THE EMPLOYMENT SITUATION -- NOVEMBER 2009

Onceler said:
It's weird; I just checked the dictionary under "hack", and there was a reference to a bravo on JPP!

Well, righties (and that means you, Yurt!) - defend the above....
Click to expand...

Bush was in office for 96 months.....

83 of those months had unemployment under 6.0%, even with the most horrific terrorist attack on the country and collapse of the World Trade Center....

But then the Democrats took over Congress....
Click to expand...

yeah, how hackish of me for defending (which i had not done yet, so not ture) his post...which i now have done, since mr. board police captain is on patrol today....

what is wrong with his post, it is factually true

let's see if onceler can take off his whiney hack sniping goggles and address the post
 
Yurt said:
you're such a crybaby....i was moving from one project to another, came here, skimmed a few posts and left....

are you going to arrest me mr. board police captain? i don't see you out taking libs on this board to task you hypocrite....
Click to expand...

You don't? You're not paying attention, then; some of the board libs hate me.

You're a hack's hack. You'll always skip by hacks like bravo, because you love them.
 
Onceler said:
You don't? You're not paying attention, then; some of the board libs hate me.

You're a hack's hack. You'll always skip by hacks like bravo, because you love them.
Click to expand...

thats a lie, you're projecting now....pathetic...

and i don't think bravo is a hack
 
bravo said:
Are you trying to give the impression that Bush unemployment numbers had something to do with seasonal jobs?

Lets put things in perspective....

Bush was in office for 96 months.....

83 of those months had unemployment under 6.0%, even with the most horrific terrorist attack on the country and collapse of the World Trade Center....
Click to expand...

I would think Republicans would be embarrassed about using screaming "9/11! 9/11! 9/11!" by now. No, they still rely on that excuse. Kind of pathetic.
 
Onceler said:
That's all we need to know.

Thanks.
Click to expand...

no problem....and i see you couldn't refute what he said....thats makes you a hack, you said i defended it as an insult, yet you can't actually say whats wrong with it....moron

he says things i disagree with, but doesn't mean he is a hack IMO....what is truly funny about this is that you falsely claimed a few weeks ago that you went around doing this very same thing in "mockery" of me....yet i haven't done any such thing and here you are doing it again....

face it, you're nothing but a whiney little boy who cries like a little baby when someone calls him on something, yet has no problem making a fucking stink that i missed one post of bravo's during a brief 3 minute run on this site....and that somehow turns into me doing it all the time.....

get over yourself, really
 
Yurt said:
no problem....and i see you couldn't refute what he said....thats makes you a hack, you said i defended it as an insult, yet you can't actually say whats wrong with it....moron

he says things i disagree with, but doesn't mean he is a hack IMO....what is truly funny about this is that you falsely claimed a few weeks ago that you went around doing this very same thing in "mockery" of me....yet i haven't done any such thing and here you are doing it again....

face it, you're nothing but a whiney little boy who cries like a little baby when someone calls him on something, yet has no problem making a fucking stink that i missed one post of bravo's during a brief 3 minute run on this site....and that somehow turns into me doing it all the time.....

get over yourself, really
Click to expand...

LOL

Clearly sensitive because you know I'm right.

:clink:
 
lmao....you're such a little liar....so cute onceler....can't defend your claim he is a hack for his statement because you know his statement is factually true so you continue your lies.....

let's give our little cute five year his special clap....

:clap::clap::clap:
 
Onceler said:
No one is ignoring anything. I understand that the 10% figure is not a complete figure, just as 4% wasn't under Bush. I understand that there is a large increase in temp employment at this time.

HOWEVER, no one was expecting a decrease like this. And this includes pretty much everyone in the economic field & on Wall Street - who, I think, understand the whole "temp employment" dynamic.

Sorry the good news is so bad for you.
Click to expand...
Call it good news all you want - it does not make it so. I pointed out some reality behind the so-called good figures, such as the fact that the UE numbers are skewed by seasonal employment. And last time I looked, the definition of GOOD was not "not as bad as we expected." But then I am not trying to spin things for the benefit of a political party. I am evaluating things as how they affect the American people, both now and in the future.

Bottom line: the news on employment figures is STILL BAD. We have 10% UE using strictly applicant for UE benefits, higher rates of discouraged workers, higher rates of underemployed workers for a total estimated UE of over 17%. Almost 1 in 5 work-capable people are out of a job, or working some PT low wage job at a fraction of their normal income. We are continuing to lose medium and high paying permanent jobs, which are - do to the season - being replaced with low paying temporary service jobs. Sorry to bust your fantasy bubble of spun honey, but those facts do not equate out to "good" news.

Do you have ANY idea what the above figure mean for future movements of the economy? We already have record defaults on personal, personal property, and revolving credit loans, the band-aid put on the mortgage problem is falling off, and people are still losing their jobs. Put it all in a package, and things do NOT look rosy no matter how much "less worse" this month is from last month.

Holiday sales increased by less than inflation - which means in terms of inflation adjusted dollars, holiday sales are down. What is going to happen when holiday sales are no longer skewing the data? What will happen to the already shaky banking industry when loan defaults continue in an upward spiral? What will happen to home mortgages when inability to pay exceeds the government help plans?

Now the UE figures may not be as bad as many economists were projecting (Predictions which you poo-pooed up until now because you were too busy parroting Obama's "UE will not go above 10% and the stimulus should be kicking in any time now", message.) but that does NOT make for "good" news, let alone "incredible". Only in the realm of blind partisan, head up your respective mascot's ass politics does "not as horrible as expected" mean "good".

And speaking of the Democrats predictions of good times to come from government over-spending - how does this news compare to what you were predicting 6 months ago with your rose colored glasses and massive doses of hallucinogens?
 
Good Luck said:
Call it good news all you want - it does not make it so. I pointed out some reality behind the so-called good figures, such as the fact that the UE numbers are skewed by seasonal employment. And last time I looked, the definition of GOOD was not "not as bad as we expected." But then I am not trying to spin things for the benefit of a political party. I am evaluating things as how they affect the American people, both now and in the future.

Bottom line: the news on employment figures is STILL BAD. We have 10% UE using strictly applicant for UE benefits, higher rates of discouraged workers, higher rates of underemployed workers for a total estimated UE of over 17%. Almost 1 in 5 work-capable people are out of a job, or working some PT low wage job at a fraction of their normal income. We are continuing to lose medium and high paying permanent jobs, which are - do to the season - being replaced with low paying temporary service jobs. Sorry to bust your fantasy bubble of spun honey, but those facts do not equate out to "good" news.

Do you have ANY idea what the above figure mean for future movements of the economy? We already have record defaults on personal, personal property, and revolving credit loans, the band-aid put on the mortgage problem is falling off, and people are still losing their jobs. Put it all in a package, and things do NOT look rosy no matter how much "less worse" this month is from last month.

Holiday sales increased by less than inflation - which means in terms of inflation adjusted dollars, holiday sales are down. What is going to happen when holiday sales are no longer skewing the data? What will happen to the already shaky banking industry when loan defaults continue in an upward spiral? What will happen to home mortgages when inability to pay exceeds the government help plans?

Now the UE figures may not be as bad as many economists were projecting (Predictions which you poo-pooed up until now because you were too busy parroting Obama's "UE will not go above 10% and the stimulus should be kicking in any time now", message.) but that does NOT make for "good" news, let alone "incredible". Only in the realm of blind partisan, head up your respective mascot's ass politics does "not as horrible as expected" mean "good".

And speaking of the Democrats predictions of good times to come from government over-spending - how does this news compare to what you were predicting 6 months ago with your rose colored glasses and massive doses of hallucinogens?
Click to expand...

What is it with you & projecting every liberal thought you hear and assume onto me? Seriously - it undermines every argument you could hope to make. It's pathetic.

I always thought the admin's unemployment projections were rosy, and said so. I expected double-digit unemployment pretty much from the get go, and a pretty long slog out of this mess.

Which is WHY I saw the jobs report & a downtick in the % as welcome news. Honestly, we are much further along at this point than I ever expected us to be.

So, go to Dailykos now, find out what the lefties are saying, and then write that it's exactly what I'm saying instead of actually listening.
 
Weren't you the one defending to the death the stimulus - so much so your were disappointed at how "slowly" the money was being shoveled into the gutters to be washed down the storm drain. How many billion did we give GM so they would not go bankrupt under the theory that a failure of one of the big 3 would crash the economy. Yet Gm went bankrupt anyway, didn't they - even after the billions received and wasted from our pockets. And, as those of us who opposed the stimulus, the end result of GM going bankrupt was better than giving them handout after handout. The only thing the handouts did is allow the feds to grab control during the bankruptcy proceedings and dictate the restructuring. Government using handouts as a means of imposing direct control of private industry is not exactly something one should want to happen.

You also have been defending your stance on the stimulus based on stock market performance, which does not reflect in the general economy on a 1-1 basis. Remember when the republicans under Bush kept harping on the performance of the market, and the increase in numbers of first time millionaires, while completely disregarding the phenomenon of long-time (as in no longer on the benefits rolls) unemployed, not to mention most of the first time millionaires were "made" simply due to out-of-control housing prices in certain greater metro areas. The whole thing of market gains over shadowing increasing unacknowledged unemployment was labeled "jobless recovery". What were your thoughts on that? Because in essence, that is what we are still seeing.

I will admit you were consistent in stating that Obama's claims on the future trends of UE were overly optimistic. So I apologize for lumping you in with the average Obama-butt-kisser on that.

However you have been painting rosy about the effects of the stimulus on the stock market in a manner very similar to painting this latest "not as bad" news about UE figures. Strong market returns were not reflected in jobs and general economic strength under Bush, nor are they reflected now under conditions of general stock market recovery which almost always occurs after a major drop.

So, let us talk about what the figures actually mean, shall we? First we have a 0.2% "drop" in unemployment. What does that mean? It means 0.2% fewer people applied for unemployment benefits. What it does NOT say is how much of that 0.2% is due to people running out of UE benefits. What it does NOT relate is how many dropped from the UE benefits rolls without gaining employment. What it does NOT say is how many got a job, but at 1/2 or less their accustomed income. What would you like to bet that the number of people who dropped from the UE rolls last month without getting a job, BY THEMSELVES can account for the 0.2% drop in officially acknowledge UE -which stands now at 15.4 MILLION people.

How businesses work also has a great deal to do with the recent figures coming out. Businesses which stay in business neeed a certain minimum number of employees. If they want to cut more, the business is looking at closing facilities. Production figures indicate that we are approaching the minimum employment level before facilities start closing down on a permanent and semi-permanent basis. We will NOT be seeing facilities closing during the hottest season of consumerism. No business is going to say "Here comes Christmas - lets shut down that plant in Baccoima."

Of significance is that DESPITE the increase in consumerism that marks this time of year, the ONLY ones doing any significant hiring are those needing part time, temporary service help. Sorry, but that is NOT good news no matter how you want to swing it. This is the season when things are supposed to be gearing up and accelerating - even if only temporary, yet we are BARELY staying even (and not really that much.)

Is the news better than, say, the announcement that some major manufacturer or another is laying off another 100K? Yes. Does that make the fact that we have temporarily bottomed out - due primarily to PT, temp jobs - "good" news? Not by a long shot.

IF the UE figures remain stable through the end of January, then we can probably start saying there is a light at the end of the tunnel. But with the timing, and type of jobs keeping UE level now, it is way too soon to be saying anything more than "Thank God it isn't worse, cause it sure isn't better."
 
Last edited:
bravo said:
Are you trying to give the impression that Bush unemployment numbers had something to do with seasonal jobs?

Lets put things in perspective....

Bush was in office for 96 months.....

83 of those months had unemployment under 6.0%, even with the most horrific terrorist attack on the country and collapse of the World Trade Center....
Click to expand...


Bush took office with an unemployment rate of about 4%, 6% was an increase of about 50% in the years you mentioned, and by the end of his presidency bush handed to Obama an unemployment rate of more than 80% greater than he was given by Clinton and the Dems upon his inauguration. Simple HONEST math without cherry picking years and not giving ALL the facts as in your post. The bush presidency was a monument to the failure of his trickle down, Supply Side policies.
If you want to translate percentages to people, bush left the "presidency" with millions more Americans out of work or underemployed than when he took office.
 
Last edited:
belme1201 said:
Bush took office with an unemployment rate of about 4%, 6% was an increase of about 50% in the years you mentioned, and by the end of his presidency bush handed to Obama an unemployment rate of more than 80% greater than he was given by Clinton and the Dems upon his inauguration. Simple HONEST math without cherry picking years and not giving ALL the facts as in your post. The bush presidency was a monument to the failure of his trickle down, Supply Side policies.
If you want to translate percentages to people, bush left the "presidency" with millions more Americans out of work or underemployed than when he took office.
Click to expand...

I know your not retarded, but the supply side comment was and so is cherrypicking % increase of of nearly all time lows.
Keep saying Obama owns non of this and hill be just like Carter.
 
Topspin said:
I know your not retarded, but the supply side comment was and so is cherrypicking % increase of of nearly all time lows.
Keep saying Obama owns non of this and hill be just like Carter.
Click to expand...


I chose only the correct numbers from bush's first day in office until his last. How is that cherry picking? How else does one determine the success or failure of a presidency? Your folks have declared Obama's failure after only 10 months! Supply Side was the basis of bush's economic poicy, and it failed. bush carried Supply Side to a new extreme when he started 2 wars and simultaneously reduced taxes, paying for nothing. Medicare Part D with the "Advantage" boondoggle was also a nearly trillion dollar negative gift to the nation. There is a reason Supply Side is never mentioned by Republicans and Arthur Laffer is relegated to occasional 5 minute guest "expert" appearances on Fox.
The post I replied to referred only to the "6%" number, but failed to mention what it was when bush began and the fact that the arrow pointing ever upward during his administration ended at 8% when he left office, almost doubling the rate of unemployment. That represents several million more people jobless on 1/20/09 than were on 1/20/01. By any stretch of the imagination how can that be considered success or even moderate failure?
Can you point out where I said "Obama owns none of this"?
 
Last edited:
Supply Side was the basis of bush's economic poicy, and it failed.
Click to expand...

Uhmm, Bush did not practice supply side economics, he was a "compassionate conservative" which is the antithesis of "supply side" conservatism. Bush's father was vehemently opposed to supply side economics, he coined the phrase, "voodoo economics" during his campaign against Reagan for the nomination in 1980.

When Reagan implemented supply side economics in the 1980s, it resulted in the longest peacetime prosperity in the history of the nation. This was with a Democrat congress who gave Reagan less than what he wanted to do, had he been able to get capital gains tax reduction like he wanted, the prosperity would have been even greater. Supply side economics worked, and it continued to work until Bush Sr. dismantled it and we began drifting toward this "compassionate conservative" thing.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top