Total Posts:17|Showing Posts:1-17
Jump to topic:

Employment, the real story.

JaxsonRaine
Posts: 3,606
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/3/2012 8:34:25 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Here's some interesting information. This is the total number of non-farm payroll jobs, averaged for each year of Obama's presidency, and the year previous as a baseline:

2008 - 136,790,000
2009 - 130,806,000
2010 - 129,874,000
2011 - 131,357,000

But, this doesn't look at employment as a percentage of the workforce population. Sadly, we are 5 million jobs under where we were in 2008, but the workforce population is rising as well. And yet, somehow we have tremendous news about the employment rate... right.

So, let's look at the workforce age. In 2000, we had:

174,136,341 workforce age
128,763,000 employed
45,373,341 non-working adults
26% non-working adults

In 2010, there were:

194,296,087 workforce age
127,309,000 employed
66,987,087 non-working adults
34% non-working adults

If we average the increase in workforce age from year to year, we have the following for 2008:

190,000,000 workforce age(estimate extrapolated from 2000-2010 trend)
135,840,000 employed
54,160,000 non-working adults
28% non-working adults

So, let's look at employment as a percentage of the workforce-age adults from year to year:

2008 - 71.99%
2009 - 68.13%
2010 - 66.95%
2011 - 67.02%

In other words, the number of non-working adults has increased by 21% under Obama.

All the information came from the following sites:

http://www.census.gov... … 0br-03.pdf
http://www.bls.gov...
http://data.bls.gov...
twocupcakes: 15 = 13
UnStupendousMan
Posts: 3,475
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/3/2012 9:08:13 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
But, of course, Obama couldn't have saved the economy in his first month. Plus the bickering on Capitol hill does not help. I can't say that Obama is a good Prez., but he certainly has a lot of difficult things working against him.
imabench
Posts: 21,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/4/2012 10:53:37 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 2/3/2012 9:08:13 PM, UnStupendousMan wrote:
"... but he certainly has a lot of difficult things working against him."

+1
Kevin24018 : "He's just so mean it makes me want to ball up my fists and stamp on the ground"

7/14/16 = The Presidency Dies

DDO: THE MOVIE = http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...

VP of DDO from Dec 14th 2014 to Jan 1st 2015
Starcraftzzz
Posts: 487
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/4/2012 5:04:57 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 2/3/2012 8:34:25 PM, JaxsonRaine wrote:
Here's some interesting information. This is the total number of non-farm payroll jobs, averaged for each year of Obama's presidency, and the year previous as a baseline:

2008 - 136,790,000
2009 - 130,806,000
2010 - 129,874,000
2011 - 131,357,000

I'm shaking my head because Obama became president Jan 20th of 2009. Either you didn't know that basic fact about government or you're intentionally being dishonest and trying to include job losses that occurred under Bush in with job losses that occurred under Obama.
Also I would like to say that blaming Obama for job loses in Jan when he was only president for 10 days of that month is illogical as well. Also for at least the first half of 2009 non of Obama's polices were in effect meaning that currently when Obama policies were in effect the economy only lost maybe around 400,000 jobs in 2009 and since then 3.7million jobs have been created.
Now if we are going to be logical and honest we won't and shouldn't credit Obama with all jobs lost or created, we should instead look analysis of his policies to determine how many jobs they've created. All analysis of his Stimulus act shows that around 3.5 million jobs were created because of it, and other stimulus measures taken near the end of 2010 such as the payroll tax cut, increases in unemployment benefits and other tax cuts created around a million jobs. Also his auto bailout is credited with saving 1.5million job. I'll stop there just to keep it simple.
JaxsonRaine
Posts: 3,606
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/4/2012 7:08:33 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 2/4/2012 5:04:57 PM, Starcraftzzz wrote:
I'm shaking my head because Obama became president Jan 20th of 2009. Either you didn't know that basic fact about government or you're intentionally being dishonest and trying to include job losses that occurred under Bush in with job losses that occurred under Obama.

Or you can't read... I needed something to compare the figures to.

"This is the total number of non-farm payroll jobs, averaged for each year of Obama's presidency, and the year previous as a baseline."

Also I would like to say that blaming Obama for job loses in Jan when he was only president for 10 days of that month is illogical as well. Also for at least the first half of 2009 non of Obama's polices were in effect meaning that currently when Obama policies were in effect the economy only lost maybe around 400,000 jobs in 2009 and since then 3.7million jobs have been created.

That's just not true. From June 2009 to June 2011, jobs increased by 714,000. That's a 1/2 of 1% increase, which is just on-par with the increase of the labor force. Where are the 3.7 million jobs you are talking about?

Now if we are going to be logical and honest we won't and shouldn't credit Obama with all jobs lost or created, we should instead look analysis of his policies to determine how many jobs they've created. All analysis of his Stimulus act shows that around 3.5 million jobs were created because of it,

What jobs?

and other stimulus measures taken near the end of 2010 such as the payroll tax cut, increases in unemployment benefits and other tax cuts created around a million jobs. Also his auto bailout is credited with saving 1.5million job. I'll stop there just to keep it simple.

So now it's 4.5 million jobs? June 2009 there were 131,442,000 jobs, so now we should be at 135,942,000, correct?
twocupcakes: 15 = 13
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/4/2012 7:11:06 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 2/4/2012 5:04:57 PM, Starcraftzzz wrote:
At 2/3/2012 8:34:25 PM, JaxsonRaine wrote:
Here's some interesting information. This is the total number of non-farm payroll jobs, averaged for each year of Obama's presidency, and the year previous as a baseline:

2008 - 136,790,000
2009 - 130,806,000
2010 - 129,874,000
2011 - 131,357,000

I'm shaking my head because Obama became president Jan 20th of 2009. Either you didn't know that basic fact about government or you're intentionally being dishonest and trying to include job losses that occurred under Bush in with job losses that occurred under Obama.
Also I would like to say that blaming Obama for job loses in Jan when he was only president for 10 days of that month is illogical as well. Also for at least the first half of 2009 non of Obama's polices were in effect meaning that currently when Obama policies were in effect the economy only lost maybe around 400,000 jobs in 2009 and since then 3.7million jobs have been created.
Now if we are going to be logical and honest we won't and shouldn't credit Obama with all jobs lost or created, we should instead look analysis of his policies to determine how many jobs they've created. All analysis of his Stimulus act shows that around 3.5 million jobs were created because of it, and other stimulus measures taken near the end of 2010 such as the payroll tax cut, increases in unemployment benefits and other tax cuts created around a million jobs. Also his auto bailout is credited with saving 1.5million job. I'll stop there just to keep it simple.

The job loss rate would have eventually come to a halt, even if the president did nothing. Stating that job loss rate decreased while president, is like stating that while speeding, you lowered the acceleration rate of your car while driving.

The analysis for the stimulus created jobs is based on Keynesian analysis and assumes a multiplier effect, no matter what. Even if policies create uncertainty, create a bad business environment, crowd out the private sector, and discouraged investments. So even if no single job was not created then the analysis would still say that jobs were created.

According to data, from the obama's only administration, the stimulus made things worse:

http://www.nationalreview.com...

Even if the numbers are accurate, it costs $278,000 per job created. That's pathetic.
The TARP program cost $700 billion, so if your going to spend that kind of money and downgrade the US credit rating, you better expect good results. There hasn't been:

http://www.weeklystandard.com...

Jobs would not have been lost if GM went bankrupted. That's just false and commits the broken window fallacy. Rather the assets would be liquidated and create structural changes that would make the assets more profitable.
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
Starcraftzzz
Posts: 487
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/4/2012 10:36:34 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 2/4/2012 7:08:33 PM, JaxsonRaine wrote:
At 2/4/2012 5:04:57 PM, Starcraftzzz wrote:
I'm shaking my head because Obama became president Jan 20th of 2009. Either you didn't know that basic fact about government or you're intentionally being dishonest and trying to include job losses that occurred under Bush in with job losses that occurred under Obama.

Or you can't read... I needed something to compare the figures to.
Alright fair enough. I apologize for acting rash and slightly dickish.


At 2/4/2012 7:08:33 PM, JaxsonRaine wrote:
At 2/4/2012 5:04:57 PM, Starcraftzzz wrote:
Also I would like to say that blaming Obama for job loses in Jan when he was only president for 10 days of that month is illogical as well. Also for at least the first half of 2009 non of Obama's polices were in effect meaning that currently when Obama policies were in effect the economy only lost maybe around 400,000 jobs in 2009 and since then 3.7million jobs have been created.

That's just not true. From June 2009 to June 2011, jobs increased by 714,000. That's a 1/2 of 1% increase, which is just on-par with the increase of the labor force. Where are the 3.7 million jobs you are talking about?
1.2million for 2010
http://www.bls.gov...
1.9million 2011
http://www.bls.gov...
.25million 2012
http://www.bls.gov...
3.35million total. I Misstated the 3.7million that's how many jobs the private sector has added.
At 2/4/2012 7:08:33 PM, JaxsonRaine wrote:
At 2/4/2012 5:04:57 PM, Starcraftzzz wrote
Now if we are going to be logical and honest we won't and shouldn't credit Obama with all jobs lost or created, we should instead look analysis of his policies to determine how many jobs they've created. All analysis of his Stimulus act shows that around 3.5 million jobs were created because of it,
and other stimulus measures taken near the end of 2010 such as the payroll tax cut, increases in unemployment benefits and other tax cuts created around a million jobs. Also his auto bailout is credited with saving 1.5million job. I'll stop there just to keep it simple.

What jobs?
So now it's 4.5 million jobs? June 2009 there were 131,442,000 jobs, so now we should be at 135,942,000, correct?
) Well it looks you as well as I need to read other peoples post more carefully.
First its not 4.5 its around 6 million. 3.5 from the stimulus 1.4million from the auto rescue, and another million from various other policies. Those are direct results of policies implemented by Obama, and since Obama is only one factor in the economy which effects employment those are jobs that are here as a result of him.
Starcraftzzz
Posts: 487
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/4/2012 11:20:57 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 2/4/2012 7:11:06 PM, darkkermit wrote:
At 2/4/2012 5:04:57 PM, Starcraftzzz wrote:
At 2/3/2012 8:34:25 PM, JaxsonRaine wrote:
Here's some interesting information. This is the total number of non-farm payroll jobs, averaged for each year of Obama's presidency, and the year previous as a baseline:

2008 - 136,790,000
2009 - 130,806,000
2010 - 129,874,000
2011 - 131,357,000

I'm shaking my head because Obama became president Jan 20th of 2009. Either you didn't know that basic fact about government or you're intentionally being dishonest and trying to include job losses that occurred under Bush in with job losses that occurred under Obama.
Also I would like to say that blaming Obama for job loses in Jan when he was only president for 10 days of that month is illogical as well. Also for at least the first half of 2009 non of Obama's polices were in effect meaning that currently when Obama policies were in effect the economy only lost maybe around 400,000 jobs in 2009 and since then 3.7million jobs have been created.
Now if we are going to be logical and honest we won't and shouldn't credit Obama with all jobs lost or created, we should instead look analysis of his policies to determine how many jobs they've created. All analysis of his Stimulus act shows that around 3.5 million jobs were created because of it, and other stimulus measures taken near the end of 2010 such as the payroll tax cut, increases in unemployment benefits and other tax cuts created around a million jobs. Also his auto bailout is credited with saving 1.5million job. I'll stop there just to keep it simple.

The job loss rate would have eventually come to a halt, even if the president did nothing. Stating that job loss rate decreased while president, is like stating that while speeding, you lowered the acceleration rate of your car while driving.
You're saying that you could of predicted the employment situation under a different president/and or if Obama did nothing. Did you win a noble with that paper? My point being that the last time this country was in a massive banking crisis of similar size the Great depression occurred.
However I'll be glad to see your economic analysis and research paper that conflicts with every other one that states that Obama's policies created jobs.

At 2/4/2012 7:11:06 PM, darkkermit wrote:
The analysis for the stimulus created jobs is based on Keynesian analysis and assumes a multiplier effect, no matter what.
Yes I have economic analysis based on hundreds of years of experience and logic to support me. What might you have?
At 2/4/2012 7:11:06 PM, darkkermit wrote:
Even if policies create uncertainty, create a bad business environment, crowd out the private sector, and discouraged investments. So even if no single job was not created then the analysis would still say that jobs were created.

If the stimulus crowded out private investment as you say then we could see it in in the data. However the exact opposite happened. This is because of the economic situation the nation faced.
http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com...

At 2/4/2012 7:11:06 PM, darkkermit wrote:
At 2/4/2012 5:04:57 PM, Starcraftzzz wrote:
According to data, from the obama's only administration, the stimulus made things worse:
http://www.nationalreview.com...

No actually that graph wasn't made by the Obama administration it was released by several economists who used BLS and BEA data which understated GDP/employment decline by half. When you include the real data you find that the stimulus did pretty much what those economists theorized it would.
Your source for this is a paragraph or two from Jim Geraghty.
First can I start using Rachel Maddow as a source?
Second don't you think economics is a bit more complicated then 2 paragraphs of Obama bashing?
Every actual analysis of the stimulus concluded that it created millions around 3.5 million jobs.
At 2/4/2012 7:11:06 PM, darkkermit wrote:
Even if the numbers are accurate, it costs $278,000 per job created. That's pathetic.

Its only pathetic if you only include the benefits from jobs being created. Yes it looks pathetic if you leave out half the benefits. In total spending done by (and I'm not including multiplier effects) the stimulus will save the over all economy several trillion dollars over a period of decades. The savings come from a modernized electric grid, reductions in energy/gas usage, medical agriculture and science research, computerizing medical records, early education etc etc etc etc.

At 2/4/2012 7:11:06 PM, darkkermit wrote:
The TARP program cost $700 billion, so if your going to spend that kind of money and downgrade the US credit rating, you better expect good results. There hasn't been:
http://www.weeklystandard.com...

TARP wasn't part of the stimulus, or started under Obama, he did however manage it.
And to be fair all analysis of TARPS effects show it saved 5 million jobs, and that's coming from a McCain supporter. Not to mention that so far TARP bank payments have resulted in the government making around 8% more then it spent.
Second the only bad thing about a credit rating downgrade is that it would push up interest rates; the oppose it occurred this means that you are purely making a political point that has no negate effect on the actually economy.

At 2/4/2012 7:11:06 PM, darkkermit wrote:
Jobs would not have been lost if GM went bankrupted. That's just false and commits the broken window fallacy. Rather the assets would be liquidated and create structural changes that would make the assets more profitable.

That is only true if you ignore the economic situation that the economy was in.
Estimates are that the auto bailout saved at least 1.5million jobs
http://www.cargroup.org...
The reason for this is was because the economy just suffered a massive financial crises that left the markets frozen and no one to finance a bailout for the auto industry. Liquidation would of then wiped out the auto industry further hurting the economy by dismembering our industrial cluster.
Not only that but the auto bailout like TARP is being repaid.
JaxsonRaine
Posts: 3,606
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/5/2012 12:33:04 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 2/4/2012 10:36:34 PM, Starcraftzzz wrote:
1.2million for 2010
http://www.bls.gov...

1 - BLS's own data shows 1,000,000 jobs added in 2010. I don't know what kind of bull they are pulling in that report but it's clearly not true.
(http://www.bls.gov...)
December 2009 - 130,178,000
December 2010 - 131,185,000

Total = 1,007,000
2 - You conveniently leave out the entire year of 2009. Your previous post said we should count the second half of 2009.

June 2009 - 131,442,000
December 2009 - 130,178,000

-1,264,000
Total = -257,000

1.9million 2011

December 2010 - 131,185,000
December 2011 - 132,952,000

+ 1,767,000
Total = 1,510,000

http://www.bls.gov...

.25million 2012

Nope.

December 2011 - 132,952,000
January 2012 - 130,263,000

- 2,689,000
Total = -1,179,000 jobs.

Of course, you could make it much easier on yourself and just compare the number of jobs now to the number of jobs in June 2009, and you'll get the same answer. That being said, this is an unfair way of looking at it, but I'm using the same comparison of dates as you did, but I'm using the right information.
twocupcakes: 15 = 13
Starcraftzzz
Posts: 487
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/5/2012 1:18:48 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 2/5/2012 12:33:04 AM, JaxsonRaine wrote:
At 2/4/2012 10:36:34 PM, Starcraftzzz wrote:
1.2million for 2010
http://www.bls.gov...

1 - BLS's own data shows 1,000,000 jobs added in 2010. I don't know what kind of bull they are pulling in that report but it's clearly not true.
Well.... well... the difference is from using different statistics in the later years of 2010 when net jobs started to be created and the economy stopped losing jobs 1.2million were created.
At 2/5/2012 12:33:04 AM, JaxsonRaine wrote:
(http://www.bls.gov...)
December 2009 - 130,178,000
December 2010 - 131,185,000

Total = 1,007,000
2 - You conveniently leave out the entire year of 2009. Your previous post said we should count the second half of 2009.
Yes I "conveniently" leave out most of 2009 because Obama's polices were not in effect for most of 2009.
At 2/5/2012 12:33:04 AM, JaxsonRaine wrote:
June 2009 - 131,442,000
December 2009 - 130,178,000
Are you seriously blaming Obama for jobs lost that occurred before his policies took effect?

At 2/5/2012 12:33:04 AM, JaxsonRaine wrote:
Nope. Total = -1,179,000 jobs.
Only if you count jobs that were lost before Obama;s policies took place, and if you did that you'd be very dishonest, are you dishonest?
At 2/5/2012 12:33:04 AM, JaxsonRaine wrote:
Of course, you could make it much easier on yourself and just compare the number of jobs now to the number of jobs in June 2009, and you'll get the same answer. That being said, this is an unfair way of looking at it, but I'm using the same comparison of dates as you did, but I'm using the right information.

Yes off course I only compared the number of jobs created due to Obama policies instead of other factors that is because I'm actually being honest instead of misleading due to my political leanings.
JaxsonRaine
Posts: 3,606
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/5/2012 1:36:04 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 2/5/2012 1:18:48 AM, Starcraftzzz wrote:
Well.... well... the difference is from using different statistics in the later years of 2010 when net jobs started to be created and the economy stopped losing jobs 1.2million were created.

What are you going on about? In the later years of 2010? I showed you the jobs for Dec 09 and Dec 10. If the difference is 1 million, how can you say it is 1.2 million?

Yes I "conveniently" leave out most of 2009 because Obama's polices were not in effect for most of 2009.
Are you seriously blaming Obama for jobs lost that occurred before his policies took effect?

No, I'm applying the standard you set. Do you remember this:

At 2/4/2012 5:04:57 PM, Starcraftzzz wrote:
Also I would like to say that blaming Obama for job loses in Jan when he was only president for 10 days of that month is illogical as well. Also for at least the first half of 2009 non of Obama's polices were in effect meaning that currently when Obama policies were in effect the economy only lost maybe around 400,000 jobs in 2009 and since then 3.7million jobs have been created.

I only counted the second half of 2009.

Only if you count jobs that were lost before Obama;s policies took place, and if you did that you'd be very dishonest, are you dishonest?

So now his policies didn't take effect for his whole first year? At least make up your mind as to the parameters of the argument you are going to make, and stick with them.

Yes off course I only compared the number of jobs created due to Obama policies instead of other factors that is because I'm actually being honest instead of misleading due to my political leanings.

Right... you don't want to look at the actual situation, but rather look at what Obama did? Obama could have created 6 million jobs, but there were actually almost 8 million jobs lost which were out of his control... so even though the total number of jobs is down, Obama still created jobs?
twocupcakes: 15 = 13
Starcraftzzz
Posts: 487
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/5/2012 6:02:03 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 2/5/2012 12:33:04 AM, JaxsonRaine wrote:
At 2/4/2012 10:36:34 PM, Starcraftzzz wrote:
1.2million for 2010
http://www.bls.gov...

1 - BLS's own data shows 1,000,000 jobs added in 2010. I don't know what kind of bull they are pulling in that report but it's clearly not true.
(http://www.bls.gov...)
December 2009 - 130,178,000
December 2010 - 131,185,000
Odd that your position is that the source you cited is now lying... I wonder what degree do you have that qualifies you to say that the BLS who measure employment directly from employers is incorrect?

At 2/5/2012 12:33:04 AM, JaxsonRaine wrote:
2 - You conveniently leave out the entire year of 2009. Your previous post said we should count the second half of 2009.
Yes when measuring the effect of Obama's policies I "conveniently" leave out the dates before his policies took effect.
At 2/5/2012 12:33:04 AM, JaxsonRaine wrote:
http://www.bls.gov...
Odd how you are still citing a source you yourself said was bogus....

At 2/5/2012 12:33:04 AM, JaxsonRaine wrote:
Of course, you could make it much easier on yourself and just compare the number of jobs now to the number of jobs in June 2009, and you'll get the same answer. That being said, this is an unfair way of looking at it, but I'm using the same comparison of dates as you did, but I'm using the right information.
Well I'm not comparing the number of jobs, I'm analysis the number of jobs that have been saved/created due to Obama policies. My question to you is what the hell are you doing?
JaxsonRaine
Posts: 3,606
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/5/2012 8:57:04 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 2/5/2012 6:02:03 AM, Starcraftzzz wrote:
Odd that your position is that the source you cited is now lying... I wonder what degree do you have that qualifies you to say that the BLS who measure employment directly from employers is incorrect?

No, you're not paying attention. I'm using the actual figures BLS has for each month for the total number of jobs. I subtract Dec 09 from Dec 10 and there are 1,000,000 jobs added. The report you linked is what I am calling wrong, as 1 million isn't the same as 1.2 million. Do the math yourself.

At 2/5/2012 12:33:04 AM, JaxsonRaine wrote:
2 - You conveniently leave out the entire year of 2009. Your previous post said we should count the second half of 2009.
Yes when measuring the effect of Obama's policies I "conveniently" leave out the dates before his policies took effect.

2 - You conveniently leave out the entire year of 2009. Your earlier post said we should count the second half of 2009. Can you address that? You just want to change what figures you are going to use until you find the ones that paint the best picture?

At 2/5/2012 12:33:04 AM, JaxsonRaine wrote:
http://www.bls.gov...
Odd how you are still citing a source you yourself said was bogus....

Nope, you are just having a hard time understanding again. BLS publishes these two numbers:

December 2009 - 130,178,000
December 2010 - 131,185,000

Pull out a calculator, is that a difference of 1.2 million? I'm saying the report you linked to is wrong.

Well I'm not comparing the number of jobs, I'm analysis the number of jobs that have been saved/created due to Obama policies. My question to you is what the hell are you doing?

I'm comparing the number of jobs from year to year.

The number of jobs 'saved/created' are simply bull, the only actual figures we have are the total number of jobs.

Otherwise, you can just make up whatever you want. "Obama saved 4,200,000 jobs in 2009, because everyone was so hopeful in his policies that they didn't lay off employees that they would have under a Republican."
twocupcakes: 15 = 13
Starcraftzzz
Posts: 487
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/5/2012 10:03:00 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 2/5/2012 8:57:04 AM, JaxsonRaine wrote:
At 2/5/2012 6:02:03 AM, Starcraftzzz wrote:
Odd that your position is that the source you cited is now lying... I wonder what degree do you have that qualifies you to say that the BLS who measure employment directly from employers is incorrect?

No, you're not paying attention. I'm using the actual figures BLS has for each month for the total number of jobs. I subtract Dec 09 from Dec 10 and there are 1,000,000 jobs added. The report you linked is what I am calling wrong, as 1 million isn't the same as 1.2 million. Do the math yourself.
According to you, "I don't know what kind of bull they are pulling in that report but it's clearly not true."
I find it odd that you sit there citing a source that according to you lies.
Well to be honest I dont find it odd, because you are not looking for truth you're looking for political talking points


At 2/5/2012 12:33:04 AM, JaxsonRaine wrote:
2 - You conveniently leave out the entire year of 2009. Your previous post said we should count the second half of 2009.
Yes when measuring the effect of Obama's policies I "conveniently" leave out the dates before his policies took effect.

2 - You conveniently leave out the entire year of 2009. Your earlier post said we should count the second half of 2009. Can you address that? You just want to change what figures you are going to use until you find the ones that paint the best picture?
Yes I can. I include effects of Obama's policies. What the hell re you doing?

At 2/5/2012 12:33:04 AM, JaxsonRaine wrote:
http://www.bls.gov...
Odd how you are still citing a source you yourself said was bogus....

Nope, you are just having a hard time understanding again. BLS publishes these two numbers:

December 2009 - 130,178,000
December 2010 - 131,185,000

Pull out a calculator, is that a difference of 1.2 million? I'm saying the report you linked to is wrong.
I see so you cherry pick certain dates in order to make a political point, how about instead you look at all the data and make a factual point?


Well I'm not comparing the number of jobs, I'm analysis the number of jobs that have been saved/created due to Obama policies. My question to you is what the hell are you doing?

I'm comparing the number of jobs from year to year.
I see so you're not actually analyzing the jobs effects of Obama's policies you're just trying to score political points.

At 2/5/2012 8:57:04 AM, JaxsonRaine wrote:
The number of jobs 'saved/created' are simply bull, the only actual figures we have are the total number of jobs.

Otherwise, you can just make up whatever you want. "Obama saved 4,200,000 jobs in 2009, because everyone was so hopeful in his policies that they didn't lay off employees that they would have under a Republican."

No actually due to Obama polices millions of jobs were created/saved that is supported by actually research from economists who voted against Obama. See the difference between my position and yours is that mine is factual and supported by actual evidence and research while yours is cherry picked data trying to make politic statements. However I dont expect you to see the difference.. or maybe I'm wrong in that respect..
JaxsonRaine
Posts: 3,606
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/5/2012 10:38:19 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 2/5/2012 10:03:00 AM, Starcraftzzz wrote:
According to you, "I don't know what kind of bull they are pulling in that report but it's clearly not true."
I find it odd that you sit there citing a source that according to you lies.
Well to be honest I dont find it odd, because you are not looking for truth you're looking for political talking points

Did you do the math yourself? I'm not citing the report, I'm saying there is a problem with that report, can you understand that?

The report says 1.2 million. The figures say 1 million. Since the report is based on the figures, and doesn't include all the figures in their table, I'll go with the figures that we have.

Tell me, what do you get when you subtract the 09 jobs from the 10 jobs?

December 2009 - 130,178,000
December 2010 - 131,185,000

2 - You conveniently leave out the entire year of 2009. Your earlier post said we should count the second half of 2009. Can you address that? You just want to change what figures you are going to use until you find the ones that paint the best picture?
Yes I can. I include effects of Obama's policies. What the hell re you doing?

Answer my question. Your earlier post said we shouldn't count the first half of 2009.

Fine, I didn't. I started with the second half. Why are you now not including any of 2009? Did Obama do nothing for his first year?

"What the hell are you doing?" I'm going off of YOUR OWN ASSERTION that we should look at the second half of 2009.

December 2009 - 130,178,000
December 2010 - 131,185,000

Pull out a calculator, is that a difference of 1.2 million? I'm saying the report you linked to is wrong.
I see so you cherry pick certain dates in order to make a political point, how about instead you look at all the data and make a factual point?

No, the ending jobs in 09 and ending jobs in 10 are what are used to look at job growth for 2010. Look at it this way.

At the end of 2009, there were 130,178,000 jobs. At the end of 2010, there were 131,185,000 jobs. That means there were 1 million jobs added in 2010. So where do you get 1.2 million?

You are the one trying to cherry pick dates by starting at the absolute bottom to make Obama look as good as possible.

I'm comparing the number of jobs from year to year.
I see so you're not actually analyzing the jobs effects of Obama's policies you're just trying to score political points.

No, you are being ridiculous. If you compare the jobs from one year to the next, you can see how many jobs were lost/added that year. How is that not relevant?

At 2/5/2012 8:57:04 AM, JaxsonRaine wrote:
The number of jobs 'saved/created' are simply bull, the only actual figures we have are the total number of jobs.

Otherwise, you can just make up whatever you want. "Obama saved 4,200,000 jobs in 2009, because everyone was so hopeful in his policies that they didn't lay off employees that they would have under a Republican."

No actually due to Obama polices millions of jobs were created/saved that is supported by actually research from economists who voted against Obama. See the difference between my position and yours is that mine is factual and supported by actual evidence and research while yours is cherry picked data trying to make politic statements. However I dont expect you to see the difference.. or maybe I'm wrong in that respect..

Jobs saved are always estimates. Real jobs are facts. I am comparing REAL NUMBERS THAT ACTUALLY EXIST, not 'we would have lost this many jobs if we hadn't done this'. Those reports are not reliable, time and time again 'economists' are horribly wrong.

You have the blatant audacity to say I am cherry picking data, when I am using the SAME DATES YOU BROUGHT UP. You don't respond to my questions, and you represent my position with strawman arguments.

I have no respect left for you, and I will not address you any further. Have a nice day.
twocupcakes: 15 = 13
Starcraftzzz
Posts: 487
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/5/2012 11:19:30 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 2/5/2012 10:38:19 AM, JaxsonRaine wrote:
At 2/5/2012 10:03:00 AM, Starcraftzzz wrote:
According to you, "I don't know what kind of bull they are pulling in that report but it's clearly not true."
I find it odd that you sit there citing a source that according to you lies.
Well to be honest I dont find it odd, because you are not looking for truth you're looking for political talking points

Did you do the math yourself? I'm not citing the report, I'm saying there is a problem with that report, can you understand that?

The report says 1.2 million. The figures say 1 million. Since the report is based on the figures, and doesn't include all the figures in their table, I'll go with the figures that we have.
I see so instead of using updated figures you're deciding to use outdated figures.. I wonder and ask why you would do that?
At 2/5/2012 10:38:19 AM, JaxsonRaine wrote:

Tell me, what do you get when you subtract the 09 jobs from the 10 jobs?

December 2009 - 130,178,000
December 2010 - 131,185,000
I was under the impression that we were discussing something a bit more complex then simple subtraction or maybe I was the only one discussing something beyond 2nd grade math. You tell me.

At 2/5/2012 10:38:19 AM, JaxsonRaine wrote:
2 - You conveniently leave out the entire year of 2009. Your earlier post said we should count the second half of 2009. Can you address that? You just want to change what figures you are going to use until you find the ones that paint the best picture?
Yes I can. I include effects of Obama's policies. What the hell re you doing?

Answer my question. Your earlier post said we shouldn't count the first half of 2009.

Fine, I didn't. I started with the second half. Why are you now not including any of 2009? Did Obama do nothing for his first year?

"What the hell are you doing?" I'm going off of YOUR OWN ASSERTION that we should look at the second half of 2009.
I was under the impression that we were talking about Obama and the effects of his policies, I see now that I was wrong in that you are not talking about the effects of Obama's polices your just trying to score political points.



December 2009 - 130,178,000
December 2010 - 131,185,000

Pull out a calculator, is that a difference of 1.2 million? I'm saying the report you linked to is wrong.
I see so you cherry pick certain dates in order to make a political point, how about instead you look at all the data and make a factual point?

No, the ending jobs in 09 and ending jobs in 10 are what are used to look at job growth for 2010. Look at it this way.

At the end of 2009, there were 130,178,000 jobs. At the end of 2010, there were 131,185,000 jobs. That means there were 1 million jobs added in 2010. So where do you get 1.2 million?

You are the one trying to cherry pick dates by starting at the absolute bottom to make Obama look as good as possible.

Exactly I am the one cherry picking the data that is applicable to Obama. You are the one saying that Obama is responsible for things he had nothing to do with


I'm comparing the number of jobs from year to year.
I see so you're not actually analyzing the jobs effects of Obama's policies you're just trying to score political points.

No, you are being ridiculous. If you compare the jobs from one year to the next, you can see how many jobs were lost/added that year. How is that not relevant?

So why is it ridiculous of me to only consider the effects of what Obama has done? Is it ridiculous because it doesn't fit your political narrative or is it ridiculous because its doing something above 3rd grade math?

At 2/5/2012 8:57:04 AM, JaxsonRaine wrote:
The number of jobs 'saved/created' are simply bull, the only actual figures we have are the total number of jobs.

Otherwise, you can just make up whatever you want. "Obama saved 4,200,000 jobs in 2009, because everyone was so hopeful in his policies that they didn't lay off employees that they would have under a Republican."

No actually due to Obama polices millions of jobs were created/saved that is supported by actually research from economists who voted against Obama. See the difference between my position and yours is that mine is factual and supported by actual evidence and research while yours is cherry picked data trying to make politic statements. However I dont expect you to see the difference.. or maybe I'm wrong in that respect..

Jobs saved are always estimates. Real jobs are facts. I am comparing REAL NUMBERS THAT ACTUALLY EXIST, not 'we would have lost this many jobs if we hadn't done this'. Those reports are not reliable, time and time again 'economists' are horribly wrong.
Notice how you're including numbers that were not effected by Obama. Its dishonest and partisan to include numbers that Obama did not effect in analysis of what Obama has done


You have the blatant audacity to say I am cherry picking data, when I am using the SAME DATES YOU BROUGHT UP. You don't respond to my questions, and you represent my position with strawman arguments.
Well I would construct something other then strawmen if you actually made some arguments. However I can't construct an intelligent thought for you so all i have is strawmen


I have no respect left for you, and I will not address you any further. Have a nice day.
I see so you've no respect for reality that is very telling of the person you are. But moreso its telling of the fact that you're not looking to improve things you're just looking to score political points.
I wish I really do that you had the mental capacity to actually think and have a discussion but clearly you dont. Have a shitty day.