Getbig.com: American Bodybuilding, Fitness and Figure
Getbig Main Boards => Politics and Political Issues Board => Topic started by: 240 is Back on August 03, 2012, 09:06:06 AM
-
I didn't see any new threads on this. Isn't this important to yall?
Employers said they added 163,000 jobs in the month, according to a Labor Department report released Friday, much better than the 95,000 jobs economists had forecast.
UE ticked up to 8.3%. I wish Congress would stop playing Chicken and work together and find a good middle ground.
We've let them have their way - 18 months of congress NOT DOING ANYTHING. Are you happy with the results? I'm not.
http://money.cnn.com/2012/08/03/news/economy/jobs-report-unemployment/index.htm?hpt=hp_t3
-
StrawDouche says another $2 trillion in stimulus will fix this.
Better reelect Obama. Recovery summer!!!!
-
42 straight months above 8%...
-
StrawDouche says another $2 trillion in stimulus will fix this.
Better reelect Obama. Recovery summer!!!!
Hey Bereft Fury
Don't attribute words to me that I did not say
-
LOL. 150k out of the labor force and 429k added by birth death model.
U6 at 15%
125k less on the household survey.
Of course the MBA business master 180 thinks this is good.
LMFAO - fucking idiot
-
Obama adviser: Jobless rate is really 8.254%
By David Jackson, USA TODAY
By Rich Pedroncelli, AP
The White House is really getting specific when it comes to the unemployment rate.
Rather than 8.3% -- the rounded-up figure -- Obama economic adviser Alan B. Krueger writes on the White House website that the real jobless rate is 8.254%.
"The household survey showed that the unemployment rate ticked up to 8.3% in July (or, more precisely, the rate rose from 8.217% in June to 8.254% in July)," wrote Krueger, chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers.
He added: "Acting BLS (Bureau of Labor Statistics) Commissioner John Galvin noted in his statement that the unemployment rate was 'essentially unchanged' from June to July."
We doubt that Republican Mitt Romney and his allies will draw that distinction.
"Today's increase in the unemployment rate is a hammer blow to struggling middle-class families," Romney said in a statement.
Other GOP members mocked Krueger for declaring the jobless rate at 8.254%
Republican Party spokeswoman Kirsten Kukowski said, "23 million people struggling for work isn't a rounding error. and the White House's attempts to argue show just how out of touch they are."
Analysts said the (slightly) higher rate results from an increase in people re-entering the job market.
They also noted that the economy created 163,000 jobs in July, exceeding expectations.
"While there is more work that remains to be done, today's employment report provides further evidence that the U.S. economy is continuing to recover from the worst downturn since the Great Depression," Krueger wrote.
See photos of: Barack Obama, Mitt Romney
-
i guess that's better then in the last four months of 2008, 1.9 million jobs were lost
-
i guess that's better then in the last four months of 2008, 1.9 million jobs were lost
terrible time for america, no doubt about it.
Repubs scream louder about 163k jobs added, than they did when we were losing 600k jobs a month.
-
terrible time for america, no doubt about it.
Repubs scream louder about 163k jobs added, than they did when we were losing 600k jobs a month.
-
i guess that's better then in the last four months of 2008, 1.9 million jobs were lost
who was mr. pres ???
-
who was mr. pres ???
::) ::)
The Lowest UE % during the entire Obama misadministration is still higher than the Highest UE% under W.
Let that sink in.
-
Economist Gary Burtless of the liberal Brookings Institution wonders what Foxx would say if the shoe were on the other foot.
"The longest post-World-War-II business expansion ended in March 2001, one and a half months after a Republican Administration took office," Burtless said. "That new Republican administration also had the good fortune to have a House of Representatives and, at first, a Senate that was controlled by the same party. According to Rep. Foxx’s reasoning, the recession that began after March 2001 must have been 'caused' by the political change-over in control of the White House. Of course, I think this reasoning is specious, but it is equally ludicrous to claim that the recession which began in January 2008 was 'caused' by a change in political control of Congress that took place in January 2007."
-
Economist Gary Burtless of the liberal Brookings Institution wonders what Foxx would say if the shoe were on the other foot.
"The longest post-World-War-II business expansion ended in March 2001, one and a half months after a Republican Administration took office," Burtless said. "That new Republican administration also had the good fortune to have a House of Representatives and, at first, a Senate that was controlled by the same party. According to Rep. Foxx’s reasoning, the recession that began after March 2001 must have been 'caused' by the political change-over in control of the White House. Of course, I think this reasoning is specious, but it is equally ludicrous to claim that the recession which began in January 2008 was 'caused' by a change in political control of Congress that took place in January 2007."
-
why are you posting a picture of you crying when you were a baby,i agree some things never change :D
-
why are you posting a picture of you crying when you were a baby,i agree some things never change :D
Blacken - is the private sector doing just fine?
-
better than losing 500,000 jobs a month,no ???
-
better than losing 500,000 jobs a month,no ???
After all the money, capital, time, debt and effort that has been expended over the last 3 years or so I don't think your question is acceptable.
With everything that was done over the last several years , "Better than losing 500k jobs a month, no" doesn't cut it.
-
I suspect the total job losses under Bush are much greater than the total job losses under Obama
That may not be (actually is not) a totally fair comparison since we're talking about 8 years of Bush Admin vs ~ 3.5 years for Obama (remember he didn't take office until Feb 2009)
If we just compare apples to apples (i.e. the same time frame) Bush is still the champ of job losses
From January 2001 through March 2004, he says, the country lost more than 1.6 million jobs overall, and more than 2.4 million jobs in the private sector. (Krugman doesn't label his axes, but a call to the BLS confirmed that his chart is meant to be read in the thousands, and we checked his figures against the BLS website.)
Meanwhile, from January 2009 through March 2012, the country lost an estimated 740,000 jobs in total, and lost about 161,000 jobs in the private sector. In other words, job loss under Obama -- who inherited a recession deeper than any seen in generations, followed by a recovery that most would describe as modest -- was nevertheless dwarfed by job loss under Bush, at least for the majority of the two presidents' first terms
.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/04/23/job-loss-obama-bush_n_1446650.html
-
I suspect the total job losses under Bush are much greater than the total job losses under Obama
That may not be (actually is not) a totally fair comparison since we're talking about 8 years of Bush Admin vs ~ 3.5 years for Obama (remember he didn't take office until Feb 2009)
If we just compare apples to apples (i.e. the same time frame) Bush is still the champ of job losses
.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/04/23/job-loss-obama-bush_n_1446650.html
So don't vote for Bush in 2012.
-
So don't vote for Bush in 2012.
Since Romney campaign is staffed with Bush advisor and people from his administration and since his economic plan it basically nothing more than an analog of the Bush plan a vote for Romney is a vote for Bush by proxy
Of course none of that pertains to the point that Bush had a worse record on jobs from the beginning of his first term to March of 3 years in than Obama did in that same time period
Nothing changes those facts and since Bush also ended his last with unprecedented job losses his overall picture is much worse (again, not a fair comparison since we'd be comparing 8 years of Bush to 3.5 years of Obama)
-
So don't vote for Bush in 2012.
Romney wants to return many of the bush policies, with bush people. Romney is bush when it comes to the economy. I dont know that I liked how bush did things. 2008 ring a bell?
-
Romney wants to return many of the bush policies, with bush people. Romney is bush when it comes to the economy. I dont know that I liked how bush did things. 2008 ring a bell?
LOL - Most people were far better off for most of the bush years than the last 4.
-
LOL - Most people were far better off for most of the bush years than the last 4.
yep, most people who purchased a house during the Bush admin are now underwater
Bush also lost more jobs then Obama and of course many thousands have lost their life or be maimed for life during the wars that were started by Bush
people of New Orleans can certainly that Bush for doing a heck of a job
We also get to pay the interest on all the debt accumulated under Bush
Good Times
-
yep, most people who purchased a house during the Bush admin are now underwater
Bush also lost more jobs then Obama and of course many thousands have lost their life or be maimed for life during the wars that were started by Bush
people of New Orleans can certainly that Bush for doing a heck of a job
We also get to pay the interest on all the debt accumulated under Bush
Good Times
The fault of the N.O. fiasco lies first with the local governments, authorities the mayor etc.
-
The fault of the N.O. fiasco lies first with the local governments, authorities the mayor etc.
no doubt they get some blame too but so does Bush and so does the Army Corp of Engineers and probably others
Plenty of blame to go around
-
The fault of the N.O. fiasco lies first with the local governments, authorities the mayor etc.
FEMA wasn't run by the local shitty mayor, was he?
federal response was approved by Bush "Heckuva job, brownie"
-
better than losing 500,000 jobs a month,no ???
Are you fucking serious? Is that what it's come to?
-
I suspect the total job losses under Bush are much greater than the total job losses under Obama
That may not be (actually is not) a totally fair comparison since we're talking about 8 years of Bush Admin vs ~ 3.5 years for Obama (remember he didn't take office until Feb 2009)
If we just compare apples to apples (i.e. the same time frame) Bush is still the champ of job losses
.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/04/23/job-loss-obama-bush_n_1446650.html
and?
would you like to compare jobs added? LMFAO
fact of the matter is if youre still bringing up bush as a way of defending obama your fuking moron and you know that obama is in trouble.
-
and?
would you like to compare jobs added? LMFAO
fact of the matter is if youre still bringing up bush as a way of defending obama your fuking moron and you know that obama is in trouble.
I'm glad to look at whatever you want
I assume by doing so you agree there is a valid reason to compare Bush and Obama
-
I'm glad to look at whatever you want
I assume by doing so you agree there is a valid reason to compare Bush and Obama
The real problem with this argument, is that Obama was supposed to be the Anti-Bush, no so much after all
-
The real problem with this argument, is that Obama was supposed to be the Anti-Bush, no so much after all
you can choose to frame it anyway you want but the reality is that Obama is the POTUS who immediately followed Bush and the stuff that Bush did is not just "re-set" the day Obama is sworn in (sorry fundies - that oath with the hand on the bible doesn't actually have any real power)
-
I'm glad to look at whatever you want
I assume by doing so you agree there is a valid reason to compare Bush and Obama
the only valid reason I have is to be consistently invalid...
your comparison isnt really valid but if your going to do that why not compare job creation as well and be consistent?
Like I said anyone bringing up bush to defend obama is a fucking moron...
-
you can choose to frame it anyway you want but the reality is that Obama is the POTUS who immediately followed Bush and the stuff that Bush did is not just "re-set" the day Obama is sworn in (sorry fundies - that oath with the hand on the bible doesn't actually have any real power)
Obama chose to follow the same course, as Harry Truman said "The buck stops here". Obama chose to run for POTUS, no one forced him, He was in the Senate, he knew what was going on, and his BS about not knowing is exactly that BS. So he is either lying or incompetent.
-
Are you fucking serious? Is that what it's come to?
Yup..."not the worst situation possible" is the the new "resounding success!"
-
Only in a world of lowered, New Normal expectations was the July jobs report anything less than another disaster for U.S. workers. Nonfarm payrolls rose 163,000 last month as the unemployment rate rose to 8.3%. In addition, employment for May and June was revised by 6,000 jobs.
– Not only is the 8.3% unemployment rate way above the 5.6% unemployment rate that Team Obama predicted for July 2012 if Congress passed the $800 billion stimulus plan. It’s way above the 6.0% unemployment rate they predicted if no stimulus was passed.
– Job growth, as measured by nonfarm payrolls, has average about 75,000 jobs a month during the Obama recovery for a total of 2.7 million jobs. Context: During the first three years of the Reagan Recovery, job growth averaged 273,000 a month for a total of 9.8 million. If you adjust for the larger U.S. population today, the Reagan Recovery averaged 360,000 jobs a month for a three-year total of 13 million jobs.
– This continues to be the longest stretch of 8% or higher unemployment since the Great Depression, 42 straight months.
– If the labor force participation rate was the same as when Obama took office in January 2009, the unemployment rate would be 11.0%.
– Even if you take into account that the LFP should be declining as America ages, the unemployment rate would be 10.6%.
– If labor force participation rate hadn’t declined since just last month, unemployment rate would have risen to 8.4%.
– The broader U-6 unemployment rate, which includes “all persons marginally attached to the labor force, plus total employed part time for economic reasons,” ticked up to 15.0%.
– Two years ago, Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner wrote his now-infamous “Welcome to the Recovery” op-ed for the New York Times. During those two years, the economy has added an average of just 137,000 jobs a month.
– Not only is the 8.3% unemployment rate way above the 5.6% unemployment rate that Team Obama predicted for July 2012 if Congress passed the $800 billion stimulus plan. It’s way above the 6.0% unemployment rate they predicted if no stimulus was passed.
– Good point on the report from IHS Global Insight:
In the household survey, which produces the unemployment rate, both the employment-to-population ratio and the labor force participation rate dropped, not signs of a healthy labor market. The report will alleviate fears that the US might be tipping back into recession. But uncertainties over the strength of global growth, the Eurozone crisis, the fiscal cliff and the November elections are giving plenty of reasons for caution. We expect subdued monthly job creation in the 100,000-150,000 region in the second half of the year
– And Citgroup’s take:
To keep us all guessing, today’s data included a particularly weak reading on employment from the household survey, which showed a 195,000 drop in employment and 150,000 drop in the labor force. The unemployment rate rose to 8.3% from 8.2%. While trend employment gains are not progressing at a particularly robust rate, we would not view a 0.1 percentage point move in a singlemonth reading as particularly significant. Also showing that the underlying trend is not very robust, the work week was unchanged and average hourly earnings rose just 0.1%, suggesting a much smaller gain in real income than reported in June (which also argues for smoothing). Aggregate hours worked rose a modest 0.1%.
http://www.aei-ideas.org/2012/08/july-jobs-report-americas-labor-market-depression-continues