, no argument there, is there a recovery where in more jobs have been created than lost, or a net gain in total employment over his tenure? no.

The net total job count is minus 2.9 million ( according to Veronique de Rugy at Reason magazine) and 3.3 million according to Heritage, since Heritage is touted as right of center,fine, I will go with Veronique's who writes for the Libertarian Reason magazine grp. ( and her figure was from exactly one year ago, Oct 2010).

We weren't discussing the net job count - we were discussing private sector job creation, which has been net positive for well over a year.

your continued intellectual dishonesty is not my concern.

 

[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.

actually I think its closer to 135-150k a month*shrugs*

Yeah, I meant to correct him by saying 150K

 

[Zander]

Does it really matter what he says? Harry Reid is a moron. The entire country knows that.....

 

[thereisnospoon]

This is unbelievable. Harry Reid--Democrat senate majority leader trying to push Obama's new job's bill through the senate makes this comment.

Private sector jobs are doing just fine--it's government jobs aka (public jobs) that are suffering.

You voted for it--You got it!

Sen. Reid Says "Private Sector Jobs Are Doing Just Fine" - YouTube

Obama must be furious with Reid....
With that statement, how in the world is Obama going to gain support for that "jobs" bill?
With the majority of the country on an anti federal government kick, there is no way in hell Obama is going to be permitted to get his hands on $500 billion to increase government employment.
Thanks ,Harry. You fucking champion of all champions!

 

[thereisnospoon]

This is unbelievable. Harry Reid--Democrat senate majority leader trying to push Obama's new job's bill through the senate makes this comment.

actually, last month and the month before, the number of private sector jobs created were canceled out by the number of government jobs terminated.

reality, it's quite a concept.

Ok Princess Vapidity, what's your point?