Ronald Reagan - Prophet

[regent]

The sad thing in the program to make Reagan into a great president is that all the the charts. all the historians, all the books, have to become lies. Just that in itself has to be a major undertaking. The easiest undertaking, perhaps, is convincing people that all charts, all the historians, all the books are lies. Our political belief system leaves a lot to be desired, when it comes to the truth about politicians, and it's no wonder we elect a Harding or a Grant or even a Bush.
Perhaps in twenty years or so a program to make Bush a great president will be started, could it be done, I'll bet the ratings of the public could gradually change, maybe not to great but to above average. The Republians have a near-great president in Teddy Roosevelt, he's even on the mountain but for some reason the Republicans steer clear of poor old Teddy and concentrate on making a mediocre president great. Why, Reagan?

There is no need for a "program" to make Reagan great. History will suffice adequately, and lefty whining can only serve to enhance his legacy. Some people are just to thick to understand.

What history, history by the Republican party or by historians? How does whining enhance history, if whining can change history, is that history? Maybe we need to start with a definition of history and the methodology of history?

 

[Meathead]

The sad thing in the program to make Reagan into a great president is that all the the charts. all the historians, all the books, have to become lies. Just that in itself has to be a major undertaking. The easiest undertaking, perhaps, is convincing people that all charts, all the historians, all the books are lies. Our political belief system leaves a lot to be desired, when it comes to the truth about politicians, and it's no wonder we elect a Harding or a Grant or even a Bush.
Perhaps in twenty years or so a program to make Bush a great president will be started, could it be done, I'll bet the ratings of the public could gradually change, maybe not to great but to above average. The Republians have a near-great president in Teddy Roosevelt, he's even on the mountain but for some reason the Republicans steer clear of poor old Teddy and concentrate on making a mediocre president great. Why, Reagan?

There is no need for a "program" to make Reagan great. History will suffice adequately, and lefty whining can only serve to enhance his legacy. Some people are just to thick to understand.

What history, history by the Republican party or by historians? How does whining enhance history, if whining can change history, is that history? Maybe we need to start with a definition of history and the methodology of history?

Maybe we need to read history and get a clue. Nothing enhances history. Retrospective whining can only serve to belittle the whiner and in doing so make the object seem greater. It is all a matter of perspective. I mean who whines about Clinton and Carter for instance? But for FDR and especially Reagan, is still quite commonplace. Both the latter not only changed the country, but changed the world.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Reagan freed tens of millions from Communism and the "American" Left thinks that was a bad thing

 

[CrotchetyGeezer]

You have the nerve to talk about honesty?

Damn rights I have the nerve to talk about honesty. And, I still have the nerve to talk about honesty. Which, leftists don't have.



I was trying to compare private sector employment gains and losses? Not in this exchange I wasn't. In this exchange, I was comparing neither private sector nor government jobs...idiot! And, in my last post, I was comparing government jobs and private sector jobs for Reagan and Obama and my statistics were exactly correct. Prove them wrong.



Yep, there you go being dishonest again. Does this blame Bush crap ever get old for you people? First off, let's talk about what your chump-in-chief walked in to. Your punk-in-chief walked into an unemployment rate that went up 4.8% between Jan. 2001 and Dec. 2006, under George W. Bush and a Republican-controlled Congress. Then, an unemployment rate that shot up 58.7% between Jan. 2007 and Dec. 2008, after your cadre took control of Congress in 2007. Further, what he walked in to was the number of employed went up in the private sector (seasonally adjusted) 2.8% between Jan. 2001 and Dec. 2006, under George W. Bush and a Republican-controlled Congress. Then, the number of employed dropping by that same percentage between Jan. 2007 and Dec. 2008, after your cadre took control of Congress in 2007. That's what he walked in to.

Second, in George W. Bush's first 47 months in office, the number of employed dropped 1.0% between Jan. 2001 and Nov. 2004. This, mostly due to over 100,000 jobs being lost as a result of the attacks of September 11, 2001. In New York alone, there were 105,200 jobs lost. In Obama's first 47 months, the number of employed in the private sector increased by 0.8% between Jan. 2009 and Nov. 2012. And, Obama didn't lose over 100,000 jobs due to an attack on mainland America. I'll bet if we added in the at least 105,200 jobs of which were lost in New York alone that day, this would change the picture in a significant manner.

Third, of course, we aren't even counting the number who have stopped looking for jobs under Obama as compared to George W. Bush and that's just yet another example of yours and Obama's, as well as the BLS's, dishonesty.



Oh puhlease. Take your chart above and stuff is somewhere. Right off the bat it's wrong. The number of jobs at the end of George W. Bush's term was 134.4 million, not 135.5 million. And, these were total non-farm jobs, not just private sector jobs.

And THEN, you right wing turds have the audacity to claim the Stimulus Bill didn't work!

HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! This chart is such a lie. You sure you want to go with the claim these were private sector jobs? You freakin' liars are just astounding. The number of employed, in private sector jobs (seasonally adjusted), went from 111.0 million in January 2009 to 106.8 million in February 2010. This stuff is easily accessible at the BLS's website (even though they're dishonest, you could at least get their numbers right) and that you think you can blatantly lie like this, as if you think no one is actually going to check the veracity of your claims is simply laughable. The stimulus went into effect the second quarter of 2009 and, you're trying to tell me it took until February of 2010 to finally kick in? Uh huh...sure.

Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts.
Daniel Patrick Moynihan

Then why are you making up your own facts?

WOW, you really do live in a vacuum.

The FACTS:

Recession Resulted In 8.3 Million Job Losses. According to the Associated Press, “the Great Recession killed 8.3 million jobs, compared with 1.6 million lost in the 2001 recession.” [Associated Press via Yahoo! News, 5/4/12]

I don't particularly know what "Great Recession" it is you're referring to but, to my knowledge, the only "Great Recession" was that of 2009.

The Great Recession, the Lesser Depression, Long Recession, or the global recession of 2009, is a marked global economic decline that began in December 2007 and took a particularly sharp downward turn in September 2008.

******
If one analyzes the event using the economics-academic definition of the word, the recession ended in the U.S. in June or July 2009.

Great Recession - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

And, using this as a basis, the number of employed in December 2007 was 137.1 million. And, the number of employed in June of 2009 was 130.5 million. That's 6.6 million jobs lost, not 8.3 million. And, if we use July, the number of employed in July of 2009 was 130.2 million. That would have been 6.9 million jobs lost, not 8.3 million.

Furthermore, who controlled Congress during this "Great Recession" you speak of? Oh...wait, that's right, it was Democrats.

Bush Recession Was So Severe That Economy Was Still Shedding Over Three-Quarters Of A Million Jobs Per Month Through First Few Months Of President Obama's Term. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the economy shed 839,000 jobs in January 2009, 725,000 in February 2009, 787,000 in March 2009, and 802,000 in April 2009, for a four-month average of 788,250 lost jobs per month. [BLS.gov, accessed 5/3/12]

Buuuuuutttttt Boooooosssshhhhhhh! Furthermore, this article is so full of crap it's unbelievable.

According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the economy shed 818,000 jobs in January, not 839,000. It shed 724,000 in February 2009, not 725,000. It shed 799,000 in March 2009, not 787,000 and, it shed 692,000 in April 2009, not 802,000. And, that's a four-month average of 758,250, not 788,250.

Since The Recession Ended In June 2009, The Private Sector Has Added Over 3.4 Million Jobs While Public-Sector Employment Has Fallen By 670,000. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, there were 107,933,000 private-sector jobs in June 2009, and 111,400,000 private-sector jobs in August 2012, an increase of 3,467,000 jobs. The BLS also reports that there were 22,570,000 Americans working in the public sector in June 2009, and 21,900,000 working in the public sector in August 2012, a decrease of 670,000 jobs. The private-sector gains and public-sector losses add up to a total increase of 2,797,000 jobs. [BLS.gov, accessed 9/7/12; BLS.gov, accessed 9/7/12; NBER.org, 9/20/10]

Oh...wow, 3.4 million jobs during Obama's near four year term. Is that supposed to be impressive? The first 39 months during Reagan's first term, private sector employment increased 4.6% between June 1981 and August 1984, while Obama increased it 3.2% during that same period of time. The first 39 months in Reagan's second term, private sector employment increased 8.8% between June 1985 and August 1988.

So, compare.

Reagan: 1st term, June 1981 to August 1984 - the number employed in the private sector increased 4.6%
Reagan: 2nd term, June 1985 to August 1988 - the number of employed in the private sector increased 8.8%.
Obama: 1st term, June 2009 to August 2012 - the number of employed in the private sector increased 3.2%

Reagan did better.

And then, of course, there was Clinton, who increased the number of those employed in the private sector 9.7% between June 1993 and August 1996 and, 7.9% between June 1997 and August 2000. You'd have been better off having gotten Slick to run another term.

Let's compare these.

Clinton: 1st term, June 1993 to August 1996 - the number of employed in the private sector increased 9.7%.
Clinton: 2nd term, June 1997 to August 2000 - the number of employed in the private sector increased 7.9%.
Obama: 1st term, June 2009 to August 2012 - the number of employed in the private sector increased 3.2%.

Clinton did better.

If Obama could at least match Reagan's numbers? We might be impressed. And, we'd be quite impressed if he could match or come close to matching Slick's numbers. But, alas, it's not to be. So, I'm not impressed. And then, again, let us remember over 100,000 jobs were lost on September 11, 2001, which goes toward making George W. Bush's numbers for that period of time look worse than they really were.

 

[Bfgrn]

Damn rights I have the nerve to talk about honesty. And, I still have the nerve to talk about honesty. Which, leftists don't have.



I was trying to compare private sector employment gains and losses? Not in this exchange I wasn't. In this exchange, I was comparing neither private sector nor government jobs...idiot! And, in my last post, I was comparing government jobs and private sector jobs for Reagan and Obama and my statistics were exactly correct. Prove them wrong.



Yep, there you go being dishonest again. Does this blame Bush crap ever get old for you people? First off, let's talk about what your chump-in-chief walked in to. Your punk-in-chief walked into an unemployment rate that went up 4.8% between Jan. 2001 and Dec. 2006, under George W. Bush and a Republican-controlled Congress. Then, an unemployment rate that shot up 58.7% between Jan. 2007 and Dec. 2008, after your cadre took control of Congress in 2007. Further, what he walked in to was the number of employed went up in the private sector (seasonally adjusted) 2.8% between Jan. 2001 and Dec. 2006, under George W. Bush and a Republican-controlled Congress. Then, the number of employed dropping by that same percentage between Jan. 2007 and Dec. 2008, after your cadre took control of Congress in 2007. That's what he walked in to.

Second, in George W. Bush's first 47 months in office, the number of employed dropped 1.0% between Jan. 2001 and Nov. 2004. This, mostly due to over 100,000 jobs being lost as a result of the attacks of September 11, 2001. In New York alone, there were 105,200 jobs lost. In Obama's first 47 months, the number of employed in the private sector increased by 0.8% between Jan. 2009 and Nov. 2012. And, Obama didn't lose over 100,000 jobs due to an attack on mainland America. I'll bet if we added in the at least 105,200 jobs of which were lost in New York alone that day, this would change the picture in a significant manner.

Third, of course, we aren't even counting the number who have stopped looking for jobs under Obama as compared to George W. Bush and that's just yet another example of yours and Obama's, as well as the BLS's, dishonesty.



Oh puhlease. Take your chart above and stuff is somewhere. Right off the bat it's wrong. The number of jobs at the end of George W. Bush's term was 134.4 million, not 135.5 million. And, these were total non-farm jobs, not just private sector jobs.



HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! This chart is such a lie. You sure you want to go with the claim these were private sector jobs? You freakin' liars are just astounding. The number of employed, in private sector jobs (seasonally adjusted), went from 111.0 million in January 2009 to 106.8 million in February 2010. This stuff is easily accessible at the BLS's website (even though they're dishonest, you could at least get their numbers right) and that you think you can blatantly lie like this, as if you think no one is actually going to check the veracity of your claims is simply laughable. The stimulus went into effect the second quarter of 2009 and, you're trying to tell me it took until February of 2010 to finally kick in? Uh huh...sure.

Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts.
Daniel Patrick Moynihan

Then why are you making up your own facts?



I don't particularly know what "Great Recession" it is you're referring to but, to my knowledge, the only "Great Recession" was that of 2009.

The Great Recession, the Lesser Depression, Long Recession, or the global recession of 2009, is a marked global economic decline that began in December 2007 and took a particularly sharp downward turn in September 2008.

******
If one analyzes the event using the economics-academic definition of the word, the recession ended in the U.S. in June or July 2009.

Great Recession - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

And, using this as a basis, the number of employed in December 2007 was 137.1 million. And, the number of employed in June of 2009 was 130.5 million. That's 6.6 million jobs lost, not 8.3 million. And, if we use July, the number of employed in July of 2009 was 130.2 million. That would have been 6.9 million jobs lost, not 8.3 million.

Furthermore, who controlled Congress during this "Great Recession" you speak of? Oh...wait, that's right, it was Democrats.

Bush Recession Was So Severe That Economy Was Still Shedding Over Three-Quarters Of A Million Jobs Per Month Through First Few Months Of President Obama's Term. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the economy shed 839,000 jobs in January 2009, 725,000 in February 2009, 787,000 in March 2009, and 802,000 in April 2009, for a four-month average of 788,250 lost jobs per month. [BLS.gov, accessed 5/3/12]

Buuuuuutttttt Boooooosssshhhhhhh! Furthermore, this article is so full of crap it's unbelievable.

According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the economy shed 818,000 jobs in January, not 839,000. It shed 724,000 in February 2009, not 725,000. It shed 799,000 in March 2009, not 787,000 and, it shed 692,000 in April 2009, not 802,000. And, that's a four-month average of 758,250, not 788,250.

Since The Recession Ended In June 2009, The Private Sector Has Added Over 3.4 Million Jobs While Public-Sector Employment Has Fallen By 670,000. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, there were 107,933,000 private-sector jobs in June 2009, and 111,400,000 private-sector jobs in August 2012, an increase of 3,467,000 jobs. The BLS also reports that there were 22,570,000 Americans working in the public sector in June 2009, and 21,900,000 working in the public sector in August 2012, a decrease of 670,000 jobs. The private-sector gains and public-sector losses add up to a total increase of 2,797,000 jobs. [BLS.gov, accessed 9/7/12; BLS.gov, accessed 9/7/12; NBER.org, 9/20/10]

Oh...wow, 3.4 million jobs during Obama's near four year term. Is that supposed to be impressive? The first 39 months during Reagan's first term, private sector employment increased 4.6% between June 1981 and August 1984, while Obama increased it 3.2% during that same period of time. The first 39 months in Reagan's second term, private sector employment increased 8.8% between June 1985 and August 1988.

So, compare.

Reagan: 1st term, June 1981 to August 1984 - the number employed in the private sector increased 4.6%
Reagan: 2nd term, June 1985 to August 1988 - the number of employed in the private sector increased 8.8%.
Obama: 1st term, June 2009 to August 2012 - the number of employed in the private sector increased 3.2%

Reagan did better.

And then, of course, there was Clinton, who increased the number of those employed in the private sector 9.7% between June 1993 and August 1996 and, 7.9% between June 1997 and August 2000. You'd have been better off having gotten Slick to run another term.

Let's compare these.

Clinton: 1st term, June 1993 to August 1996 - the number of employed in the private sector increased 9.7%.
Clinton: 2nd term, June 1997 to August 2000 - the number of employed in the private sector increased 7.9%.
Obama: 1st term, June 2009 to August 2012 - the number of employed in the private sector increased 3.2%.

Clinton did better.

If Obama could at least match Reagan's numbers? We might be impressed. And, we'd be quite impressed if he could match or come close to matching Slick's numbers. But, alas, it's not to be. So, I'm not impressed. And then, again, let us remember over 100,000 jobs were lost on September 11, 2001, which goes toward making George W. Bush's numbers for that period of time look worse than they really were.

WOW, you truly do live in a vacuum. You are not even cognitive. To compare Reagan and Obama in jobs without factoring in the state of the two economies is asinine. No one inherited a bigger failed economy and more hemorrhaging of jobs than Obama, with the exception of FDR.

My job loss numbers are accurate. You used Total nonfarm, my source used Total private.

You keep bringing up that 100,000 jobs were lost on September 11, 2001. When Obama took office, he faced 8 times that many lost jobs every month. And keep in mind, there was no end in sight, thankfully the Stimulus Bill turned the economy around.

I thought you were dishonest, I was wrong. You are obtuse.

 

[Meathead]

Whining about Reagan is not going to make Obama any better or Reagan any worse. It just makes Obama look like the political midget that he is.

 

[Bfgrn]

Whining about Reagan is not going to make Obama any better or Reagan any worse. It just makes Obama look like the political midget that he is.

The thread topic: Ronald Reagan - Prophet

 

[Meathead]

Whining about Reagan is not going to make Obama any better or Reagan any worse. It just makes Obama look like the political midget that he is.

The thread topic: Ronald Reagan - Prophet

So?

 

[CrotchetyGeezer]

Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts.
Daniel Patrick Moynihan

Then why are you making up your own facts?



I don't particularly know what "Great Recession" it is you're referring to but, to my knowledge, the only "Great Recession" was that of 2009.

The Great Recession, the Lesser Depression, Long Recession, or the global recession of 2009, is a marked global economic decline that began in December 2007 and took a particularly sharp downward turn in September 2008.

******
If one analyzes the event using the economics-academic definition of the word, the recession ended in the U.S. in June or July 2009.

Great Recession - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

And, using this as a basis, the number of employed in December 2007 was 137.1 million. And, the number of employed in June of 2009 was 130.5 million. That's 6.6 million jobs lost, not 8.3 million. And, if we use July, the number of employed in July of 2009 was 130.2 million. That would have been 6.9 million jobs lost, not 8.3 million.

Furthermore, who controlled Congress during this "Great Recession" you speak of? Oh...wait, that's right, it was Democrats.



Buuuuuutttttt Boooooosssshhhhhhh! Furthermore, this article is so full of crap it's unbelievable.

According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the economy shed 818,000 jobs in January, not 839,000. It shed 724,000 in February 2009, not 725,000. It shed 799,000 in March 2009, not 787,000 and, it shed 692,000 in April 2009, not 802,000. And, that's a four-month average of 758,250, not 788,250.

Since The Recession Ended In June 2009, The Private Sector Has Added Over 3.4 Million Jobs While Public-Sector Employment Has Fallen By 670,000. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, there were 107,933,000 private-sector jobs in June 2009, and 111,400,000 private-sector jobs in August 2012, an increase of 3,467,000 jobs. The BLS also reports that there were 22,570,000 Americans working in the public sector in June 2009, and 21,900,000 working in the public sector in August 2012, a decrease of 670,000 jobs. The private-sector gains and public-sector losses add up to a total increase of 2,797,000 jobs. [BLS.gov, accessed 9/7/12; BLS.gov, accessed 9/7/12; NBER.org, 9/20/10]

Oh...wow, 3.4 million jobs during Obama's near four year term. Is that supposed to be impressive? The first 39 months during Reagan's first term, private sector employment increased 4.6% between June 1981 and August 1984, while Obama increased it 3.2% during that same period of time. The first 39 months in Reagan's second term, private sector employment increased 8.8% between June 1985 and August 1988.

So, compare.

Reagan: 1st term, June 1981 to August 1984 - the number employed in the private sector increased 4.6%
Reagan: 2nd term, June 1985 to August 1988 - the number of employed in the private sector increased 8.8%.
Obama: 1st term, June 2009 to August 2012 - the number of employed in the private sector increased 3.2%

Reagan did better.

And then, of course, there was Clinton, who increased the number of those employed in the private sector 9.7% between June 1993 and August 1996 and, 7.9% between June 1997 and August 2000. You'd have been better off having gotten Slick to run another term.

Let's compare these.

Clinton: 1st term, June 1993 to August 1996 - the number of employed in the private sector increased 9.7%.
Clinton: 2nd term, June 1997 to August 2000 - the number of employed in the private sector increased 7.9%.
Obama: 1st term, June 2009 to August 2012 - the number of employed in the private sector increased 3.2%.

Clinton did better.

If Obama could at least match Reagan's numbers? We might be impressed. And, we'd be quite impressed if he could match or come close to matching Slick's numbers. But, alas, it's not to be. So, I'm not impressed. And then, again, let us remember over 100,000 jobs were lost on September 11, 2001, which goes toward making George W. Bush's numbers for that period of time look worse than they really were.

WOW, you truly do live in a vacuum. You are not even cognitive. To compare Reagan and Obama in jobs without factoring in the state of the two economies is asinine. No one inherited a bigger failed economy and more hemorrhaging of jobs than Obama, with the exception of FDR.

Buuuutttt Boooosssshhhhhh! Doesn't matter whether I factor in the two economies. Further, Reagan's economy wasn't much better when he came in than Obama's was, after that disaster Carter.

My job loss numbers are accurate. You used Total nonfarm, my source used Total private.

You didn't specify you were using "Total private" in the section of which I was responding to, you just said, "Bush Recession Was So Severe That Economy Was Still Shedding Over Three-Quarters Of A Million Jobs Per Month Through First Few Months Of President Obama's Term. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the economy shed 839,000 jobs in January 2009, 725,000 in February 2009, 787,000 in March 2009, and 802,000 in April 2009, for a four-month average of 788,250 lost jobs per month. [BLS.gov, accessed 5/3/12]"

Nothing in the above specifies Total private. Further, what's with this parsing private from government nonsense? Job loss is job loss, whether it's private or government.

You keep bringing up that 100,000 jobs were lost on September 11, 2001. When Obama took office, he faced 8 times that many lost jobs every month. And keep in mind, there was no end in sight, thankfully the Stimulus Bill turned the economy around.

Buuuutttt Boooosssshhhhhh! Who cares what he faced? Still doesn't change the fact that his performance is poor. Whether there were 4 million people employed at the beginning of his term or 1 million people employed at the beginning of his term makes no difference, it still doesn't change the fact that the increase in jobs in the private sector has been anemic, at only 3.2%, while under Reagan for the same time period in his first term was 4.6% and, in his second term 8.8%. How many jobs are present at the first of his term has no impact on the percentage of increase of jobs between the beginning of his term and whatever time period it is you want to choose later in his term. Even if there were 4 million people employed at the start of his term, the percentage of increase would still only be 3.2%. The percentage increase in jobs demonstrates his job-creating capabilities and has not one damn thing to do with how many jobs there were when he became president. And, that he was losing 8 times that many during his presidency? Well now, that's his fault. Wasn't a result of someone slamming airplanes into the side of skyscrapers now...was it?

In George W. Bush's first three years in office in his first term, there was an average of 130.7 million people employed.

In George W. Bush's first three years in office in his second term, there was an average of 135.8 million people employed.

In Obama's first three years in office in his first term, there's been an average of 130.7 million people employed.

So, this means Obama didn't do any better in his first three years of his first term than George W. Bush did. And, when December's employment figures for 2012 come out, we'll compare Bush's and Obama's entire first term.

Further, again, who controlled Congress when this 8 times that many lost jobs every month transpired? Want to remind us all?

Additionally, the jobs I'm talking about here are both private and government. Parsing the two in order to try and make yourself look good is really quite pathetic.

And, lastly, you have no evidence the Stimulus Bill turned anything around. Again, the Stimulus Bill went into effect in the second quarter of 2009 and this claim that rising employment figures in February 2010 is a result of the Stimulus Bill? Pffft! Yeah...uh huh, sure it is. Prove this fallacy.

I thought you were dishonest, I was wrong. You are obtuse.[/QUOTE]

And you're a phony fabricator who cherry picks and parses in order to try and make a hollow argument that doesn't mean squat.

 

[CrotchetyGeezer]

You have the nerve to talk about honesty?

Damn rights I have the nerve to talk about honesty. And, I still have the nerve to talk about honesty. Which, leftists don't have.



I was trying to compare private sector employment gains and losses? Not in this exchange I wasn't. In this exchange, I was comparing neither private sector nor government jobs...idiot! And, in my last post, I was comparing government jobs and private sector jobs for Reagan and Obama and my statistics were exactly correct. Prove them wrong.



Yep, there you go being dishonest again. Does this blame Bush crap ever get old for you people? First off, let's talk about what your chump-in-chief walked in to. Your punk-in-chief walked into an unemployment rate that went up 4.8% between Jan. 2001 and Dec. 2006, under George W. Bush and a Republican-controlled Congress. Then, an unemployment rate that shot up 58.7% between Jan. 2007 and Dec. 2008, after your cadre took control of Congress in 2007. Further, what he walked in to was the number of employed went up in the private sector (seasonally adjusted) 2.8% between Jan. 2001 and Dec. 2006, under George W. Bush and a Republican-controlled Congress. Then, the number of employed dropping by that same percentage between Jan. 2007 and Dec. 2008, after your cadre took control of Congress in 2007. That's what he walked in to.

Second, in George W. Bush's first 47 months in office, the number of employed dropped 1.0% between Jan. 2001 and Nov. 2004. This, mostly due to over 100,000 jobs being lost as a result of the attacks of September 11, 2001. In New York alone, there were 105,200 jobs lost. In Obama's first 47 months, the number of employed in the private sector increased by 0.8% between Jan. 2009 and Nov. 2012. And, Obama didn't lose over 100,000 jobs due to an attack on mainland America. I'll bet if we added in the at least 105,200 jobs of which were lost in New York alone that day, this would change the picture in a significant manner.

Third, of course, we aren't even counting the number who have stopped looking for jobs under Obama as compared to George W. Bush and that's just yet another example of yours and Obama's, as well as the BLS's, dishonesty.



Oh puhlease. Take your chart above and stuff is somewhere. Right off the bat it's wrong. The number of jobs at the end of George W. Bush's term was 134.4 million, not 135.5 million. And, these were total non-farm jobs, not just private sector jobs.

And THEN, you right wing turds have the audacity to claim the Stimulus Bill didn't work!

HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! This chart is such a lie. You sure you want to go with the claim these were private sector jobs? You freakin' liars are just astounding. The number of employed, in private sector jobs (seasonally adjusted), went from 111.0 million in January 2009 to 106.8 million in February 2010. This stuff is easily accessible at the BLS's website (even though they're dishonest, you could at least get their numbers right) and that you think you can blatantly lie like this, as if you think no one is actually going to check the veracity of your claims is simply laughable. The stimulus went into effect the second quarter of 2009 and, you're trying to tell me it took until February of 2010 to finally kick in? Uh huh...sure.

Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts.
Daniel Patrick Moynihan

WOW, you really do live in a vacuum.

The FACTS:

Recession Resulted In 8.3 Million Job Losses. According to the Associated Press, “the Great Recession killed 8.3 million jobs, compared with 1.6 million lost in the 2001 recession.” [Associated Press via Yahoo! News, 5/4/12]

Bush Recession Was So Severe That Economy Was Still Shedding Over Three-Quarters Of A Million Jobs Per Month Through First Few Months Of President Obama's Term. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the economy shed 839,000 jobs in January 2009, 725,000 in February 2009, 787,000 in March 2009, and 802,000 in April 2009, for a four-month average of 788,250 lost jobs per month. [BLS.gov, accessed 5/3/12]

LOL! I love this argument. Since you acknowledged in another post that you're referring to "Total private", I will use those figures as well.

In September 1981, the economy shed 8,000 jobs, in October 1981 the economy shed 138,000 jobs, in November 1981 the economy shed 218,000 jobs and, in December 1981 the economy shed 273,000 jobs. I guess if you can blame Bush and be an apologist for Obama because those jobs you list above were lost then, I guess I can blame Carter and be an apologist for Ronald Reagan because those jobs I just listed were lost. So, if it wouldn't have been for Carter, Ronald Reagan would have achieved better than a 4.6% increase in private sector jobs between June 1981 and August 1984. LOL! See, I can play that game too.

Hell, Carter screwed up the economy so damn bad that the job loss went even into 1982, with the economy shedding 295,000 jobs in January 1982, 142,000 jobs in February 1982, 267,000 jobs in April 1982, 38,000 jobs in May 1982, 256,000 jobs in June 1982, 217,000 jobs in July 1982, 198,000 jobs in August 1982, 310,000 jobs in October 1982, 145,000 jobs in November 1982 and 18,000 jobs in December 1982. It took Reagan two years to dig out of the screwed up economy Carter gave us. But, did you and do you give Ronald Reagan the luxury of blaming Carter for the screwed up mess like you give Obama the luxury of blaming Bush? Pffff! Of course not...hypocrite!

 

[Bfgrn]

Damn rights I have the nerve to talk about honesty. And, I still have the nerve to talk about honesty. Which, leftists don't have.



I was trying to compare private sector employment gains and losses? Not in this exchange I wasn't. In this exchange, I was comparing neither private sector nor government jobs...idiot! And, in my last post, I was comparing government jobs and private sector jobs for Reagan and Obama and my statistics were exactly correct. Prove them wrong.



Yep, there you go being dishonest again. Does this blame Bush crap ever get old for you people? First off, let's talk about what your chump-in-chief walked in to. Your punk-in-chief walked into an unemployment rate that went up 4.8% between Jan. 2001 and Dec. 2006, under George W. Bush and a Republican-controlled Congress. Then, an unemployment rate that shot up 58.7% between Jan. 2007 and Dec. 2008, after your cadre took control of Congress in 2007. Further, what he walked in to was the number of employed went up in the private sector (seasonally adjusted) 2.8% between Jan. 2001 and Dec. 2006, under George W. Bush and a Republican-controlled Congress. Then, the number of employed dropping by that same percentage between Jan. 2007 and Dec. 2008, after your cadre took control of Congress in 2007. That's what he walked in to.

Second, in George W. Bush's first 47 months in office, the number of employed dropped 1.0% between Jan. 2001 and Nov. 2004. This, mostly due to over 100,000 jobs being lost as a result of the attacks of September 11, 2001. In New York alone, there were 105,200 jobs lost. In Obama's first 47 months, the number of employed in the private sector increased by 0.8% between Jan. 2009 and Nov. 2012. And, Obama didn't lose over 100,000 jobs due to an attack on mainland America. I'll bet if we added in the at least 105,200 jobs of which were lost in New York alone that day, this would change the picture in a significant manner.

Third, of course, we aren't even counting the number who have stopped looking for jobs under Obama as compared to George W. Bush and that's just yet another example of yours and Obama's, as well as the BLS's, dishonesty.



Oh puhlease. Take your chart above and stuff is somewhere. Right off the bat it's wrong. The number of jobs at the end of George W. Bush's term was 134.4 million, not 135.5 million. And, these were total non-farm jobs, not just private sector jobs.



HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! This chart is such a lie. You sure you want to go with the claim these were private sector jobs? You freakin' liars are just astounding. The number of employed, in private sector jobs (seasonally adjusted), went from 111.0 million in January 2009 to 106.8 million in February 2010. This stuff is easily accessible at the BLS's website (even though they're dishonest, you could at least get their numbers right) and that you think you can blatantly lie like this, as if you think no one is actually going to check the veracity of your claims is simply laughable. The stimulus went into effect the second quarter of 2009 and, you're trying to tell me it took until February of 2010 to finally kick in? Uh huh...sure.

Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts.
Daniel Patrick Moynihan

WOW, you really do live in a vacuum.

The FACTS:

Recession Resulted In 8.3 Million Job Losses. According to the Associated Press, “the Great Recession killed 8.3 million jobs, compared with 1.6 million lost in the 2001 recession.” [Associated Press via Yahoo! News, 5/4/12]

Bush Recession Was So Severe That Economy Was Still Shedding Over Three-Quarters Of A Million Jobs Per Month Through First Few Months Of President Obama's Term. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the economy shed 839,000 jobs in January 2009, 725,000 in February 2009, 787,000 in March 2009, and 802,000 in April 2009, for a four-month average of 788,250 lost jobs per month. [BLS.gov, accessed 5/3/12]

LOL! I love this argument. Since you acknowledged in another post that you're referring to "Total private", I will use those figures as well.

In September 1981, the economy shed 8,000 jobs, in October 1981 the economy shed 138,000 jobs, in November 1981 the economy shed 218,000 jobs and, in December 1981 the economy shed 273,000 jobs. I guess if you can blame Bush and be an apologist for Obama because those jobs you list above were lost then, I guess I can blame Carter and be an apologist for Ronald Reagan because those jobs I just listed were lost. So, if it wouldn't have been for Carter, Ronald Reagan would have achieved better than a 4.6% increase in private sector jobs between June 1981 and August 1984. LOL! See, I can play that game too.

Hell, Carter screwed up the economy so damn bad that the job loss went even into 1982, with the economy shedding 295,000 jobs in January 1982, 142,000 jobs in February 1982, 267,000 jobs in April 1982, 38,000 jobs in May 1982, 256,000 jobs in June 1982, 217,000 jobs in July 1982, 198,000 jobs in August 1982, 310,000 jobs in October 1982, 145,000 jobs in November 1982 and 18,000 jobs in December 1982. It took Reagan two years to dig out of the screwed up economy Carter gave us. But, did you and do you give Ronald Reagan the luxury of blaming Carter for the screwed up mess like you give Obama the luxury of blaming Bush? Pffff! Of course not...hypocrite!

Oh, now I see how hypocrisy works. Obama was on his own on January 20, 2009. Bush who?

But Jimmy Carter was responsible for job loses 2 years into Reagan's administration.

You have taken dishonesty, hypocrisy and partisanship to new levels.

Interesting...Ronbo himself blamed Carter for at least 2 years...Carterrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr!!!

Address Before a Joint Session of the Congress Reporting on the State of the Union (January 25, 1983)

"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." - President Ronald Reagan

"Washington couldn't tell a lie, Nixon couldn't tell the truth, and Reagan couldn't tell the difference."
Mort Sahl

 

[Bfgrn]

Nothing in the above specifies Total private. Further, what's with this parsing private from government nonsense? Job loss is job loss, whether it's private or government.

Definition of 'Nonfarm Payroll'

A statistic researched, recorded and reported by the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics intended to represent the total number of paid U.S. workers of any business, excluding the following employees:

- general government employees
- private household employees
- employees of nonprofit organizations that provide assistance to individuals
- farm employees

Read more: Nonfarm Payroll Definition | Investopedia

 

[CrotchetyGeezer]

Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts.
Daniel Patrick Moynihan

WOW, you really do live in a vacuum.

The FACTS:

Recession Resulted In 8.3 Million Job Losses. According to the Associated Press, “the Great Recession killed 8.3 million jobs, compared with 1.6 million lost in the 2001 recession.” [Associated Press via Yahoo! News, 5/4/12]

Bush Recession Was So Severe That Economy Was Still Shedding Over Three-Quarters Of A Million Jobs Per Month Through First Few Months Of President Obama's Term. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the economy shed 839,000 jobs in January 2009, 725,000 in February 2009, 787,000 in March 2009, and 802,000 in April 2009, for a four-month average of 788,250 lost jobs per month. [BLS.gov, accessed 5/3/12]

LOL! I love this argument. Since you acknowledged in another post that you're referring to "Total private", I will use those figures as well.

In September 1981, the economy shed 8,000 jobs, in October 1981 the economy shed 138,000 jobs, in November 1981 the economy shed 218,000 jobs and, in December 1981 the economy shed 273,000 jobs. I guess if you can blame Bush and be an apologist for Obama because those jobs you list above were lost then, I guess I can blame Carter and be an apologist for Ronald Reagan because those jobs I just listed were lost. So, if it wouldn't have been for Carter, Ronald Reagan would have achieved better than a 4.6% increase in private sector jobs between June 1981 and August 1984. LOL! See, I can play that game too.

Hell, Carter screwed up the economy so damn bad that the job loss went even into 1982, with the economy shedding 295,000 jobs in January 1982, 142,000 jobs in February 1982, 267,000 jobs in April 1982, 38,000 jobs in May 1982, 256,000 jobs in June 1982, 217,000 jobs in July 1982, 198,000 jobs in August 1982, 310,000 jobs in October 1982, 145,000 jobs in November 1982 and 18,000 jobs in December 1982. It took Reagan two years to dig out of the screwed up economy Carter gave us. But, did you and do you give Ronald Reagan the luxury of blaming Carter for the screwed up mess like you give Obama the luxury of blaming Bush? Pffff! Of course not...hypocrite!

Oh, now I see how hypocrisy works. Obama was on his own on January 20, 2009. Bush who?

Oh, now I see how hypocrisy works. Reagan was on his own on January 20, 1981. Carter who?

But Jimmy Carter was responsible for job loses 2 years into Reagan's administration.

Why not? If Bush is responsible for every problem Obama faces to this very day, nearly four years into his presidency, why can't Jimmy Carter not have been responsible for job losses two years into Reagan's administration? The only hypocrite I see here, is you. It's okay to blame every negative thing under the sun of which Obama has to face to this very day on George W. Bush but, we aren't to blame Carter for job losses two years into Reagan's presidency? LOL! THAT'S how "hypocrisy works"...hypocrite.

You have taken dishonesty, hypocrisy and partisanship to new levels.

Excuse me? Oh, but on the contrary, I think that's quite the other way around. You've just demonstrated how you can take dishonesty, hypocrisy and partisanship to a new level with astonishing flair. And, you're so blatant about it...too. It's okay for you to blame everything you can possibly think of which looks bad on Obama and blame it on Bush nearly four years into Obama's presidency but, God forbid anyone lay any blame on Carter for job losses two years into Reagan's presidency. Give it a rest!

Interesting...Ronbo himself blamed Carter for at least 2 years...Carterrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr!!!

Address Before a Joint Session of the Congress Reporting on the State of the Union (January 25, 1983)

"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." - President Ronald Reagan

"Washington couldn't tell a lie, Nixon couldn't tell the truth, and Reagan couldn't tell the difference."
Mort Sahl

Good! If that excuse works for you, I guess it should work for Reagan...eh, hypocrite?

 

[CrotchetyGeezer]

Nothing in the above specifies Total private. Further, what's with this parsing private from government nonsense? Job loss is job loss, whether it's private or government.

Definition of 'Nonfarm Payroll'

A statistic researched, recorded and reported by the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics intended to represent the total number of paid U.S. workers of any business, excluding the following employees:

- general government employees
- private household employees
- employees of nonprofit organizations that provide assistance to individuals
- farm employees

Read more: Nonfarm Payroll Definition | Investopedia

If I would have needed a definition of "Nonfarm Payroll", I would have asked for it.

 

[Bfgrn]

LOL! I love this argument. Since you acknowledged in another post that you're referring to "Total private", I will use those figures as well.

In September 1981, the economy shed 8,000 jobs, in October 1981 the economy shed 138,000 jobs, in November 1981 the economy shed 218,000 jobs and, in December 1981 the economy shed 273,000 jobs. I guess if you can blame Bush and be an apologist for Obama because those jobs you list above were lost then, I guess I can blame Carter and be an apologist for Ronald Reagan because those jobs I just listed were lost. So, if it wouldn't have been for Carter, Ronald Reagan would have achieved better than a 4.6% increase in private sector jobs between June 1981 and August 1984. LOL! See, I can play that game too.

Hell, Carter screwed up the economy so damn bad that the job loss went even into 1982, with the economy shedding 295,000 jobs in January 1982, 142,000 jobs in February 1982, 267,000 jobs in April 1982, 38,000 jobs in May 1982, 256,000 jobs in June 1982, 217,000 jobs in July 1982, 198,000 jobs in August 1982, 310,000 jobs in October 1982, 145,000 jobs in November 1982 and 18,000 jobs in December 1982. It took Reagan two years to dig out of the screwed up economy Carter gave us. But, did you and do you give Ronald Reagan the luxury of blaming Carter for the screwed up mess like you give Obama the luxury of blaming Bush? Pffff! Of course not...hypocrite!

Oh, now I see how hypocrisy works. Obama was on his own on January 20, 2009. Bush who?

Oh, now I see how hypocrisy works. Reagan was on his own on January 20, 1981. Carter who?



Why not? If Bush is responsible for every problem Obama faces to this very day, nearly four years into his presidency, why can't Jimmy Carter not have been responsible for job losses two years into Reagan's administration? The only hypocrite I see here, is you. It's okay to blame every negative thing under the sun of which Obama has to face to this very day on George W. Bush but, we aren't to blame Carter for job losses two years into Reagan's presidency? LOL! THAT'S how "hypocrisy works"...hypocrite.

You have taken dishonesty, hypocrisy and partisanship to new levels.

Excuse me? Oh, but on the contrary, I think that's quite the other way around. You've just demonstrated how you can take dishonesty, hypocrisy and partisanship to a new level with astonishing flair. And, you're so blatant about it...too. It's okay for you to blame everything you can possibly think of which looks bad on Obama and blame it on Bush nearly four years into Obama's presidency but, God forbid anyone lay any blame on Carter for job losses two years into Reagan's presidency. Give it a rest!

Interesting...Ronbo himself blamed Carter for at least 2 years...Carterrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr!!!

Address Before a Joint Session of the Congress Reporting on the State of the Union (January 25, 1983)

"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." - President Ronald Reagan

"Washington couldn't tell a lie, Nixon couldn't tell the truth, and Reagan couldn't tell the difference."
Mort Sahl

Good! If that excuse works for you, I guess it should work for Reagan...eh, hypocrite?

Enough dancing around, let's cut to the chase.

Obama was sworn in January 20, 2009. The job lose in January 2009 was -839,000 jobs. Who is responsible for those numbers?

 

[Bfgrn]

Nothing in the above specifies Total private. Further, what's with this parsing private from government nonsense? Job loss is job loss, whether it's private or government.

Definition of 'Nonfarm Payroll'

A statistic researched, recorded and reported by the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics intended to represent the total number of paid U.S. workers of any business, excluding the following employees:

- general government employees
- private household employees
- employees of nonprofit organizations that provide assistance to individuals
- farm employees

Read more: Nonfarm Payroll Definition | Investopedia

If I would have needed a definition of "Nonfarm Payroll", I would have asked for it.

Your comment clearly shows you NEED a definition.

Nothing in the above specifies Total private. Further, what's with this parsing private from government nonsense? Job loss is job loss, whether it's private or government.

'Nonfarm Payroll' excludes general government employees

 

[CrotchetyGeezer]

Oh, now I see how hypocrisy works. Obama was on his own on January 20, 2009. Bush who?

Oh, now I see how hypocrisy works. Reagan was on his own on January 20, 1981. Carter who?



Why not? If Bush is responsible for every problem Obama faces to this very day, nearly four years into his presidency, why can't Jimmy Carter not have been responsible for job losses two years into Reagan's administration? The only hypocrite I see here, is you. It's okay to blame every negative thing under the sun of which Obama has to face to this very day on George W. Bush but, we aren't to blame Carter for job losses two years into Reagan's presidency? LOL! THAT'S how "hypocrisy works"...hypocrite.



Excuse me? Oh, but on the contrary, I think that's quite the other way around. You've just demonstrated how you can take dishonesty, hypocrisy and partisanship to a new level with astonishing flair. And, you're so blatant about it...too. It's okay for you to blame everything you can possibly think of which looks bad on Obama and blame it on Bush nearly four years into Obama's presidency but, God forbid anyone lay any blame on Carter for job losses two years into Reagan's presidency. Give it a rest!

Interesting...Ronbo himself blamed Carter for at least 2 years...Carterrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr!!!

Address Before a Joint Session of the Congress Reporting on the State of the Union (January 25, 1983)

"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." - President Ronald Reagan

"Washington couldn't tell a lie, Nixon couldn't tell the truth, and Reagan couldn't tell the difference."
Mort Sahl

Good! If that excuse works for you, I guess it should work for Reagan...eh, hypocrite?

Enough dancing around, let's cut to the chase.

Obama was sworn in January 20, 2009. The job lose in January 2009 was -839,000 jobs. Who is responsible for those numbers?

Uhmmmmm....Bob Barker? No one single person is responsible for those -839,000 jobs. Surely, undefined numbers of those -839,000 purposefully quit for untold various reasons. Surely, undefined numbers of those -839,000 got fired because they were performing poorly, got caught doing something they weren't supposed to be doing or, for a multitude of other reasons. Surely, undefined numbers of those -839,000 lost their jobs because a company went out of business for any number of reasons. So, no one single individual is responsible for those numbers. You can only guess as to the reasons why one or more people out of that -839,000 lost their job. I know at least 105,200 people lost their jobs because of the attacks of September 11, 2001 and, who was responsible for those losses? Well, that was the asshole fanatic Muslims who slammed airplanes into a skyscraper who were responsible for those numbers...dumbass.

 

[CrotchetyGeezer]

Definition of 'Nonfarm Payroll'

A statistic researched, recorded and reported by the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics intended to represent the total number of paid U.S. workers of any business, excluding the following employees:

- general government employees
- private household employees
- employees of nonprofit organizations that provide assistance to individuals
- farm employees

Read more: Nonfarm Payroll Definition | Investopedia

If I would have needed a definition of "Nonfarm Payroll", I would have asked for it.

Your comment clearly shows you NEED a definition.

Only in your demented brain.

Nothing in the above specifies Total private. Further, what's with this parsing private from government nonsense? Job loss is job loss, whether it's private or government.

'Nonfarm Payroll' excludes general government employees

Your citation is full of shit. Nonfarm payroll is a combination of private employees and government employees. Add it up...and see.

Total private employees for January 2012 is 110,470,000. Total government employees for 2012 is 21,991,000. Add those up and you get 132,461,000, the Total Nonfarm employees. I don't know where the hell it is certain dipshits are getting "excludes general government employees" but it's absolutely clear it DOES include government employees. Anyone can add up the numbers they list for private sector employees and government employees and get the number of Total Nonfarm employees. So, WTF?!

 

[mjollnir]

Your citation is full of shit. Nonfarm payroll is a combination of private employees and government employees. Add it up...and see.

Nonfarm payrolls - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Nonfarm payroll employment is a compiled name for goods-producing, construction and manufacturing companies. It does not include farm workers, private household employees, non-profit organization employees, or government employees

 

[regent]

Should the president be given the responsiblity for American jobs, if so, should he be given whatever powers are necessary to carry out that responsibility?