Let us get this budget surplus and deficit stuff straight once and for all

[The Rabbi]

Lack of ability to find water is leading factor in dehydration!
Lack of food is leading factor in starvation!
Lack of brain is leading factor in Rabbi's posts!

I see you are too stupid to grasp the basic point.
Still waiting to see a reference for the numbers you posted.

I gave you explicit directions about how to run the query. I'm certain everyone else in this thread could follow them. Of course, they involve addition so you might not understand it.

You're obfuscating. Post the exact citation and link or STFU.

 

[8537]

I see you are too stupid to grasp the basic point.
Still waiting to see a reference for the numbers you posted.

I gave you explicit directions about how to run the query. I'm certain everyone else in this thread could follow them. Of course, they involve addition so you might not understand it.

You're obfuscating. Post the exact citation and link or STFU.

Listen idiot, it's a query. You have to input the parameters yourself.

Here, give it a try!

Go to U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics

subject areas --> national employment --> change in total nonfarm payroll dinosaur --> customize the query as needed.

Then, add.

The query results look like this, with better formatting:
2000 249 121 472 286 225 -46 163 3 122 -11 231 138
2001 -16 61 -30 -281 -44 -128 -125 -160 -244 -325 -292 -178
2002 -132 -147 -24 -85 -7 45 -97 -16 -55 126 8 -156
2003 83 -158 -212 -49 -6 -2 25 -42 103 203 18 124
2004 150 43 338 250 310 81 47 121 160 351 64 132
2005 136 240 142 360 169 246 369 195 63 84 334 158
2006 281 317 287 182 11 80 202 185 156 -8 205 180
2007 203 88 218 79 141 67 -49 -26 69 91 127 84
2008 13 -83 -72 -185 -233 -178 -231 -267 -434 -509 -802 -619
2009 -820 -726 -796 -660 -386 -502 -300 -231 -236 -221 -55 -130

 

[RDD_1210]

I gave you explicit directions about how to run the query. I'm certain everyone else in this thread could follow them. Of course, they involve addition so you might not understand it.

You're obfuscating. Post the exact citation and link or STFU.

Listen idiot, it's a query. You have to input the parameters yourself.

Here, give it a try!

Go to U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics

subject areas --> national employment --> change in total nonfarm payroll dinosaur --> customize the query as needed.

Then, add.

The query results look like this, with better formatting:
2000 249 121 472 286 225 -46 163 3 122 -11 231 138
2001 -16 61 -30 -281 -44 -128 -125 -160 -244 -325 -292 -178
2002 -132 -147 -24 -85 -7 45 -97 -16 -55 126 8 -156
2003 83 -158 -212 -49 -6 -2 25 -42 103 203 18 124
2004 150 43 338 250 310 81 47 121 160 351 64 132
2005 136 240 142 360 169 246 369 195 63 84 334 158
2006 281 317 287 182 11 80 202 185 156 -8 205 180
2007 203 88 218 79 141 67 -49 -26 69 91 127 84
2008 13 -83 -72 -185 -233 -178 -231 -267 -434 -509 -802 -619
2009 -820 -726 -796 -660 -386 -502 -300 -231 -236 -221 -55 -130

Here, I'll make it easier for Rabbi. This should help explain things

 

[The Rabbi]

I gave you explicit directions about how to run the query. I'm certain everyone else in this thread could follow them. Of course, they involve addition so you might not understand it.

You're obfuscating. Post the exact citation and link or STFU.

Listen idiot, it's a query. You have to input the parameters yourself.

Here, give it a try!

Go to U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics

subject areas --> national employment --> change in total nonfarm payroll dinosaur --> customize the query as needed.

Then, add.

The query results look like this, with better formatting:
2000 249 121 472 286 225 -46 163 3 122 -11 231 138
2001 -16 61 -30 -281 -44 -128 -125 -160 -244 -325 -292 -178
2002 -132 -147 -24 -85 -7 45 -97 -16 -55 126 8 -156
2003 83 -158 -212 -49 -6 -2 25 -42 103 203 18 124
2004 150 43 338 250 310 81 47 121 160 351 64 132
2005 136 240 142 360 169 246 369 195 63 84 334 158
2006 281 317 287 182 11 80 202 185 156 -8 205 180
2007 203 88 218 79 141 67 -49 -26 69 91 127 84
2008 13 -83 -72 -185 -233 -178 -231 -267 -434 -509 -802 -619
2009 -820 -726 -796 -660 -386 -502 -300 -231 -236 -221 -55 -130

So these numbers represent the change in total non-farm payroll? Is that what you are posting?

 

[8537]

You're obfuscating. Post the exact citation and link or STFU.

Listen idiot, it's a query. You have to input the parameters yourself.

Here, give it a try!

Go to U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics

subject areas --> national employment --> change in total nonfarm payroll dinosaur --> customize the query as needed.

Then, add.

The query results look like this, with better formatting:
2000 249 121 472 286 225 -46 163 3 122 -11 231 138
2001 -16 61 -30 -281 -44 -128 -125 -160 -244 -325 -292 -178
2002 -132 -147 -24 -85 -7 45 -97 -16 -55 126 8 -156
2003 83 -158 -212 -49 -6 -2 25 -42 103 203 18 124
2004 150 43 338 250 310 81 47 121 160 351 64 132
2005 136 240 142 360 169 246 369 195 63 84 334 158
2006 281 317 287 182 11 80 202 185 156 -8 205 180
2007 203 88 218 79 141 67 -49 -26 69 91 127 84
2008 13 -83 -72 -185 -233 -178 -231 -267 -434 -509 -802 -619
2009 -820 -726 -796 -660 -386 -502 -300 -231 -236 -221 -55 -130

So these numbers represent the change in total non-farm payroll? Is that what you are posting?

Let the squirming, deflecting and excuse making begin!

"These numbers" prove that this claim:

The 2001 recession had MORE job loss that the 2008 one.

Is untrue. The only question is whether you lied or you're simply misinformed - or both.

 

[The Rabbi]

Listen idiot, it's a query. You have to input the parameters yourself.

Here, give it a try!

Go to U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics

subject areas --> national employment --> change in total nonfarm payroll dinosaur --> customize the query as needed.

Then, add.

The query results look like this, with better formatting:
2000 249 121 472 286 225 -46 163 3 122 -11 231 138
2001 -16 61 -30 -281 -44 -128 -125 -160 -244 -325 -292 -178
2002 -132 -147 -24 -85 -7 45 -97 -16 -55 126 8 -156
2003 83 -158 -212 -49 -6 -2 25 -42 103 203 18 124
2004 150 43 338 250 310 81 47 121 160 351 64 132
2005 136 240 142 360 169 246 369 195 63 84 334 158
2006 281 317 287 182 11 80 202 185 156 -8 205 180
2007 203 88 218 79 141 67 -49 -26 69 91 127 84
2008 13 -83 -72 -185 -233 -178 -231 -267 -434 -509 -802 -619
2009 -820 -726 -796 -660 -386 -502 -300 -231 -236 -221 -55 -130

So these numbers represent the change in total non-farm payroll? Is that what you are posting?

Let the squirming, deflecting and excuse making begin!

"These numbers" prove that this claim:

The 2001 recession had MORE job loss that the 2008 one.

Is untrue. The only question is whether you lied or you're simply misinformed - or both.

Let me ask again:
DO these numbers represent the change in total non farm payroll?

 

[8537]

So these numbers represent the change in total non-farm payroll? Is that what you are posting?

Let the squirming, deflecting and excuse making begin!

"These numbers" prove that this claim:

The 2001 recession had MORE job loss that the 2008 one.

Is untrue. The only question is whether you lied or you're simply misinformed - or both.

Let me ask again:
DO these numbers represent the change in total non farm payroll?

These numbers represent you being wrong, again. You can run the query yourself, which you are obviously afraid to do.

Let the deflecting continue! (though it's getting kinda boring).

 

[The Rabbi]

Let the squirming, deflecting and excuse making begin!

"These numbers" prove that this claim:


Is untrue. The only question is whether you lied or you're simply misinformed - or both.

Let me ask again:
DO these numbers represent the change in total non farm payroll?

These numbers represent you being wrong, again. You can run the query yourself, which you are obviously afraid to do.

Let the deflecting continue! (though it's getting kinda boring).

OK. Third time: Do these numbers represent the change in total non farm payroll? Yes or no. Surely you can explain what you are posting, right?

 

[8537]

Let me ask again:
DO these numbers represent the change in total non farm payroll?

These numbers represent you being wrong, again. You can run the query yourself, which you are obviously afraid to do.

Let the deflecting continue! (though it's getting kinda boring).

OK. Third time: Do these numbers represent the change in total non farm payroll? Yes or no. Surely you can explain what you are posting, right?

Surely you are able to run a query. I've already explained what I'm posting numersous times, and also offered explicit directions as to how you can run the same query.

These numbers prove that you are either lying or wrong - or both. Again.

So, please - continue deflecting. Small men usually do.

 

[The Rabbi]

These numbers represent you being wrong, again. You can run the query yourself, which you are obviously afraid to do.

Let the deflecting continue! (though it's getting kinda boring).

OK. Third time: Do these numbers represent the change in total non farm payroll? Yes or no. Surely you can explain what you are posting, right?

Surely you are able to run a query. I've already explained what I'm posting numersous times, and also offered explicit directions as to how you can run the same query.

These numbers prove that you are either lying or wrong - or both. Again.

So, please - continue deflecting. Small men usually do.

I'm not the one deflecting. Your deflecting because you won't answer a simple question.
Fourth time: Do the numbers you posted, in your mind,represent total non-farm employment for the periods specified?

 

[8537]

OK. Third time: Do these numbers represent the change in total non farm payroll? Yes or no. Surely you can explain what you are posting, right?

Surely you are able to run a query. I've already explained what I'm posting numersous times, and also offered explicit directions as to how you can run the same query.

These numbers prove that you are either lying or wrong - or both. Again.

So, please - continue deflecting. Small men usually do.

I'm not the one deflecting. Your deflecting because you won't answer a simple question.

I answered the question a long, long time ago - then provided explicit directions on how to accomplish the task on your own. But it required addition....

Keep deflecting little man.

 

[The Rabbi]

Surely you are able to run a query. I've already explained what I'm posting numersous times, and also offered explicit directions as to how you can run the same query.

These numbers prove that you are either lying or wrong - or both. Again.

So, please - continue deflecting. Small men usually do.

I'm not the one deflecting. Your deflecting because you won't answer a simple question.

I answered the question a long, long time ago - then provided explicit directions on how to accomplish the task on your own. But it required addition....

Keep deflecting little man.

You've never answered the question.
So I'll ask a fifth time:
Do these numbers, in your mind, represent total non farm employment for the periods covered?

 

[8537]

I'm not the one deflecting. Your deflecting because you won't answer a simple question.

I answered the question a long, long time ago - then provided explicit directions on how to accomplish the task on your own. But it required addition....

Keep deflecting little man.

You've never answered the question.

If you were capable of reading, you would see i answered the question before you even asked it.

You're boring me, Rabbi. Find a new shtick.

 

[Mr. Shaman]

Congress has as much or more to do with that process than any-one
For the people
By the people

Bill Clinton got credit for what Newt and the boys did in the 90s

Yeah....sure....Frig Newton hypnotized Bill Clinton....made Bill Clinton increase taxes....and, then, forced Bill Clinton to clean-up after Daddy Bush's economic-debacle.

Everybody knows Frig Newton also happens to be a native Venusian.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JgiQPdPUNvs]Easy Rider - Joints & Venusians - YouTube[/ame]​

 

[JRK]

I'm not the one deflecting. Your deflecting because you won't answer a simple question.

I answered the question a long, long time ago - then provided explicit directions on how to accomplish the task on your own. But it required addition....

Keep deflecting little man.

You've never answered the question.
So I'll ask a fifth time:
Do these numbers, in your mind, represent total non farm employment for the periods covered?

I do not know what you and 8537 are arguing about
this is non farm payroll per year nice and neat
What ever he can to try and make what Obama is doing look good he will
he never has explained to me how we can compare deficit numbers that were within 163 billion dollars in 2007 with what Obama is doing (trillions) today with 6 million jobs gone sense 2008, its that simple

2000...... 131,785 110,995 24,649 599 6,787 17,263
2001...... 131,826 110,708 23,873 606 6,826 16,441
2002...... 130,341 108,828 22,557 583 6,716 15,259
2003...... 129,999 108,416 21,816 572 6,735 14,510
2004...... 131,435 109,814 21,882 591 6,976 14,315
2005...... 133,703 111,899 22,190 628 7,336 14,226
2006...... 136,086 114,113 22,531 684 7,691 14,155
2007...... 137,598 115,380 22,233 724 7,630 13,879
2008...... 136,790 114,281 21,334 767 7,162 13,406

2009...... 130,807 108,252 18,557 694 6,016 11,847

2010...... 129,818 107,337 17,755 705 5,526 11,524

the column on the left is total
next is non gov
ftp://ftp.bls.gov/pub/suppl/empsit.ceseeb1.txt

 

[The Rabbi]

I answered the question a long, long time ago - then provided explicit directions on how to accomplish the task on your own. But it required addition....

Keep deflecting little man.

You've never answered the question.
So I'll ask a fifth time:
Do these numbers, in your mind, represent total non farm employment for the periods covered?

I do not know what you and 8537 are arguing about
this is non farm payroll per year nice and neat

OK. I'll accept you answering for him since he obviously doesn't have enough confidence to state what ought to be simple.
If that's the case then 8537 is the BIGGEST FUCKING IDIOT TO WALK THE PLANET.
He is uber-dense. Hyper-stupid. Beyond moronic.

I am not talking about TOTAL unemployment. I was talking about JOB LOSS, which is NOT THE SAME FUCKING THING. People hire even in a recession. There is always job creation somewhere. But under Bush in 2001 JOB LOSS was higher than in the recent recession. But total unemployment was not nearly as high because under Bush there was much greater JOB CREATION.
THAT is the fucking point.

I'm done with that stupid asshole. He is too stupid to understand an argument, much less respond intelligently.

 

[JRK]

You've never answered the question.
So I'll ask a fifth time:
Do these numbers, in your mind, represent total non farm employment for the periods covered?

I do not know what you and 8537 are arguing about
this is non farm payroll per year nice and neat

OK. I'll accept you answering for him since he obviously doesn't have enough confidence to state what ought to be simple.
If that's the case then 8537 is the BIGGEST FUCKING IDIOT TO WALK THE PLANET.
He is uber-dense. Hyper-stupid. Beyond moronic.

I am not talking about TOTAL unemployment. I was talking about JOB LOSS, which is NOT THE SAME FUCKING THING. People hire even in a recession. There is always job creation somewhere. But under Bush in 2001 JOB LOSS was higher than in the recent recession. But total unemployment was not nearly as high because under Bush there was much greater JOB CREATION.
THAT is the fucking point.

I'm done with that stupid asshole. He is too stupid to understand an argument, much less respond intelligently.

The point I have allways made is we went from a 9-11/enron/recession 2 million job loss, 2 wars to a 7 million job addition without spending 3 trillion dollars we did not have in the first 24 months
Its mind boggling

From 01-03 we wen thru hell
from 04-08 we created 6 million jobs
we added about 2 trillion to the debt as it relates to total cost for running the govt in that time period

 

[The Rabbi]

The Bush tax cuts produced one of the longer sustained periods of growth in post war history.
Obama's stimulus package has produced one of the longest sustained periods of high unemployment.
But I can't blame just the stimulus package. The anecdotal evidence is that the administration's attitude to business is so hostile, and their regulatory regime so out of control, that businesses will not do anything until that MoFo is gone.
And soon.

 

[8537]

[
I am not talking about TOTAL unemployment. I was talking about JOB LOSS, which is NOT THE SAME FUCKING THING. People hire even in a recession. There is always job creation somewhere. But under Bush in 2001 JOB LOSS was higher than in the recent recession. But total unemployment was not nearly as high because under Bush there was much greater JOB CREATION.
THAT is the fucking point.

That qualifies, unequivocally, as the most idiotic attempt to crawl out from under a lie I've ever seen you attempt. You clearly don't understand the first, most basic thing about the data set you are challenging.

And let's be honest, I've seen you attempt to crawl out from a lot of lies. But this one is even more stupid than those - perhaps even more stupid than claiming you didn't say black people couldn't lead a few posts after saying that black people couldn't lead.

Can you pull up the BLS numbers on that for us? kthx. And by the way - who said anything about Unemployment? Not me, certainly.

 

[The Rabbi]

[
I am not talking about TOTAL unemployment. I was talking about JOB LOSS, which is NOT THE SAME FUCKING THING. People hire even in a recession. There is always job creation somewhere. But under Bush in 2001 JOB LOSS was higher than in the recent recession. But total unemployment was not nearly as high because under Bush there was much greater JOB CREATION.
THAT is the fucking point.

That qualifies, unequivocally, as the most idiotic attempt to crawl out from under a lie I've ever seen you attempt.

And let's be honest, I've seen you attempt to crawl out from a lot of lies.

Can you pull up the BLS numbers on that for us? kthx.

You are the biggest shit for brains on this site. I already provided a cite for what I wrote. Had you bothered to read it you would have seen the sources.
But you cant tell the difference between job loss and total employment.
You are the one trying to salvage something of your pride because I have demonstrated conclusively that you are a fool.