So where did Obama come up with 6 million new jobs???

[mudwhistle]

He did not cherry pick information

If he had said "I created 6 million jobs" the proper place to start would be his inauguration

What he said was "business has created 6 million jobs" so the proper place to start is after the recession turned

I don't care where he starts at, the man is still a PROVEN LIAR
If we had that many jobs we wouldn't be sitting at almost 8% unemployment

Why not????

Pingy, I suggest you quit asking everyone to show their math, especially since the numbers the employment agency uses are estimates anyway. This is why they are adjusted up or down later.

I also feel you're being disingenuous because the picture Obama paints isn't as pretty as the reality. He talks about 6 million jobs created not by him but by job creators that are constantly under attack by him personally. They don't deserve to be successful he always says. If that is so why does he imply that he is responsible for their success.

I figure if Obama can't take blame he can't take credit ether. Nobody has named the program he is responsible for that created one job in the private sector. Only the jobs in the federal public sector.

 

[mudwhistle]

Obama can't be trusted because he constantly tries to parse words and misleads the listener with false impressions with the numbers hhe quotes.

 

[pinqy]

I guess it goes over the heads of some.

If a company has 100 employees during normal economic times, and they are stable, that is what the baseline becomes.

If the economy turns down or in this case, crashes, that same company will reduce the available number of jobs to 35. The other 65 jobs did not disappear, there simply is not enough economic activity to fill them. When the economy goes up, they start filling those jobs again. Say to the tune of 80 employed people. Not a single job has been created in this company however.

By that logic, if times boom and the company expands to 120 employees, those are "extra," and if 15 people are later fired, then no jobs were lost because they're still above the baseline.

Setting "baseline" just doesn't make sense...it doesn't account for business births or deaths at all, either.

If you do not set a baseline, then any number can be stated to be anything.

No, the numbers are the numbers for the current time, and can be compared with any time frame. Setting a baseline distorts the picture because a baseline is arbitrary. It's the Direction that matters more.

It is a worthless discussion to have if there is no frame of reference.

But you're not talking about a frame of reference, you're talking about setting an arbitrary point as the "real" number and basing everything around that. I note that you didn't address the question of increases from the baseline. And, as the population changes, the baseline number of jobs becomes meaningless.

There are plenty of frames of reference...direction of job growth, percent of population employed...percent in the labor force....percent of the labor force unemployed.

The truth is this. Until the entire number of lost jobs due to the recession have been filled, then no job has been created..

What you're saying is that if you were once on top of a hill, and come down again, no matter where you go you can't say you've climbed anything until you've exceeded the height of the hill. That's nonsense.

Try this....A company has 100 employees. It hires 50 more. How many new jobs does the company have? You're basically saying that depends entirely on how many employees the company used to have. If 100 years ago the company had 200 employees, by your argument those 50 new hires weren't actually hired...that you couldn't say the company has expanded.

I would say the company has grown from what it had been the previous month. You add context and frame by whatever periods you're choosing to compare. Setting a baseline is completely arbitrary.

For example, employment is much higher than during Reagan's second term, or during the Clinton era. Why are those not the baseline?

 

[pinqy]

I don't care where he starts at, the man is still a PROVEN LIAR
If we had that many jobs we wouldn't be sitting at almost 8% unemployment

Why not????

Pingy, I suggest you quit asking everyone to show their math, especially since the numbers the employment agency uses are estimates anyway. This is why they are adjusted up or down later.

Of course, but when people are making claims that if employement goes up 6 million then unemployment cannot be 8% they have a responsibility to demonstrate why that cannot be.

I also feel you're being disingenuous because the picture Obama paints isn't as pretty as the reality. He talks about 6 million jobs created not by him but by job creators that are constantly under attack by him personally. They don't deserve to be successful he always says. If that is so why does he imply that he is responsible for their success.

How does that make me disingenuous? I didn't vote for Obama and have no responsibility for what he says or doesn't say. I did point out how he cherry picked to give himself the most favorable numbers and I never claimed he was responsible for any jobs gained.

The facts are the facts....private sector non farm payrolls have gone up 6 million since Feb 2010. But government jobs have gone down (Fed jobs have gone down because of Post office cuts). And we're nowhere near pre recession levels even though the population has certainly increased, so employment to population is the lowest it's been since the late 70's.

So was Obama right that business have increased jobs by 6 million? Sure. But is that the full picture or mean that everything is good? Of course not.

 

[mudwhistle]

By that logic, if times boom and the company expands to 120 employees, those are "extra," and if 15 people are later fired, then no jobs were lost because they're still above the baseline.

Setting "baseline" just doesn't make sense...it doesn't account for business births or deaths at all, either.

If you do not set a baseline, then any number can be stated to be anything.

No, the numbers are the numbers for the current time, and can be compared with any time frame. Setting a baseline distorts the picture because a baseline is arbitrary. It's the Direction that matters more.

It is a worthless discussion to have if there is no frame of reference.

But you're not talking about a frame of reference, you're talking about setting an arbitrary point as the "real" number and basing everything around that. I note that you didn't address the question of increases from the baseline. And, as the population changes, the baseline number of jobs becomes meaningless.

There are plenty of frames of reference...direction of job growth, percent of population employed...percent in the labor force....percent of the labor force unemployed.

The truth is this. Until the entire number of lost jobs due to the recession have been filled, then no job has been created..

What you're saying is that if you were once on top of a hill, and come down again, no matter where you go you can't say you've climbed anything until you've exceeded the height of the hill. That's nonsense.

Try this....A company has 100 employees. It hires 50 more. How many new jobs does the company have? You're basically saying that depends entirely on how many employees the company used to have. If 100 years ago the company had 200 employees, by your argument those 50 new hires weren't actually hired...that you couldn't say the company has expanded.

I would say the company has grown from what it had been the previous month. You add context and frame by whatever periods you're choosing to compare. Setting a baseline is completely arbitrary.

For example, employment is much higher than during Reagan's second term, or during the Clinton era. Why are those not the baseline?

Bullshit. There may be more people employed simply because there are more people and more positions available but the percentage of unemployed is higher than during Reagan and Clinton.

 

[pinqy]

If you do not set a baseline, then any number can be stated to be anything.

No, the numbers are the numbers for the current time, and can be compared with any time frame. Setting a baseline distorts the picture because a baseline is arbitrary. It's the Direction that matters more.


But you're not talking about a frame of reference, you're talking about setting an arbitrary point as the "real" number and basing everything around that. I note that you didn't address the question of increases from the baseline. And, as the population changes, the baseline number of jobs becomes meaningless.

There are plenty of frames of reference...direction of job growth, percent of population employed...percent in the labor force....percent of the labor force unemployed.

The truth is this. Until the entire number of lost jobs due to the recession have been filled, then no job has been created..

What you're saying is that if you were once on top of a hill, and come down again, no matter where you go you can't say you've climbed anything until you've exceeded the height of the hill. That's nonsense.

Try this....A company has 100 employees. It hires 50 more. How many new jobs does the company have? You're basically saying that depends entirely on how many employees the company used to have. If 100 years ago the company had 200 employees, by your argument those 50 new hires weren't actually hired...that you couldn't say the company has expanded.

I would say the company has grown from what it had been the previous month. You add context and frame by whatever periods you're choosing to compare. Setting a baseline is completely arbitrary.

For example, employment is much higher than during Reagan's second term, or during the Clinton era. Why are those not the baseline?

Bullshit. There may be more people employed simply because there are more people and more positions available but the percentage of unemployed is higher than during Reagan and Clinton.

Of course. That's my point. Baselines for employment are pointless. You're not actually disagreeing with me.

 

[mudwhistle]

I remember when the Dems complained about all of the jobs that were created under Bush being entry-level jobs. They couldn't say that accurately but the fact is many people are having to settle for lower paying jobs these days. They are taking jobs that are 20 to 30% lower in pay than the one they lost. So being employed isn't the only factor in the economy to consider.

 

[Darkwind]

By that logic, if times boom and the company expands to 120 employees, those are "extra," and if 15 people are later fired, then no jobs were lost because they're still above the baseline.

Setting "baseline" just doesn't make sense...it doesn't account for business births or deaths at all, either.

If you do not set a baseline, then any number can be stated to be anything.

No, the numbers are the numbers for the current time, and can be compared with any time frame. Setting a baseline distorts the picture because a baseline is arbitrary. It's the Direction that matters more.

It is a worthless discussion to have if there is no frame of reference.

But you're not talking about a frame of reference, you're talking about setting an arbitrary point as the "real" number and basing everything around that. I note that you didn't address the question of increases from the baseline. And, as the population changes, the baseline number of jobs becomes meaningless.

There are plenty of frames of reference...direction of job growth, percent of population employed...percent in the labor force....percent of the labor force unemployed.

The truth is this. Until the entire number of lost jobs due to the recession have been filled, then no job has been created..

What you're saying is that if you were once on top of a hill, and come down again, no matter where you go you can't say you've climbed anything until you've exceeded the height of the hill. That's nonsense.

Try this....A company has 100 employees. It hires 50 more. How many new jobs does the company have? You're basically saying that depends entirely on how many employees the company used to have. If 100 years ago the company had 200 employees, by your argument those 50 new hires weren't actually hired...that you couldn't say the company has expanded.

I would say the company has grown from what it had been the previous month. You add context and frame by whatever periods you're choosing to compare. Setting a baseline is completely arbitrary.

For example, employment is much higher than during Reagan's second term, or during the Clinton era. Why are those not the baseline?

Absolutely incorrect. This is why politicians are able to lie to us with impunity. If there is no frame of reference, then there is no viable discussion. The President (any President) can pick any arbitrary time frame and then use it to make themselves look good. You don't mind it now because it is splitting hairs, or cherry picking, and it supports your guy.

Obama specified the time frame by saying that he has created jobs from the reference of the depression. That is why Clinton's era is not discussed. Why are you not discussing the successful job growth of George W. Bush? After all, he added many more millions of jobs to the economy than Obama ever has. (assuming you think that Presidents actually create or destroy jobs)....

Do you not see where this is heading? You claim Clinton, another claims Reagan, one claims Bush.....none of the numbers are meaningful to 'today' and today's standards and baseline are set on the recession.....Obama ran for office saying he had the cure. He is still in debt to this nation for 2 million jobs, and not a single job has been created during his entire reign.

 

[rightwinger]

Fact Checker: Six million new jobs

The low point in jobs was reached in February of 2010, and there has indeed been a gain of about 6 million jobs since then, according to Bureau of Labor Statistics data.

 

[pinqy]

If you do not set a baseline, then any number can be stated to be anything.

No, the numbers are the numbers for the current time, and can be compared with any time frame. Setting a baseline distorts the picture because a baseline is arbitrary. It's the Direction that matters more.


But you're not talking about a frame of reference, you're talking about setting an arbitrary point as the "real" number and basing everything around that. I note that you didn't address the question of increases from the baseline. And, as the population changes, the baseline number of jobs becomes meaningless.

There are plenty of frames of reference...direction of job growth, percent of population employed...percent in the labor force....percent of the labor force unemployed.

The truth is this. Until the entire number of lost jobs due to the recession have been filled, then no job has been created..

What you're saying is that if you were once on top of a hill, and come down again, no matter where you go you can't say you've climbed anything until you've exceeded the height of the hill. That's nonsense.

Try this....A company has 100 employees. It hires 50 more. How many new jobs does the company have? You're basically saying that depends entirely on how many employees the company used to have. If 100 years ago the company had 200 employees, by your argument those 50 new hires weren't actually hired...that you couldn't say the company has expanded.

I would say the company has grown from what it had been the previous month. You add context and frame by whatever periods you're choosing to compare. Setting a baseline is completely arbitrary.

For example, employment is much higher than during Reagan's second term, or during the Clinton era. Why are those not the baseline?

Absolutely incorrect. This is why politicians are able to lie to us with impunity. If there is no frame of reference, then there is no viable discussion. The President (any President) can pick any arbitrary time frame and then use it to make themselves look good. You don't mind it now because it is splitting hairs, or cherry picking, and it supports your guy.

How does it support Romney? And since you're picking an arbitrary time frame, you have little room to talk. Of course Obama picked a time frame to make himself look good (as if he's responsible). I put it in context to show it's not as good as he claimed. You're the one trying to say that the millions more people who have jobs don't really have jobs.

Do you not see where this is heading? You claim Clinton, another claims Reagan, one claims Bush.....none of the numbers are meaningful to 'today' and today's standards and baseline are set on the recession

In context of the recession...but you're trying to set an absolute baseline. Which is just as arbitrary as any time. I specified the job levels and changes pre recession, when Obama took office, depth of job loss and current. I've been saying the whole time that while yes, we have consistantly gained jobs since jobs bottomed out, and we are slightly beyond when Obama took office, we haven't fully recovered from the recession.

Somehow you interpret that as me being an Obama supporter and cheerleading. Your the one with the blind partisanship.

not a single job has been created during his entire reign.

See, and now you're shifting. We do have more employed and more jobs now than when he took office. But you're saying none because he hasn't gone beyond the jobs lost under Bush. How are you not cherrypicking?

 

[Avorysuds]

Kinda like someone saying "I was 50000 in the black last year" while neglecting to say 'after I borrowed 100K from my mom and spent all of my 25K salary on a car, beer, a vacation, a wishing well, and the casino'

It is cherry picking and misleading

Context is everything

Obama did not say I created 6 million new jobs, he said business created new jobs

Business is not tied to any election cycle

Obama is correct in saying that business has created 6 million new jobs. It should also be noted that government has shed jobs during this period

And he is doing it in such a way and a stale in his SOTU speech to make it look to the mindless drones that it is because of him....

It must also be known that the federal government (outside of the post office which is sinking faster than the Lusitania) did not shed jobs.. and including the post office, it has only shed a very few jobs.. it is the state, county, city, and local governments (that Obama nor the fed has no control over) that has shed the jobs

RW knows he is wrong, but he will defend Obama because Obama is a democrat till RW's dying breath. Obama can literally make shit up on the spot during a speech, a dramatically fictitious wonderland and I promise you people like RW/TM/Chris/Shaman/blackLable and a few others will defend every word of it... They defend Obama's wars, the expansion of the war on terror, the military spending being grated than Bush's. They support the expansion of homeland security, the patriot act, and bail outs under Obama, all things they used to claim make Bush the worst President in history.

Then these same people claim to know who the far right and far left are, claim they are in the middle... They are a perfected combination of the far right and the far left. It's fuckin weird and near impossible to have a conversation with them.

 

[mudwhistle]

Fact Checker: Six million new jobs

The low point in jobs was reached in February of 2010, and there has indeed been a gain of about 6 million jobs since then, according to Bureau of Labor Statistics data.

Wow. You can read.

Explain why we started creating jobs in 2010.

 

[thereisnospoon]

OP- He said, "AFTER the recession", dumbazz, and they're ALL in the private sector. Pub dupes!! So damn dumb. Thanks for the 2nd Pub Great World Depression. Thank god the Dems got in fast to spend 3 trillion to avert the mess...

More Francocrape

 

[rightwinger]

Context is everything

Obama did not say I created 6 million new jobs, he said business created new jobs

Business is not tied to any election cycle

Obama is correct in saying that business has created 6 million new jobs. It should also be noted that government has shed jobs during this period

And he is doing it in such a way and a stale in his SOTU speech to make it look to the mindless drones that it is because of him....

It must also be known that the federal government (outside of the post office which is sinking faster than the Lusitania) did not shed jobs.. and including the post office, it has only shed a very few jobs.. it is the state, county, city, and local governments (that Obama nor the fed has no control over) that has shed the jobs

RW knows he is wrong, but he will defend Obama because Obama is a democrat till RW's dying breath. Obama can literally make shit up on the spot during a speech, a dramatically fictitious wonderland and I promise you people like RW/TM/Chris/Shaman/blackLable and a few others will defend every word of it... They defend Obama's wars, the expansion of the war on terror, the military spending being grated than Bush's. They support the expansion of homeland security, the patriot act, and bail outs under Obama, all things they used to claim make Bush the worst President in history.

Then these same people claim to know who the far right and far left are, claim they are in the middle... They are a perfected combination of the far right and the far left. It's fuckin weird and near impossible to have a conversation with them.

Business has indeed created 6 million jobs since the end of the recession

What is there to discuss?

 

[thereisnospoon]

He cherry-picked his information.

Even Factcheck.com has been calling him on it and they give him a lot of latitude with his claims.

He did cherry pick his information, but honestly, anyone who wants to blame him for the job losses through 2009, which were part of the meltdown that started under Bush, is not being realistic. He counts the 6 million new jobs from the point that we came out of recession, which has happened under his watch. The thing is that would have happened no matter what. Too many of you actually believe things would be much better right now had Obama not been POTUS, but that just shows how senseless you are. Obama or McCain, it wouldn't have made a bit of difference. Thinking otherwise just proves your true partisanship and inability to think critically.

Obama can choose any number he wishes. It doesn't change the facts.
Unemployment on the U-3 scale is 7.9%..On the U-6( actual) it is 14.4%.
You guys keep blaming others for what is on the current watch.
That shit don't fly anymore.

 

[thereisnospoon]

He did not cherry pick information

If he had said "I created 6 million jobs" the proper place to start would be his inauguration

What he said was "business has created 6 million jobs" so the proper place to start is after the recession turned

I don't care where he starts at, the man is still a PROVEN LIAR
If we had that many jobs we wouldn't be sitting at almost 8% unemployment

You have to keep in mind that this is the only recession where we have tried to balance the budget and create jobs at the same time.

The slash in Government spending and government employment has held back the jobs market

Oh bullshit. Since when does government spending create jobs?.
Wartime job creation does not apply.
Reduction is government spending translates to more money in the pickets of the private sector. When private sector is flush with cash, that is when business expands and new business is created. As a result, wealth is created. Wealth creation INCREASES revenue to the federal and local governments.

 

[thereisnospoon]

When we got out of the recession... lol

6 million jobs during a recession is pretty impressive then

Stop parroting Obama talking points. Because it just isn't true.

 

[rightwinger]

Fact Checker: Six million new jobs

The low point in jobs was reached in February of 2010, and there has indeed been a gain of about 6 million jobs since then, according to Bureau of Labor Statistics data.

Wow. You can read.

Explain why we started creating jobs in 2010.

Gladly

The US stock market went into freefall in 2008. Investors bailed out of the market, companies shed workers to the tune of over 700,000 jobs a month, Banks were failing, auto companies were failing, nobody was putting money into the economy.......we were in a panic

In late 2008 and early 2009, Presidents Bush and Obama stated that the US Government would stand behind our businesses. Key businesses would not be allowed to fail. The US Government would start to put a trillion dollars INTO the economy

In March 2009, the panic subsided. We stopped losing that 700,000 jobs a month but it took months before the jobs outlook turned positive.

Any further questions?

 

[rightwinger]

When we got out of the recession... lol

6 million jobs during a recession is pretty impressive then

Stop parroting Obama talking points. Because it just isn't true.

What is not true?

BLS statistics?

 

[thereisnospoon]

Fact Checker: Six million new jobs

The low point in jobs was reached in February of 2010, and there has indeed been a gain of about 6 million jobs since then, according to Bureau of Labor Statistics data.

Wow. You can read.

Explain why we started creating jobs in 2010.

Gladly

The US stock market went into freefall in 2008. Investors bailed out of the market, companies shed workers to the tune of over 700,000 jobs a month, Banks were failing, auto companies were failing, nobody was putting money into the economy.......we were in a panic

In late 2008 and early 2009, Presidents Bush and Obama stated that the US Government would stand behind our businesses. Key businesses would not be allowed to fail. The US Government would start to put a trillion dollars INTO the economy

In March 2009, the panic subsided. We stopped losing that 700,000 jobs a month but it took months before the jobs outlook turned positive.

Any further questions?

The stock market? Deflection.
The financial markets have little or less to do with the overall health of the economy.
Do a little homework. There is an obvious disconnect.
For example. Ruddick Corp owner of the Harris Teeter Grocery chain, putting the grocer in play. The result was a 15% two day jump in the stock price of Harris Teeter. Did that create any new jobs? Hell no.
Yesterday AMR ,parent company of American Airlines announced it would agree to a merger with US Airways. The stock price took a nice little leap. DId that create any new jobs? No. In fact, there will be as a result of the merger, a reduction in redundant positions. Therefore a net job LOSS.
With these two examples, do you see the disconnect between the stock market and the economy in general? If not, you are indeed existing with head planted firmly in soil.