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

[The Rabbi]

When you make shit like that up, where does it come from? Do you know it makes you look like an ass? Do you think everybody is as clueless as you?

Translation: I am beat so rather than try to refute it I will call him names.

Game, set, match Rabbi. Thanks for playing. Jerk.

How did you win without posting the numbers which prove you right??

I posted a proposition. If someone had numbers to contradict it, they would have posted them. When I get a bunch of BS personal attacks I know the person cannot refute the proposition. Therefore I must be right.

 

[KissMy]

Printing money is not GDP growth dumb-ass.

 

[Faun]

Translation: I am beat so rather than try to refute it I will call him names.

Game, set, match Rabbi. Thanks for playing. Jerk.

How did you win without posting the numbers which prove you right??

I posted a proposition. If someone had numbers to contradict it, they would have posted them. When I get a bunch of BS personal attacks I know the person cannot refute the proposition. Therefore I must be right.

well I posted some numbers in response to your proposition which you claim were the wrong set of numbers, therefore, I proposed you post the numbers are talking about. you failed to do so, so your proposition remains unfounded and by your own standards, you're wrong

 

[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.

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.

I think most economist agree that the recession Obama faced was far worst than the 2001 recession and in fact is the worst recession any president has faced since the great depression.

Recessions that originate from a financial crisis which destroys and threatens major financial institutions typically have very slow recoveries. This was the case with the great depression, a number of panics and recessions in the 19th century and the 2008 recession. After such recessions, financial institutions are slow to respond to signs of economic expansion, delaying the recovery.

Economists in 2008 were recommending a 1.5 trillion dollar stimulus which included major spending and taxes cuts along with cuts in interest. When Obama took office the three major weapons available to fight the worst recession in 70 years were seriously compromised. Interest rates had been lowered to near zero. Income taxes were at the lowest level since the great depression. The budget for 2009 which started in Oct 2008 under Bush had a 1.2 trillion dollar deficit. Harry Reid told Obama the largest stimulus package that congress would approve was about 750 billion, about half what was needed. As it turned out, the recovery was also about half what was needed.

Don’t Blame Obama for Bush’s 2009 Deficit | Cato @ Liberty

 

[Foxfyre]

Printing money is not GDP growth dumb-ass.

Anybody can make a great looking graph and label it however they choose. I would rather see a credible graph from something other than the Obamadiaries website before I would believe those numbers, however.

 

[Foxfyre]

President Bush did not do a good job with government growth--the government grew substantially under his watch--with entitlements--with spending--with energy--with immigration--and with the environment. And it is likely, when history finally records the whole story, he won't fare well with his role in Afghanistan and Iraq.

But his economic policies were sound and commendable. If President Obama had chosen to emulate Bush's economic policies rather than all that other failed stuff, I believe we would be out of the recession and enjoying full employment again by now. But alas, Obama chose to repeat the failed Bush policies and adopted none of the good ones.

Dispute these numbers if you can. . . .

. . . .In the wake of a recession that began roughly seven weeks after President Bush took office, America experienced six years of uninterrupted economic growth and a record 52 straight months of job creation that produced more than 8 million new jobs. During the Bush presidency, the unemployment rate averaged 5.3 percent. We saw labor-productivity gains that averaged 2.5 percent annually — a rate that exceeds the averages of the 1970s, 1980s, and 1990s. Real after-tax income per capita increased by more than 11 percent. And from 2000 to 2007, real GDP grew by more than 17 percent, a gain of nearly $2.1 trillion.

As for Obama’s claim that Bush “turned a budget surplus into a deficit”: by January 2001, when Bush was inaugurated, the budget surpluses were already evaporating as the economy was skidding toward recession (it officially began in March 2001). Combined with the devastating economic effects of 9/11, when we lost around 1 million jobs over 90 days, the surplus went into deficit. . . .

In Bush v. Obama, Bush Wins in a Rout « Commentary Magazine

 

[Flopper]

Printing money is not GDP growth dumb-ass.

Anybody can make a great looking graph and label it however they choose. I would rather see a credible graph from something other than the Obamadiaries website before I would believe those numbers, however.

The source is the Bureau of Economic Analysis. The graph looks the same as the one on the BEA website in the link below.



http://www.bea.gov/newsreleases/national/gdp/gdp_glance.htm]BEA : Gross Domestic Product (GDP) Graph[/url]

 

[Sundial]

When you make shit like that up, where does it come from? Do you know it makes you look like an ass? Do you think everybody is as clueless as you?

Translation: I am beat so rather than try to refute it I will call him names.

Game, set, match Rabbi. Thanks for playing. Jerk.

How did you win without posting the numbers which prove you right??

Winning is a state of mind.

 

[Sundial]

Translation: I am beat so rather than try to refute it I will call him names.

Game, set, match Rabbi. Thanks for playing. Jerk.

How did you win without posting the numbers which prove you right??

I posted a proposition. If someone had numbers to contradict it, they would have posted them. When I get a bunch of BS personal attacks I know the person cannot refute the proposition. Therefore I must be right.

I have a proposition for you: you're a fucking dumbass.

 

[The Rabbi]

How did you win without posting the numbers which prove you right??

I posted a proposition. If someone had numbers to contradict it, they would have posted them. When I get a bunch of BS personal attacks I know the person cannot refute the proposition. Therefore I must be right.

I have a proposition for you: you're a fucking dumbass.

I whip yr azz in every debate. There's your refutation right there.

 

[The Rabbi]

Printing money is not GDP growth dumb-ass.

Anybody can make a great looking graph and label it however they choose. I would rather see a credible graph from something other than the Obamadiaries website before I would believe those numbers, however.

The source is the Bureau of Economic Analysis. The graph looks the same as the one on the BEA website in the link below.



http://www.bea.gov/newsreleases/national/gdp/gdp_glance.htm]BEA : Gross Domestic Product (GDP) Graph[/url]

We had a recession. Every recession is followed by a recovery. Every one. Typically the steeper the recession, teh stronger the recovery.
Here is more pertinent data:
United States GDP Growth Rate
Note the recession in teh early 80s was comparable to the one we just had (no, it was not The Great Recession. That's bullshit). And afterwards GDP grew by 8%. The recession that followed saw 9% growth. Through most of the 2000s growth was in the 3-5% range.
The recovery this time has seen a top growth rate of 5% with declining rates ever since. This is despite (because of) the unprecedented intervention in the economy by the Fed and the federal government.

This is the weakest recovery on record, despite the highest level of spending. Obamanomics is a failure.

 

[Sundial]

Dispute these numbers if you can. . . .

. . . .In the wake of a recession that began roughly seven weeks after President Bush took office, America experienced six years of uninterrupted economic growth and a record 52 straight months of job creation that produced more than 8 million new jobs. During the Bush presidency, the unemployment rate averaged 5.3 percent. We saw labor-productivity gains that averaged 2.5 percent annually — a rate that exceeds the averages of the 1970s, 1980s, and 1990s. Real after-tax income per capita increased by more than 11 percent. And from 2000 to 2007, real GDP grew by more than 17 percent, a gain of nearly $2.1 trillion.

As for Obama’s claim that Bush “turned a budget surplus into a deficit”: by January 2001, when Bush was inaugurated, the budget surpluses were already evaporating as the economy was skidding toward recession (it officially began in March 2001). Combined with the devastating economic effects of 9/11, when we lost around 1 million jobs over 90 days, the surplus went into deficit. . . .

In Bush v. Obama, Bush Wins in a Rout « Commentary Magazine

"The first Bush recession started roughly 7 weeks after he became president." True. Bush was inaugurated in Jan. The recession started in March.

"The economy experienced 6 years of 'uninterrupted' growth." True. The length of time between the first Bush recession (2001) and the beginning of the second (Dec. 2007) is six years.

"America experienced a 'record' 52 straight months of job creation." 52 months is a little over 4 years. If you take out the first three or so years, and discard the last one entirely, that leaves about 4 years (out of 8) of job growth.

4 out of 8 years is not a "record" of anything - except maybe shittiness.

Bill Clinton - also known as the president-immediately-before-Bush - had a "record" of 8 out of 8 years of job growth.

That 4 out of 8 years of job growth is a "record" is false.

"Bush created 8 million jobs." that may be true, if you count only the good years. On the other hand, everybody in Vegas is a winner, if you count only the times they win.

If you count ALL the years, Bush's record sucks. The economy LOST jobs during the entire time Bush was president. I'm not sure that's ever happened since the Great Depression. I'm not sure it happened even then. The statement is technically true, but it's bullshit.

OK, well I'm bored now.

Tl;dr: Bush sucks.

Here's a bonus graph:

 

[The Rabbi]

Dispute these numbers if you can. . . .

. . . .In the wake of a recession that began roughly seven weeks after President Bush took office, America experienced six years of uninterrupted economic growth and a record 52 straight months of job creation that produced more than 8 million new jobs. During the Bush presidency, the unemployment rate averaged 5.3 percent. We saw labor-productivity gains that averaged 2.5 percent annually — a rate that exceeds the averages of the 1970s, 1980s, and 1990s. Real after-tax income per capita increased by more than 11 percent. And from 2000 to 2007, real GDP grew by more than 17 percent, a gain of nearly $2.1 trillion.

As for Obama’s claim that Bush “turned a budget surplus into a deficit”: by January 2001, when Bush was inaugurated, the budget surpluses were already evaporating as the economy was skidding toward recession (it officially began in March 2001). Combined with the devastating economic effects of 9/11, when we lost around 1 million jobs over 90 days, the surplus went into deficit. . . .

In Bush v. Obama, Bush Wins in a Rout « Commentary Magazine

"The first Bush recession started roughly 7 weeks after he became president." True. Bush was inaugurated in Jan. The recession started in March.

"The economy experienced 6 years of 'uninterrupted' growth." True. The length of time between the first Bush recession (2001) and the beginning of the second (Dec. 2007) is six years.

"America experienced a 'record' 52 straight months of job creation." 52 months is a little over 4 years. If you take out the first three or so years, and discard the last one entirely, that leaves about 4 years (out of 8) of job growth.

4 out of 8 years is not a "record" of anything - except maybe shittiness.

]

If 48 months out of 96 is shitty then what do you call 3 out of 36? Barfalacious? Shitocious?
Whatever, Obama's record is far worse than Bush's. And Bush probably would have done better had the Dems not taken control of Congress in '06.

 

[Sundial]

Dispute these numbers if you can. . . .

"The first Bush recession started roughly 7 weeks after he became president." True. Bush was inaugurated in Jan. The recession started in March.

"The economy experienced 6 years of 'uninterrupted' growth." True. The length of time between the first Bush recession (2001) and the beginning of the second (Dec. 2007) is six years.

"America experienced a 'record' 52 straight months of job creation." 52 months is a little over 4 years. If you take out the first three or so years, and discard the last one entirely, that leaves about 4 years (out of 8) of job growth.

4 out of 8 years is not a "record" of anything - except maybe shittiness.

]

If 48 months out of 96 is shitty then what do you call 3 out of 36? Barfalacious? Shitocious?
Whatever, Obama's record is far worse than Bush's. And Bush probably would have done better had the Dems not taken control of Congress in '06.

I'm not sure what you're babbling about. If you're talking about Obama, private sector jobs have been growing every month for the past two or so years.

His first year sucked. But he inherited an economy already in free fall. The economy doesn't turn on a dime.

I like how you blame Congress when the Republicans have the White House, and the president when the Republicans control the House. What's it like to have no intellectual integrity, at all?

 

[The Rabbi]

"The first Bush recession started roughly 7 weeks after he became president." True. Bush was inaugurated in Jan. The recession started in March.

"The economy experienced 6 years of 'uninterrupted' growth." True. The length of time between the first Bush recession (2001) and the beginning of the second (Dec. 2007) is six years.

"America experienced a 'record' 52 straight months of job creation." 52 months is a little over 4 years. If you take out the first three or so years, and discard the last one entirely, that leaves about 4 years (out of 8) of job growth.

4 out of 8 years is not a "record" of anything - except maybe shittiness.

]

If 48 months out of 96 is shitty then what do you call 3 out of 36? Barfalacious? Shitocious?
Whatever, Obama's record is far worse than Bush's. And Bush probably would have done better had the Dems not taken control of Congress in '06.

I'm not sure what you're babbling about. If you're talking about Obama, private sector jobs have been growing every month for the past two or so years.

His first year sucked. But he inherited an economy already in free fall. The economy doesn't turn on a dime.

I like how you blame Congress when the Republicans have the White House, and the president when the Republicans control the House. What's it like to have no intellectual integrity, at all?

We ddint have positive private sector hiring until about 3 months ago.
Dems controlled congress from 06 on. Obama isn't solely to blame. He outsourced a lot of policy to Pelosi and Reid.

 

[Mr.Nick]

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?

And our workforce dropped significantly...........

The unemployment rate is extremely deceptive......

Those who outlived their unemployment benefits or don't qualify for them in the first place aren't counted... Those who have never held a job but are able to work (welfare fucks) aren't counted.

The equation used to measure the unemployment rate is extremely flawed....

Not to mention our fucking lying media only reports how many jobs are created and hardly EVER mentions how many jobs were lost.....

-350 jobs + 100 jobs is STILL -250 jobs... But Obamabots will sit there and brag about +100 jobs when 250 jobs were lost, or that the workforce shrunk...

Of course only a progressive would be dumb enough not to investigate the shit the media spews - NO they put total faith in the media. They read an article and know everything about the subject all of a sudden...

 

[Flopper]

And from 2000 to 2007, real GDP grew by more than 17 percent, a gain of nearly $2.1 trillion.

A 17% GDP growth over 7 years is good? That's an average GDP yearly growth of only 2.4%.

 

[Flopper]

If 48 months out of 96 is shitty then what do you call 3 out of 36? Barfalacious? Shitocious?
Whatever, Obama's record is far worse than Bush's. And Bush probably would have done better had the Dems not taken control of Congress in '06.

I'm not sure what you're babbling about. If you're talking about Obama, private sector jobs have been growing every month for the past two or so years.

His first year sucked. But he inherited an economy already in free fall. The economy doesn't turn on a dime.

I like how you blame Congress when the Republicans have the White House, and the president when the Republicans control the House. What's it like to have no intellectual integrity, at all?

We ddint have positive private sector hiring until about 3 months ago.
Dems controlled congress from 06 on. Obama isn't solely to blame. He outsourced a lot of policy to Pelosi and Reid.

Nope. "Employment in the private sector rose by 212,000 in December and by 1.9 million over the
year. Government employment changed little over the month but fell by 280,000
over the year."

Employment Situation Summary

 

[EriktheRed]

And from 2000 to 2007, real GDP grew by more than 17 percent, a gain of nearly $2.1 trillion.

A 17% GDP growth over 7 years is good? That's an average GDP yearly growth of only 2.4%.

Foxy's on a Quixotic quest to rehabilitate Shrub's image. So far it's borne no fruit, especially after Rick Perry has come on the scene to remind people why we should give a Texas governor a pass this time around.

 

[Toro]

If 48 months out of 96 is shitty then what do you call 3 out of 36? Barfalacious? Shitocious?
Whatever, Obama's record is far worse than Bush's. And Bush probably would have done better had the Dems not taken control of Congress in '06.

I'm not sure what you're babbling about. If you're talking about Obama, private sector jobs have been growing every month for the past two or so years.

His first year sucked. But he inherited an economy already in free fall. The economy doesn't turn on a dime.

I like how you blame Congress when the Republicans have the White House, and the president when the Republicans control the House. What's it like to have no intellectual integrity, at all?

We ddint have positive private sector hiring until about 3 months ago.
Dems controlled congress from 06 on. Obama isn't solely to blame. He outsourced a lot of policy to Pelosi and Reid.

Private employment has risen each month over the past 23 months.

Data is from here.

http://www.bls.gov/webapps/legacy/cesbtab1.htm