U.S. adds 200,000 jobs in Dec.; unemployment drops to 8.5%

[JoeB131]

You're probably correct, however unemployment doesn't have to break 8% for him to win. He can win as long as the unemployment picture is improving. The country was in the middle of the great depression in 1936, but the economic picture was improving and Roosevelt won by a landslide.

Why do you keep repeating this after it's been debunked?

In 1936, FDR won because the GOP ceased to function as a party, not because people were overwealmingly for FDR. America had essentially ceased to be a real democracy, much like the rest of the world had written democracy off as a bad idea at that point.

Eventually, FDR went too far and his own party yanked him back. (Trying to stack the Supreme Court, interferring with elections on the state and local level). And five minutes after he was in the ground, they amended the constitution so something like that could never happen again.

Now, that said, I think the magic number for Obama is still about 7.5. Actually worse than he found the economy in, but better than it's worst.

The fact the GOP is about to nominate a weird Mormon robot probably helps him, too.

I see parallels between the 1936 election and the 2012 election. In both years the economy was improving. The Republicans in 36 attacked the New Deal just as Republicans today attach the economic stimulus plans. In 36 they painted the president as a dictator and a socialist who would bankrupt the country just as they are doing today. In 36 the Republicans chose a weak candidate in Landon and it looks like they are going to make the same mistake again by choosing Romney.

I agree that Romney is a weak candidate. Not much else though.

For one thing, the thing that helped FDR was that the GOP had taken a beating in 30, 32 and 34, so they were barely in a position to mount an effective campaign. (They didn't start the long climb back until 38, and didn't get the presidency again until 52.)

I also think, frankly, we are a different people now. We want instant gratification.

I think in addition to Romney's awfulness, Obama is helped by the fact that the 69 million idiots who voted for him so they can feel better about themselves aren't inclined to admit they blew it four years ago.

 

[Flopper]

You know, spanky, somehow I doubt you ever served in the military.

I was in the military for 11 years. They waste SHITLOADS of money.

The whole "Isolation" card is bullshit. It's long past time these rich countries manned up and defended their own corners of the world instead of letting us bankrupt ourselves doing it.

China isn't going to screw with us, we're their best customer. Of course, if they wanted to take Taiwan, there really isnt' all that much we could do about it.

The world economy has been stable mostly because we are everywhere making sure others behave in their corner of the world. Dumb people like you don't know history.

You ignore the good results of the US military being in Europe, Asia and the middle east while claiming we shouldn't be doing that work because China, Russia and Iran won't do anything because they've been held in check by the US military. You have circle jerk logic.

The DoD budget was getting cut prior to last week's promises of even more cuts, that is the point. The DoD budget cannot be sliced to bits making the US military weaker when China is building a powerhouse in their part of the world to influence Japan, South Korea, etc.

Also, slicing up the DoD budget will damage the economy in the long run since a lot of jobs will be lost in the high tech industries like aerospace. Nevermind the troops that will be sent packing to look for jobs in this economy.

All this slicing and dicing of the US military is to make up for wasted money on green/pork waste the past 3 years under Obamination. He blew all the money and now wants the DoD to take the brunt of the cuts for his mistakes.

This shit happened after the Great Depression where we had an inept military and played the isolation card which later led to the worst World War ever. You do not know history...

First, Russia hasn't invaded anyone since 1979 and for that matter, neither has China. And in both cases, it turned into major fiascos for them.

But we are bankrupting ourselves by protecting the rest of the world while they undercut our economy by taking our middle class jobs? And you really think this is a good idea? I mean, really?

I think the problem is you mistake Big Corporate Economic Interests for "our" economic interests.

We have spent trillions of dollars in blowing up countries and then spend billions to rebuild them. The benefits if there are any, are reaped by many other countries as well as the US, yet we bear most of the cost both in lives and dollars.

Although non-U.S. members of NATO are far more reliant on NATO for their defense, they commit far fewer funds or troops in combat than we do. It's much the same with UN. The US funds about 25% of the cost of the UN and provides over 90% of the combat troops when needed.

Although US foreign aid is not the burden it once was, one has to wonder just what it buys us. Certainly not votes in the UN. When you look at the list of counties receiving US foreign aid, you have to wonder why.

Then the're the free trade treaties that are written to provide support for poorer countries at our expense and prescription drug pricing in the US that provides most of the drug research money for which the whole world benefits.

 

[Faun]

That would only work if Obama was an outsider.

Obama and the Democrat controlled Senate has everything to do with it, so he still gets full credit. He and his buds set the whole thing up.

Why dont you tell us specifically what the Democrats in Congress did to cause the recession?

Look at the increase in spending since 2006. And then go back and review how the government forced banks to do no doc loans while their hench thugs cycled through stints and Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, collecting huge bonuses as they cooked the books.

Spending didn't cause the recession. The housing bubble bursting caused the recession.

And btw, until October 1st, 2007, the federal government was still operating under the budget passed by the Republican-led Congress and Bush.

 

[Flopper]

BTW....why in the hell are the Democrats doing handsprings over a lousy 8.5%.

Bush averaged 5.9%.

On his worst day he never had 8.5%.

Obama has the worst employment rate since FDR and he's bragging about it.

I suppose you forget that Bush inherited an economy with a 4.2% unemployment rate, a 5% gdp growth rate, and a budget surplus from Clinton. He left Obama an economy in recession with a 7.6% unemployment, a -2% gdp growth rate, and a 450 billion dollar deficit plus the TARP program which would end up costing over 700 billion.

 

[The Rabbi]

BTW....why in the hell are the Democrats doing handsprings over a lousy 8.5%.

Bush averaged 5.9%.

On his worst day he never had 8.5%.

Obama has the worst employment rate since FDR and he's bragging about it.

I suppose you forget that Bush inherited an economy with a 4.2% unemployment rate, a 5% gdp growth rate, and a budget surplus from Clinton. He left Obama an economy in recession with a 7.6% unemployment, a -2% gdp growth rate, and a 450 billion dollar deficit plus the TARP program which would end up costing over 700 billion.

Actually he inherited an economy falling into recession after the tech bust, a hostile and organized al Qaeda gearing up for 9/11, an Iraq in gross violation of UN accords and paying off UN member states, a Libya with a nuclear weapons program, etc.
For 7 years we had near record low unemployment, low inflation, and lower deficits than we have now. We also are cashing in the "peace dividend" as Obama has said, thanks to the actions of Bush.
Do you miss him yet?

 

[The Rabbi]

The problems we inherited were far worse than most inside and out of government had expected. The recession was deeper than most inside and out of government had predicted. Curing those problems has taken more time and a higher toll than any of us wanted.

Wow, right out of the DNC playbook. You come up with that on your own?

No, I borrowed it from t president.

Actually the recession of 2000 was much worse in terms of job loss. The difference was job creation was much higher during the post-2000 era. This is the slowest recovery on record, and not coincidentally the one marked by the greatest gov't intervention.

Say what???

We didn't even have a recession in 2000. What are you smoking?

The president. There's an unbiased source.
Recession officially started in 2001. So what?

 

[Toro]

Unemployment has averaged 9.4% since the stimulus.... great job!!

The problems we inherited were far worse than most inside and out of government had expected. The recession was deeper than most inside and out of government had predicted. Curing those problems has taken more time and a higher toll than any of us wanted.

Wow, right out of the DNC playbook. You come up with that on your own?

Actually the recession of 2000 was much worse in terms of job loss. The difference was job creation was much higher during the post-2000 era. This is the slowest recovery on record, and not coincidentally the one marked by the greatest gov't intervention.

This isn't correct. Roughly 4 million jobs were lost peak to trough in 2001 and 2002 whereas 8 million jobs were lost in 2008 and 2009.

 

[Faun]

Wow, right out of the DNC playbook. You come up with that on your own?

No, I borrowed it from t president.

Actually the recession of 2000 was much worse in terms of job loss. The difference was job creation was much higher during the post-2000 era. This is the slowest recovery on record, and not coincidentally the one marked by the greatest gov't intervention.

Say what???

We didn't even have a recession in 2000. What are you smoking?

The president. There's an unbiased source.

What difference does it make who said it? It sounds reasonable to me. Not to you, huh?

Recession officially started in 2001. So what?

Well for starters, there's a difference between 2000 and 2001, but more to the point, claiming we lost more jobs in the 2001 recession than we did in the last one is nothing short of delusional...

Total unemployed + discouraged workers:

02/2001: 6,376,000
11/2001: 8,331,000
Total jobs lost: 1,955,000

11/2007: 7,589,000
06/2009: 15,520,000
Total jobs lost: 7,931,000

http://data.bls.gov/pdq/SurveyOutputServlet?data_tool=latest_numbers&series_id=LNS13000000
http://data.bls.gov/pdq/SurveyOutputServlet?data_tool=latest_numbers&series_id=LNU05026645

The last recession lost 4 times as many jobs. Your brain must be fried to think otherwise.

"Actually the recession of 2000 was much worse in terms of job loss." ~ Rabbi

 

[Sundial]

Hahaha. Now that you've made your little joke, go look at the BLS stat on Total Labor Force and Total Employed over the time sequences.

Why not just tell me what you're trying to say, instead of making assignments.

I'm showing how you don't understand the BLS data.

Nope. You're actually not saying anything at all.

 

[The Rabbi]

The problems we inherited were far worse than most inside and out of government had expected. The recession was deeper than most inside and out of government had predicted. Curing those problems has taken more time and a higher toll than any of us wanted.

Wow, right out of the DNC playbook. You come up with that on your own?

Actually the recession of 2000 was much worse in terms of job loss. The difference was job creation was much higher during the post-2000 era. This is the slowest recovery on record, and not coincidentally the one marked by the greatest gov't intervention.

This isn't correct. Roughly 4 million jobs were lost peak to trough in 2001 and 2002 whereas 8 million jobs were lost in 2008 and 2009.

You are confusing net with actual.
Sorry

 

[The Rabbi]

No, I borrowed it from t president.


Say what???

We didn't even have a recession in 2000. What are you smoking?

The president. There's an unbiased source.

What difference does it make who said it? It sounds reasonable to me. Not to you, huh?

Recession officially started in 2001. So what?

Well for starters, there's a difference between 2000 and 2001, but more to the point, claiming we lost more jobs in the 2001 recession than we did in the last one is nothing short of delusional...

Total unemployed + discouraged workers:

02/2001: 6,376,000
11/2001: 8,331,000
Total jobs lost: 1,955,000

11/2007: 7,589,000
11/2001: 15,520,000
Total jobs lost: 7,931,000

Bureau of Labor Statistics Data
Bureau of Labor Statistics Data

The last recession lost 4 times as many jobs. Your brain must be fried to think otherwise.

"Actually the recession of 2000 was much worse in terms of job loss." ~ Rabbi

So the president is as good as, I dunno, Breitbart?
Again, you confuse net with total. There were many more jobs lost in the earlier recession. But job creation was much higher, accounting for the appearance of a milder recession.

 

[Sundial]

Private employers added 212,00 jobs, moving the total of private-sector jobs created in 2011 to 1.9 million. Governments, particularly at the local level, cut jobs — 12,000 last month — holding overall job growth for the year to 1.6 million.

U.S. adds 200,000 jobs in Dec.; unemployment drops to 8.5% - The Washington Post

Did I hear someone say no private sector jobs were being created?

Of course no one would give Obama credit for any of this.

Lots of people give Obama credit. Just not the people who populate this board.

 

[The Rabbi]

Private employers added 212,00 jobs, moving the total of private-sector jobs created in 2011 to 1.9 million. Governments, particularly at the local level, cut jobs — 12,000 last month — holding overall job growth for the year to 1.6 million.

U.S. adds 200,000 jobs in Dec.; unemployment drops to 8.5% - The Washington Post

Did I hear someone say no private sector jobs were being created?

Of course no one would give Obama credit for any of this.

Lots of people give Obama credit. Just not the people who populate this board.

Right. Generally the people who populate the administration adn the press are most likely to give him credit. Economists aren't among those groups.
Economists give Obama mediocre marks

 

[Trajan]

You're probably correct, however unemployment doesn't have to break 8% for him to win. He can win as long as the unemployment picture is improving. The country was in the middle of the great depression in 1936, but the economic picture was improving and Roosevelt won by a landslide.

Why do you keep repeating this after it's been debunked?

In 1936, FDR won because the GOP ceased to function as a party, not because people were overwealmingly for FDR. America had essentially ceased to be a real democracy, much like the rest of the world had written democracy off as a bad idea at that point.

Eventually, FDR went too far and his own party yanked him back. (Trying to stack the Supreme Court, interferring with elections on the state and local level). And five minutes after he was in the ground, they amended the constitution so something like that could never happen again.

Now, that said, I think the magic number for Obama is still about 7.5. Actually worse than he found the economy in, but better than it's worst.

The fact the GOP is about to nominate a weird Mormon robot probably helps him, too.

I see parallels between the 1936 election and the 2012 election. In both years the economy was improving. The Republicans in 36 attacked the New Deal just as Republicans today attach the economic stimulus plans. In 36 they painted the president as a dictator and a socialist who would bankrupt the country just as they are doing today. In 36 the Republicans chose a weak candidate in Landon and it looks like they are going to make the same mistake again by choosing Romney.

and ....the rest in 1937 they had to make budget adjustments and? they were forced into the same corner we are, the spending went just so far, the inevitable cuts had to be made and bam, back to 1933 production levels....the lesson is, even if he had not cut then, minus ww2 he would have to cut sooner or later and with the economy off the gov. tit, the crash just would have been postponed, but the result would have been the same. obama is twice as clueless.

 

[Toro]

Wow, right out of the DNC playbook. You come up with that on your own?

Actually the recession of 2000 was much worse in terms of job loss. The difference was job creation was much higher during the post-2000 era. This is the slowest recovery on record, and not coincidentally the one marked by the greatest gov't intervention.

This isn't correct. Roughly 4 million jobs were lost peak to trough in 2001 and 2002 whereas 8 million jobs were lost in 2008 and 2009.

You are confusing net with actual.
Sorry

Rabbi, its at this point you should walk away.

Otherwise, back up your claim. Put up or shut up.

 

[Dr Grump]

This isn't correct. Roughly 4 million jobs were lost peak to trough in 2001 and 2002 whereas 8 million jobs were lost in 2008 and 2009.

You are confusing net with actual.
Sorry

Rabbi, its at this point you should walk away.

Otherwise, back up your claim. Put up or shut up.

He won't. He's a moron...a bona fide one at that...

 

[Faun]

The president. There's an unbiased source.

What difference does it make who said it? It sounds reasonable to me. Not to you, huh?

Recession officially started in 2001. So what?

Well for starters, there's a difference between 2000 and 2001, but more to the point, claiming we lost more jobs in the 2001 recession than we did in the last one is nothing short of delusional...

Total unemployed + discouraged workers:

02/2001: 6,376,000
11/2001: 8,331,000
Total jobs lost: 1,955,000

11/2007: 7,589,000
11/2001: 15,520,000
Total jobs lost: 7,931,000

Bureau of Labor Statistics Data
Bureau of Labor Statistics Data

The last recession lost 4 times as many jobs. Your brain must be fried to think otherwise.

"Actually the recession of 2000 was much worse in terms of job loss." ~ Rabbi

So the president is as good as, I dunno, Breitbart?

What does it matter who said it? What do you think of it?


"The problems we inherited were far worse than most inside and out of government had expected; the recession was deeper than most inside and out of government had predicted. Curing those problems has taken more time and a higher toll than any of us wanted."

Again, you confuse net with total. There were many more jobs lost in the earlier recession. But job creation was much higher, accounting for the appearance of a milder recession.

WTF?? So jobs gained don't count?? Only jobs lost count??

Ok, let's see your numbers .......

 

[Sundial]

The Dems are bragging about these numbers.
But the truth is it is a mark as to how bad their polciies are. We should have been here at least a year ago. This is the slowest recovery on record. And it only kicked in when the GOP took the House, blocking further damage.

Not the slowest recovery "on record". Not even the slowest recovery since the last one.

Here's the recovery from the first Bush recession:

Here's the recovery from the second one:

I like how you're taking credit for the recovery, instead of denying that there is one.

I'm telling you, it's the Republican strategy for the future.

 

[JoeB131]

BTW....why in the hell are the Democrats doing handsprings over a lousy 8.5%.

Bush averaged 5.9%.

On his worst day he never had 8.5%.

Obama has the worst employment rate since FDR and he's bragging about it.

I suppose you forget that Bush inherited an economy with a 4.2% unemployment rate, a 5% gdp growth rate, and a budget surplus from Clinton. He left Obama an economy in recession with a 7.6% unemployment, a -2% gdp growth rate, and a 450 billion dollar deficit plus the TARP program which would end up costing over 700 billion.

Okay, but at a certain point, Obama's got to pull up his big boy pants and take responsibility for his own economy.

And for BUsh, he inherited an economy that was already slowing down. What you leave out of those figures is the stock market crash of 2000, started when Janet Reno won her suit against MicroSoft and the tech bubble burst. But Bush had it turned around by 2003, despite a devastating attack on our economy by terrorists that Clinton largely ignored.

We are three years into Obama, and he's still blaming other people.

 

[Big Fitz]

Private employers added 212,00 jobs, moving the total of private-sector jobs created in 2011 to 1.9 million. Governments, particularly at the local level, cut jobs — 12,000 last month — holding overall job growth for the year to 1.6 million.

U.S. adds 200,000 jobs in Dec.; unemployment drops to 8.5% - The Washington Post

Did I hear someone say no private sector jobs were being created?

Repeat after me.

Low income holiday retail jobs being up-staffed for the rush. Watch the numbers plummet come February. They usually do unless there is exceptional growth in OTHER sectors.