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

[8537]

[
I am not talking about TOTAL unemployment. I was talking about JOB LOSS, which is NOT THE SAME ******* 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 ******* 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.

No you didn't. you provided a link to a far-right hit piece from Heritage with a chart claiming to be construed of BLS data that you misinterpreted anyway. Try getting the source data for us. Oh wait, you can't even run a query at the BLS....

I've seen people work hard to cover a lie, but this is truly exceptional. I'm going to bookmark this idiocy as a reminder.

 

[The Rabbi]

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.

No you didn't. you provided a link to a far-right hit piece from Heritage with a chart claiming to be construed of BLS data that you misinterpreted anyway. Try getting the source data for us. Oh wait, you can't even run a query at the BLS....

I've seen people work hard to cover a lie, but this is truly exceptional. I'm going to bookmark this idiocy as a reminder.

Utterly predictable...."right wing mouthpiece" blah blah.
Face it, asshole. You've beclowned yourself here. You can't tell the difference between job loss and total employment.

 

[Cuyo]

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

Newt Gingrich and company -- for all their faults -- have received virtually no credit for balancing the budget. Yet today's surplus is, in part, a byproduct of the GOP's single-minded crusade to end 30 years of red ink. Arguably, Gingrich's finest hour as Speaker came in March 1995 when he rallied the entire Republican House caucus behind the idea of eliminating the deficit within seven years.

We have a balanced budget today that is mostly a result of 1) an exceptionally strong economy that is creating gobs of new tax revenues and 2) a shrinking military budget. Social spending is still soaring and now costs more than $1 trillion.

Skeptics said it could not be done in seven years. The GOP did it in four.

No, Bill Clinton Didn't Balance the Budget | Stephen Moore | Cato Institute: Daily Commentary

And when it comes to deficits after 2001?

from 02-07
all GOP budgets we run a yearly deficit of about 250 billion a year
GWB would not even sign 2009 budget and the 08 was 450-500 billion in the hole
both with a dem congress
Budget 2011: Past Deficits vs. Obama’s Deficits in Pictures

so with that said and adding 10-11 and 12 to that we have from about 98-07
GOP added about 1 trillion and the left has added, well lets just allot more than 1 trillion

There is nothing here to debate
if there is what exactly would it be?

:Ahem:

Does Newt get credit for the first-term tax hikes as well which lead to the balanced budget?

 

[8537]

You are the biggest shit for brains on this site. I already provided a cite for what I wrote.

No you didn't. you provided a link to a far-right hit piece from Heritage with a chart claiming to be construed of BLS data that you misinterpreted anyway. Try getting the source data for us. Oh wait, you can't even run a query at the BLS....

I've seen people work hard to cover a lie, but this is truly exceptional. I'm going to bookmark this idiocy as a reminder.

Utterly predictable...."right wing mouthpiece" blah blah.

Holy shit - you think Heritage is anything but a rightwing mouthpiece? That's hilarious.

Face it, asshole. You've beclowned yourself here. You can't tell the difference between job loss and total employment.

Do you have that source data for us, or are you going to continue lying, obfuscating, making excuses and acting like a 3-yr old punk?

 

[8537]

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

Newt Gingrich and company -- for all their faults -- have received virtually no credit for balancing the budget. Yet today's surplus is, in part, a byproduct of the GOP's single-minded crusade to end 30 years of red ink. Arguably, Gingrich's finest hour as Speaker came in March 1995 when he rallied the entire Republican House caucus behind the idea of eliminating the deficit within seven years.

We have a balanced budget today that is mostly a result of 1) an exceptionally strong economy that is creating gobs of new tax revenues and 2) a shrinking military budget. Social spending is still soaring and now costs more than $1 trillion.

Skeptics said it could not be done in seven years. The GOP did it in four.

No, Bill Clinton Didn't Balance the Budget | Stephen Moore | Cato Institute: Daily Commentary

And when it comes to deficits after 2001?

from 02-07
all GOP budgets we run a yearly deficit of about 250 billion a year
GWB would not even sign 2009 budget and the 08 was 450-500 billion in the hole
both with a dem congress
Budget 2011: Past Deficits vs. Obama’s Deficits in Pictures

so with that said and adding 10-11 and 12 to that we have from about 98-07
GOP added about 1 trillion and the left has added, well lets just allot more than 1 trillion

There is nothing here to debate
if there is what exactly would it be?

:Ahem:

Does Newt get credit for the first-term tax hikes as well which lead to the balanced budget?

Here's what Newt had to say about that:

I believe that that will in fact kill the current recovery and put us back in a recession. It might take 1 1/2 or 2 years, but it will happen.

That was in 1993. The economy expanded at record pace for another 7 years, with record job creation.


Oh no! I must edit this to add the sad news that Rabbi the Racist has given me a neg rep for the 9th time! I'm crushed.

 

[Flopper]

It would have been the same with McCain, dummy.
It would have been the same with McCain, dummy.
It would have been the same with McCain, dummy.
It would have been the same with McCain, dummy.
It would have been the same with McCain, dummy.
It would have been the same with McCain, dummy.
It would have been the same with McCain, dummy.
It would have been the same with McCain, dummy.
It would have been the same with McCain, dummy.
It would have been the same with McCain, dummy.
It would have been the same with McCain, dummy.

Who said anything about McCain?
and would it be the same right now?
not even close, I do not know if it would be much better, but the debt would not be out of control

McCain would have had to deal with a Democratic Congress.
McCain would not have signed Obamacare. McCain would not have installed his own CEO at GM. McCain would not have proposed boneheaded programs like cash for clunkers. Etc etc.
McCain was no prize. But he isn't Obama. More deflection from the Left.

Yeah and McCain wouldn't be withdrawing troops so you would still end up with a big deficit.

 

[NYcarbineer]

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

Newt Gingrich and company -- for all their faults -- have received virtually no credit for balancing the budget. Yet today's surplus is, in part, a byproduct of the GOP's single-minded crusade to end 30 years of red ink. Arguably, Gingrich's finest hour as Speaker came in March 1995 when he rallied the entire Republican House caucus behind the idea of eliminating the deficit within seven years.

We have a balanced budget today that is mostly a result of 1) an exceptionally strong economy that is creating gobs of new tax revenues and 2) a shrinking military budget. Social spending is still soaring and now costs more than $1 trillion.

Skeptics said it could not be done in seven years. The GOP did it in four.

No, Bill Clinton Didn't Balance the Budget | Stephen Moore | Cato Institute: Daily Commentary

And when it comes to deficits after 2001?

from 02-07
all GOP budgets we run a yearly deficit of about 250 billion a year
GWB would not even sign 2009 budget and the 08 was 450-500 billion in the hole
both with a dem congress
Budget 2011: Past Deficits vs. Obama’s Deficits in Pictures

so with that said and adding 10-11 and 12 to that we have from about 98-07
GOP added about 1 trillion and the left has added, well lets just allot more than 1 trillion

There is nothing here to debate
if there is what exactly would it be?

:Ahem:

Does Newt get credit for the first-term tax hikes as well which lead to the balanced budget?

Here's what Newt had to say about that:

I believe that that will in fact kill the current recovery and put us back in a recession. It might take 1 1/2 or 2 years, but it will happen.

That was in 1993. The economy expanded at record pace for another 7 years, with record job creation.


Oh no! I must edit this to add the sad news that Rabbi the Racist has given me a neg rep for the 9th time! I'm crushed.

Newt also claimed back then that raising the minimum wage would cost hundreds of thousands of jobs . It was raised. It didn't.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Did Rabbi really post charts that disprove his own point? Bwahahahaha!

Not surprising since he is the same person who once posted a story from The Onion thinking it was real. You're living proof that racism is for true idiots.

It's not the first time he's done that. Maybe he's just here to try to make rabbis look stupid.

 

[The Rabbi]

Who said anything about McCain?
and would it be the same right now?
not even close, I do not know if it would be much better, but the debt would not be out of control

McCain would have had to deal with a Democratic Congress.
McCain would not have signed Obamacare. McCain would not have installed his own CEO at GM. McCain would not have proposed boneheaded programs like cash for clunkers. Etc etc.
McCain was no prize. But he isn't Obama. More deflection from the Left.

Yeah and McCain wouldn't be withdrawing troops so you would still end up with a big deficit.

He wouldn't have committed them to begin with. Iraq was already wrapping up and Obama has only continued the Bush timetable. Obama is the one who sent a "surge" to Afghanistan that was designed to fail. Nor would McCain have gotten involved in Libya.
So, wrong. Again.

 

[8537]

Did Rabbi really post charts that disprove his own point? Bwahahahaha!

Not surprising since he is the same person who once posted a story from The Onion thinking it was real. You're living proof that racism is for true idiots.

It's not the first time he's done that. Maybe he's just here to try to make rabbis look stupid.

If that's his mission I hope he's paid well.

 

[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.

housing bubble and market crash, it was all propped up on Popsicle sticks.

There was a market crash in 2005? Who knew?

However with Obama it's easy: high unemployment, slow to no growth, skyrocketing poverty. Nothing propping that mess up except his lefty claques.

 

[edthecynic]

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

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.

[
I am not talking about TOTAL unemployment. I was talking about JOB LOSS, which is NOT THE SAME ******* 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 ******* 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.

CON$ think that because they can't read or do simple arithmetic then nobody can either because CON$ are the smartest most informed people on Earth because they can copy & paste from Heritage.

Now I highlighted and colored the answer that was given before Rabid even asked it, and you can be sure he will still play too dumb to have seen it. So I'll even explain that a change with a - (minus sign) is a LOSS of non farm jobs for that month.

I'll even add up the minuses for him because CON$ are confused by ADDING MINUS signs, with GOP fuzzy math you can only subtract if there is a minus sign.
Now if you total the jobs lost for not just 2001 but for 2002 and 2003 combined, as marked in red above you get a loss of about -2.6 million jobs.
And if you add up the job loss for 2008 ALONE you get a loss of about -3.6 million jobs. Which to CON$ proves that Bush had more job losses in 2001 alone then in all of the Bush Depression because to CON$ 2.6 is infinitely larger than 3.6

 

[The Rabbi]

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

[
I am not talking about TOTAL unemployment. I was talking about JOB LOSS, which is NOT THE SAME ******* 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 ******* 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.

CON$ think that because they can't read or do simple arithmetic then nobody can either because CON$ are the smartest most informed people on Earth because they can copy & paste from Heritage.

Now I highlighted and colored the answer that was given before Rabid even asked it, and you can be sure he will still play too dumb to have seen it. So I'll even explain that a change with a - (minus sign) is a LOSS of non farm jobs for that month.

I'll even add up the minuses for him because CON$ are confused by ADDING MINUS signs, with GOP fuzzy math you can only subtract if there is a minus sign.
Now if you total the jobs lost for not just 2001 but for 2002 and 2003 combined, as marked in red above you get a loss of about -2.6 million jobs.
And if you add up the job loss for 2008 ALONE you get a loss of about -3.6 million jobs. Which to CON$ proves that Bush had more job losses in 2001 alone then in all of the Bush Depression because to CON$ 2.6 is infinitely larger than 3.6

What a shock. You also don't get it.

 

[JRK]

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

[
I am not talking about TOTAL unemployment. I was talking about JOB LOSS, which is NOT THE SAME ******* 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 ******* 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.

CON$ think that because they can't read or do simple arithmetic then nobody can either because CON$ are the smartest most informed people on Earth because they can copy & paste from Heritage.

Now I highlighted and colored the answer that was given before Rabid even asked it, and you can be sure he will still play too dumb to have seen it. So I'll even explain that a change with a - (minus sign) is a LOSS of non farm jobs for that month.

I'll even add up the minuses for him because CON$ are confused by ADDING MINUS signs, with GOP fuzzy math you can only subtract if there is a minus sign.
Now if you total the jobs lost for not just 2001 but for 2002 and 2003 combined, as marked in red above you get a loss of about -2.6 million jobs.
And if you add up the job loss for 2008 ALONE you get a loss of about -3.6 million jobs. Which to CON$ proves that Bush had more job losses in 2001 alone then in all of the Bush Depression because to CON$ 2.6 is infinitely larger than 3.6

Explain this and stop being so paranoid
calling people names and acting a fool is not going to change what Obama is doing
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

Please note that 2008 we had 5 million jobs more than we did in 2001
6 million more than 2003
stop spinning your information
/ftp.bls.gov/pub/suppl/empsit.ceseeb1.txt
Jobs lost Vs. total people in the work force are 2 different things
ftp://ftp.bls.gov/pub/suppl/empsit.ceseeb1.txt

 

[edthecynic]

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

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.

CON$ think that because they can't read or do simple arithmetic then nobody can either because CON$ are the smartest most informed people on Earth because they can copy & paste from Heritage.

Now I highlighted and colored the answer that was given before Rabid even asked it, and you can be sure he will still play too dumb to have seen it. So I'll even explain that a change with a - (minus sign) is a LOSS of non farm jobs for that month.

I'll even add up the minuses for him because CON$ are confused by ADDING MINUS signs, with GOP fuzzy math you can only subtract if there is a minus sign.
Now if you total the jobs lost for not just 2001 but for 2002 and 2003 combined, as marked in red above you get a loss of about -2.6 million jobs.
And if you add up the job loss for 2008 ALONE you get a loss of about -3.6 million jobs. Which to CON$ proves that Bush had more job losses in 2001 alone then in all of the Bush Depression because to CON$ 2.6 is infinitely larger than 3.6

What a shock. You also don't get it.

What a shock, you are still playing dumb!

 

[The Rabbi]

CON$ think that because they can't read or do simple arithmetic then nobody can either because CON$ are the smartest most informed people on Earth because they can copy & paste from Heritage.

Now I highlighted and colored the answer that was given before Rabid even asked it, and you can be sure he will still play too dumb to have seen it. So I'll even explain that a change with a - (minus sign) is a LOSS of non farm jobs for that month.

I'll even add up the minuses for him because CON$ are confused by ADDING MINUS signs, with GOP fuzzy math you can only subtract if there is a minus sign.
Now if you total the jobs lost for not just 2001 but for 2002 and 2003 combined, as marked in red above you get a loss of about -2.6 million jobs.
And if you add up the job loss for 2008 ALONE you get a loss of about -3.6 million jobs. Which to CON$ proves that Bush had more job losses in 2001 alone then in all of the Bush Depression because to CON$ 2.6 is infinitely larger than 3.6

What a shock. You also don't get it.

What a shock, you are still playing dumb!

WHy don't you explain, in very simple terms, what you think you are showing.

 

[G.T.]

They're showing you how big of a lie this statement was, Racist:

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

 

[edthecynic]

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

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.

CON$ think that because they can't read or do simple arithmetic then nobody can either because CON$ are the smartest most informed people on Earth because they can copy & paste from Heritage.

Now I highlighted and colored the answer that was given before Rabid even asked it, and you can be sure he will still play too dumb to have seen it. So I'll even explain that a change with a - (minus sign) is a LOSS of non farm jobs for that month.

I'll even add up the minuses for him because CON$ are confused by ADDING MINUS signs, with GOP fuzzy math you can only subtract if there is a minus sign.
Now if you total the jobs lost for not just 2001 but for 2002 and 2003 combined, as marked in red above you get a loss of about -2.6 million jobs.
And if you add up the job loss for 2008 ALONE you get a loss of about -3.6 million jobs. Which to CON$ proves that Bush had more job losses in 2001 alone then in all of the Bush Depression because to CON$ 2.6 is infinitely larger than 3.6

Explain this and stop being so paranoid
calling people names and acting a fool is not going to change what Obama is doing
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

Please note that 2008 we had 5 million jobs more than we did in 2001
6 million more than 2003
stop spinning your information
/ftp.bls.gov/pub/suppl/empsit.ceseeb1.txt
Jobs lost Vs. total people in the work force are 2 different things
ftp://ftp.bls.gov/pub/suppl/empsit.ceseeb1.txt

You are actually doing what Rabid is accusing everyone else of doing even though they are not.
Those are TOTAL employment numbers, not the JOB LOSS numbers Rabid demands. But nice attempt to divert to save your fellow traveler.

Originally Posted by The Rabbi
I am not talking about TOTAL unemployment. I was talking about JOB LOSS, which is NOT THE SAME ******* 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.

 

[The Rabbi]

They're showing you how big of a lie this statement was, Racist:

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

Given that you don't understand the basis ofthe discussion, you're the last person who should be chiming in here, sparky.

 

[G.T.]

They're showing you how big of a lie this statement was, Racist:

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

Given that you don't understand the basis ofthe discussion, you're the last person who should be chiming in here, sparky.

well gee, that's ironic since you're the big retard for everyone to see, here.