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

[mudwhistle]

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

That is such horseshit. Okay, tell me what exactly did the GOP do that helped the economy?

Stopped the Democrats from passing their fucked up bills.

 

[The Rabbi]

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

That is such horseshit. Okay, tell me what exactly did the GOP do that helped the economy?

Blocked card-check. Blocked cap n' tax. Blocked any otehr harebrained idea Nancy Pelosi could come up with.

 

[Billy000]

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

That is such horseshit. Okay, tell me what exactly did the GOP do that helped the economy?

Stopped the Democrats from passing their fucked up bills.

Somehow I remain unconvinced....

 

[The Rabbi]

That is such horseshit. Okay, tell me what exactly did the GOP do that helped the economy?

Stopped the Democrats from passing their fucked up bills.

Oh, gee, what a great answer. I am now convinced. Thank you for showing me the light.

You are such a ******* partisan hack if The Lord Jesus Christ came down with a band of angels and told you Obama was a ****-up you'd think it was really Jim DeMint playing a trick.

 

[Billy000]

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

That is such horseshit. Okay, tell me what exactly did the GOP do that helped the economy?

Blocked card-check. Blocked cap n' tax. Blocked any otehr harebrained idea Nancy Pelosi could come up with.

Still not convinced...

 

[Billy000]

Stopped the Democrats from passing their fucked up bills.

Oh, gee, what a great answer. I am now convinced. Thank you for showing me the light.

You are such a ******* partisan hack if The Lord Jesus Christ came down with a band of angels and told you Obama was a ****-up you'd think it was really Jim DeMint playing a trick.

Actually, I'd probably check my blood work after witnessing something like that.

 

[The Rabbi]

Oh, gee, what a great answer. I am now convinced. Thank you for showing me the light.

You are such a ******* partisan hack if The Lord Jesus Christ came down with a band of angels and told you Obama was a ****-up you'd think it was really Jim DeMint playing a trick.

Actually, I'd probably check my blood work after witnessing something like that.

I rest my case.

 

[Flopper]

If Obama can get it below 8% he will be reelected.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[The Rabbi]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Actually I see parallels to 1980: a weak socialist simp who left the country adrift versus anyone else.

 

[Againsheila]

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?

The economy needs to produce 1.5 million new jobs a year just to keep up with additions to the work force. The drop to 8.5% is just as much about people giving up as people getting jobs.

Obama has not addressed the REAL problem, which is that due to overregulation and taxes, manufacturing and service jobs are fleeing this country in droves. Something to keep in mind when you are talking to Pradip in India about your Chinese made computer that doesn't work for crap.

hmmm, perhaps with a few more regulations, that computer that doesn't work for crap would actually work?

 

[NYcarbineer]

No, you are using the wrong data. The relevant starting months are January, not February. The BLS data is the end of the month, not the beginning (moron).

(000s):

January, 2001: 111,634K
January, 2009: 110,981K
.................... -653K

January, 2009: 110,981K
December, 2012: 109,928K
.................... -1,053K

You can use January 1st, if you like, instead of February 1st.

It seems a little unfair to me, to blame Obama for the 700-800k jobs lost that month, when he didn't take office until the 22nd.

Whey do you think January 1st means the end of the month?

That would only work if Obama was an outsider.

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

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

 

[NYcarbineer]

No, you are using the wrong data. The relevant starting months are January, not February. The BLS data is the end of the month, not the beginning (moron).

(000s):

January, 2001: 111,634K
January, 2009: 110,981K
.................... -653K

January, 2009: 110,981K
December, 2012: 109,928K
.................... -1,053K

You can use January 1st, if you like, instead of February 1st.

It seems a little unfair to me, to blame Obama for the 700-800k jobs lost that month, when he didn't take office until the 22nd.

Whey do you think January 1st means the end of the month?

It's no more unfair than blaming Bush for the dotcom implosion. The February change in employment happened on Obama's watch. His policies are responsible for the worst recovery, ever. If he hadn't exploded the size of government and sucked the oxygen out of the economy, we should have seen at least 3-4M jobs created by now. We haven't. And the results fall far short of what his administration promised they would be.

That's the Obama Record.

He didn't do that.

And anyone who blames Obama for what happened in February of 2009 is mentally retarded.

 

[Faun]

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

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

 

[EriktheRed]

You realize even 6% is historically pretty good. And that was high mark of Bush's tenure.
So obviously job growth was fine under Bush and all the screaming about off-shoring is coming from people with very short memories.

Actualy, the high point was 7.8 when he left. and the economy was bleeding jobs at that point.

And, yes, the offshoring is a problem. Replacing good paying union jobs with benefits with jobs at Wal Mart without benefits isn't an improvement, it's a step back.

But I never understood the fixation with factory jobs. WHo the hell wants to work in a factory?

I work in a factory, and I rather enjoy it. Mind you, I'm in the office, but I go down to the line pretty often to make sure things are going well.

If you don't understand why we need manufacturing capability, then I can only conclude you are some kind of high-functioning retard or something.

We don't NEED to build cars and trains and planes ourselves. We can just buy all that stuff from China. As long as it's cheaper. Right?

Btw, do you think Romney's gonna spend much time campaigning in Michigan?

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8bceTAi1pHQ]Romney Wants Credit For Obama Auto Bailout - YouTube[/ame]

 

[Flopper]

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?

I'm trying to figure out how a net loss of jobs equals a decrease in unemployment.

If you're looking for good news then you can find it. If you're looking at everything then you have to admit that the numbers are not good.

We still have 44.2% long-term unemployed still looking for work.
There are 7 million fewer people with jobs now than at the end of 2007.
The labor force has shrank since 2009.
8.1 million workers are working part-time instead of full-time now.
Millions of unemployed are running out of benefits.

The fact is the 8.5% unemployment rate doesn't tell the whole story. However that doesn't stop the media from trying to put a positive spin on it. One of the sneaky ways is omitting the fact that no President has ever been reelected with over 7.2% unemployment. But considering the fact that we hit 10% at one time and stayed at over 9% for so long, simply dipping below that number seems good but really isn't.

Another thing they fail to mention is what exactly did Obama do to cause the rate to go down? Was it simply because he's no longer in a position to screw it up anymore???

I knew over a year ago when the GOP took back the House that the economy would improve. Obama's BS has simply delayed the improvement. That's really it in a nut-shell.

Agreed 8.5% is not great but a lot better than 9.4% in Dec. 2010 and 10% in Dec 2009. If the current trend continues, unemployment will be 7.75% in Dec 2012.

 

[Faun]

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?

I'm trying to figure out how a net loss of jobs equals a decrease in unemployment.

If you're looking for good news then you can find it. If you're looking at everything then you have to admit that the numbers are not good.

We still have 44.2% long-term unemployed still looking for work.
There are 7 million fewer people with jobs now than at the end of 2007.
The labor force has shrank since 2009.
8.1 million workers are working part-time instead of full-time now.
Millions of unemployed are running out of benefits.

The fact is the 8.5% unemployment rate doesn't tell the whole story. However that doesn't stop the media from trying to put a positive spin on it. One of the sneaky ways is omitting the fact that no President has ever been reelected with over 7.2% unemployment. But considering the fact that we hit 10% at one time and stayed at over 9% for so long, simply dipping below that number seems good but really isn't.

Another thing they fail to mention is what exactly did Obama do to cause the rate to go down? Was it simply because he's no longer in a position to screw it up anymore???

I knew over a year ago when the GOP took back the House that the economy would improve. Obama's BS has simply delayed the improvement. That's really it in a nut-shell.

Agreed 8.5% is not great but a lot better than 9.4% in Dec. 2010 and 10% in Dec 2009. If the current trend continues, unemployment will be 7.75% in Dec 2012.

By the time of the 1984 election, the unemployment rate under Reagan dropped by just 1/10th of one percent, from 7.5% to 7.4%. Reagan went on to win easily.

 

[The Rabbi]

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

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

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

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

 

[Faun]

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

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

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

No, I borrowed it from t president.

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

Say what???

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

 

[NYcarbineer]

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

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

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

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

Setting aside the fact that there was no recession in 2000, assuming you mean 2001 - 2,

you're an idiot nonetheless.

 

[boedicca]

You can use January 1st, if you like, instead of February 1st.

It seems a little unfair to me, to blame Obama for the 700-800k jobs lost that month, when he didn't take office until the 22nd.

Whey do you think January 1st means the end of the month?

That would only work if Obama was an outsider.

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

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

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