Re: 2012 U.S. Presidential Election
Why exactly is a gain of 95,000 jobs worse than the loss of 750,000 we were experiencing, on average, monthly, before Obama took office?Originally Posted by Roy Karrde
I have some facts for you to look at, and I think you'll be shocked.
Private-sector Job situation last 12 months under BUSH (2008-2009):
February___________-136,000 (lost)
March_____________ -112,000 (lost)
April______________-215,000 (lost)
May______________ -216,000 (lost)
June______________-231,000 (lost)
July_______________ -259,000 (lost)
August____________ -294,000 (lost)
September_________ -425,000 (lost)
October____________ -480,000 (lost)
November__________ -797,000 (lost)
December__________-658,000 (lost)
January____________-839,000 (lost)
.
Private-sector Job situation over past 12 months under OBAMA:
.
September______+216,000 (gained)
October________ +139,000 (gained)
November_______+178,000 (gained)
December_______+234,000 (gained)
January_________+277,000 (gained)
February________+254,000 (gained)
March__________+147,000 (gained)
April____________ +85,000 (gained)
May____________+116,000 (gained)
June_____________+63,000 (gained)
July_____________+162,000 (gained)
August__________ +103,000 (gained)
Want more facts? Let's compare where we were at the same point in two different electoral cycles.
...
In August 2008, (President G.W. Bush), 159,000 jobs were lost
In August 2012, (President B.H. Obama), 96,000 jobs were gained
PS: "Facts are Stupid Things". Ronald Reagan, 40th President, to the RNC in 1988
Last edited by Dark Sage; 7th September 2012 at 10:09 AM.
Re: 2012 U.S. Presidential Election
Because A: It is under the rate of growth already so it means that there is a loss, and B: 368,000 people left the workforce so combine that with the 120,000 we grow each month and you have nearly 400,000 people who were left with out a job this month.
And hey that 750,000 loss came when we were in the mist of a bad recession. If you want to say that Obama's policies have failed and we are slipping back into a recession, then it is a pretty accurate comparison.
Re: 2012 U.S. Presidential Election
Roy, look at this if you think that Obama hasn't made an improvement:
http://www.barackobama.com/jobsrecord/
This is what the GOP doesn't want you to know.
Re: 2012 U.S. Presidential Election
So you point me to Obama's own website to say that he has made a improvement? What do you expect it to say "We sucked"?
You quoted Reagan in saying Facts are stubborn things. And they are, right now we have the lowest Workforce Participation in 30 years. That is absolutely terrible.
Re: 2012 U.S. Presidential Election
We seem to be adding jobs on a monthly basis, rather than losing them, which was happening at a frightening rate before Obama took office.
I fail to see why that's a bad thing.
Re: 2012 U.S. Presidential Election
Because it is not keeping up at the rate of population growth, meaning that we are actually losing jobs, and Obama took office in the mist of a recession, if you want to compare 4 years in office from then to now then you can. But that makes Obama look like a absolute failure, if all his policies over 4 years cannot get our job numbers over monthly population growth.
By the way 4 years into Bush's Presidency, after the .Com Bubble burst and 9/11, the job market was adding in 310,000 jobs a month.
http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics...th-under-bush/
Last edited by Roy Karrde; 7th September 2012 at 10:22 AM.
Re: 2012 U.S. Presidential Election
I'm comparing a negative job growth to a positive one.
No way you can convince me that a positive job growth is worse than a negative one.
If only 1,000 jobs had been added, it would have been better than a loss.
Re: 2012 U.S. Presidential Election
When it does not reach over population growth, it is negative as you are not making up for the new people coming into the market. Also again I will point this out. Not to mention you had 350,000 people LEAVE the workforce this month, that is terrible.
By the way 4 years into Bush's Presidency, after the .Com Bubble burst and 9/11, the job market was adding in 310,000 jobs a month.
http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics...th-under-bush/
Re: 2012 U.S. Presidential Election
Okay, NOW you're trying to convince me that Bush was better than Obama. I don't think you'll ever succeed there. I doubt that even Romney himself would believe it.
Re: 2012 U.S. Presidential Election
I am only pointing out that after 4 years in his Presidency, Bush was pulling down close to 400,000 new jobs a month. Meanwhile what do we have under Obama? Sub 100,000 job months, 89 MILLION not in the workforce, and the lowest workforce participation for men since 1948!
If this is the result of 4 years of a Obama Presidency, then it is truly time for him to go.
Re: 2012 U.S. Presidential Election
Y'know, Roy, you should really hope that Obama wins, and I'll tell you why.
If he does, and the Democrats barely hold onto the Senate, things in his second term will be pretty much like they are now.
HOWEVER... If Romney wins, and his administration proves to be nothing more than a return to Bush's policies, as many are saying, and fearing, it will be a disaster for the GOP. Even worse if even one part of that GOP Party Platform is actually put into practice.
They'll experience a defeat in 2014 that will make the Democrat's loss in 2010 be considered a minor setback. Not only will the Democrats regain a firm grip on the Senate, they will be well on their way to taking back the House and set themselves up for an easy win in 2016.
And who will the blame fall on? Romney, that's who. He'll be considered more of a failure than you consider Obama.
Food for thought, Roy...
Re: 2012 U.S. Presidential Election
How so? As pointed out the Bush Policies put in close to 400,000 a month in terms of jobs, and unemployment down in the low 4 to 5 percent.
That would be pretty damn hard considering that the Democrats have more seats to defend in 2014 than the Republicans do...
Hey Obama got away with blaming Bush for 4 years for his own policy failures, I would think Romney would get the same leeway.
Re: 2012 U.S. Presidential Election
Roy, forgive me for being skeptical about Romney's recent promise to add 12 million new jobs by the end of his first term.
Let's not forget, when he was governor of Massechusetts, the state ranked 47th in creating new jobs.
Re: 2012 U.S. Presidential Election
That actually shouldn't be too hard as it only requires 4 million per year, or a total of 333,333 a month, now I know by Obama's standard that is hard, but for a country actually coming out of a recession, and not stuck in a malaze as it is now, it shouldn't be.
Yes it did, and it started off in 50th place, and by the end of his tenure was at 28th. That is a damn good improvement!
Re: 2012 U.S. Presidential Election
If you say he can keep such a promise, then that's your view.
BUT... If he becomes President, I'm gonna hold him to it. Fair enough?
Re: 2012 U.S. Presidential Election
Sure fair enough, but only if you hold Obama to the same standard, shall we look back at some of the claims Obama made in 2008 that have so far failed to materialize?
Re: 2012 U.S. Presidential Election
I did hold him to them.
I not as pleased as I hoped I'd be with Mr. Obama... But I'm not upset with him enough to actually vote for someone like Romney, who represents every concept I oppose, who IMOHO, would lead this country into ruin.
I admit that Obama has not done all he promised. But he's a lot better than someone with Romney's ideas, or anyone who would not speak out against that abomination of a GOP Party Platform.
I once questioned the GOP's honesty... After the RNC, I question their sanity...
Re: 2012 U.S. Presidential Election
So you wish to hold Romney's promises against him if they fail to materialize, but refuse to do the same for Obama? That.. is a rather fantastic double standard.
Re: 2012 U.S. Presidential Election
Okay Roy, answer me this.
If Romey is elected, and he fails to live up to his promises and becomes a terrible President, will you even consider voting for the Democratic candidate in 2016?
Be honest, here.
And don't get into why you think Romney will be a great President. The hypothetical question I'm asking you is, "Will you vote for him if he turns out to be a terrible one?".
By the way, not to embarrass you, but you did the math wrong. Romney would have to create 3 million jobs a year, or 250,000 a month, on average. And btw, I'm assuming he means that he wants to create them all in the United States.
Re: 2012 U.S. Presidential Election
Depends on a candidate, if it is some one like Hillary? Yes.
12 / 4 = 4 4/12 = 333.333
Re: 2012 U.S. Presidential Election
First of all, 12 divided by 4 equals 3.
Second I find it hard to believe that you would ever support a Democrat. You've never had a good word to say about any of them as long as I've known you.
On the other hand, there's only been one member of the GOP whom you claim you didn't like: Ron Paul. Other than him, you never had a bad word for a Republican.
You even rush to the defense of some of the worst of the lot, blooming idiots like Cain, Bachmann, and Palin, even though it seems like their own party has disowned them by not inviting them to RNC.
So I'm very skeptical as to whether you would support any Democrat over any Republican. Sorry, but I can't believe you.
Re: 2012 U.S. Presidential Election
Might want to check the 2008 thread then, as I have held Hillary in quite high regard for a while. By the way Cain was at the convention and had a speaking slot.
Re: 2012 U.S. Presidential Election
Is this what you're referring to?
http://www.tampabay.com/news/politic...of-rnc/1248113
That was a Tea Party rally that he and Bachmann held in Tampa during the RNC. It wasn't actually part of the real RNC.
The former presidential candidate said he wasn't disappointed that he wasn't speaking at the Republican National Convention. "It's not about me," he said.
Re: 2012 U.S. Presidential Election
That would be my bad, I was sure he had a speaking slot, guess not
Re: 2012 U.S. Presidential Election
Uh... Roy... You did watch the RNC, didn't you?
I admit I said in the past that political conventions were only good as cures for insomnia, but I was kind of interested this year, and watched as much of both as I could.
I could certainly have told you who spoke at them and who didn't...
Re: 2012 U.S. Presidential Election
Yes I did, but I did have my back turned some of the time as my computer faces away from the television. I also was not able to catch much of the last night as I was driving a friend from the airport to a hotel in Dallas for AnimeFest.
And by the way I wouldn't be saying anything about the RNC speakers if I were you, several of the DNC speakers had... well lets just say "Freak out" moments.
http://townhall.com/tipsheet/katehic..._moment_at_dnc
Then again after the let down of Obama's speech last night, maybe it would have been best to cancel the convention after Clinton, end on a high note and all that.
Last edited by Roy Karrde; 7th September 2012 at 12:18 PM.
Re: 2012 U.S. Presidential Election
Still posting links to websites with obvious conservative viewpoints... Unbelievable...
That article talks about how Michigan's economy has flourished since she left office. Well, it sure as Hell wouldn't have if the auto industry were allowed to fail, and it would have if Romney got his way!
Re: 2012 U.S. Presidential Election
I thought we had agreed to new civility, which I would think means addressing the content.
Which does not negate the point that the economy was in the tank while she was in office...
Re: 2012 U.S. Presidential Election
And the economy of Massachusetts under Romney wasn't exactly a bowl of cherries either.
Re: 2012 U.S. Presidential Election
He left office with the job growth in Massachusetts going from 50th to 28th, that is a damn good improvement.
Last edited by Roy Karrde; 7th September 2012 at 12:27 PM.
Re: 2012 U.S. Presidential Election
the importance of the rate of population growth with regard to employment is perhaps being oversold here
traditionally certain cohorts do not necessarily need paid employment (e.g. infants)
however, examination of data will demonstrate that there are valid arguments both for and against claims of obama's jobs progress
consider:
total nonfarm employment by month (in thousands) clearly demonstrates a recent collapse followed by a return to the status quo
but as pointed out, these raw numbers do not demonstrate a good picture of the progress per capita
total nonfarm employment by month (percent change) provides a decades-long picture of the potential for growth and loss from month to month. again, we see a leveling to the status quo after 2008. importantly, it does not appear that any modern policies have been able to produce dramatic gains in the monthly employment numbers. if some analysts are to be believed, at least a more dramatic crisis was averted. some claim that this is a consequence of obama's policies. maybe!
in any event, the concerns over falling workplace participation rates are valid.
civilian labour force participation rates clearly demonstrate continued and worsening conditions after 2008. yet the trajectory of this data also provides a problematic trend beginning after 1998. it would be sensible to look to a more intrinsic structural issue rather than pointing to any specific policy enactment (and particularly anything initiated after the downswing had begun). regardless, some claim that this is a consequence of obama's policies. maybe!
Re: 2012 U.S. Presidential Election
Those same would be neglectful of the math that shows that the economy actually started to recover far before Obama's policies took effect.
"But all plummeting is not equal. Your rate of plummeting can be increasing, it can stay the same, or it can decrease. If you look at the real GDP data (thoughtfully provided below), you can see that from its peak in Q208, it started falling slowly, then more quickly, then very quickly, then more slowly, and then it hit bottom and started rising again.
When the GDP transitions from increasing its rate of falling to decreasing its rate of falling, we have what’s called an inflection point [in mathematical parlance, it's where the second derivative of the GDP = 0]. And that inflection point is where the economy is actually starting to turn around, i.e., where its rate of descent starts slowing.
You can see by eye kind of where that inflection point would be – about halfway down the plummeting part of the curve. But just to back it up with some math, I smoothed the data, applied a curve fit, took the 2nd derivative and found out where it equals 0."
http://michaelscomments.wordpress.co...y-in-recovery/
So maybe is actually... probably not.
Last edited by Roy Karrde; 7th September 2012 at 12:50 PM.
Re: 2012 U.S. Presidential Election
it is lucky that we have established that "the economy" is solely isolated to the quarterly changes in real GDP provided in this graph
now we can stop talking about monthly employment numbers and workplace participation rates altogether
Re: 2012 U.S. Presidential Election
Yet the graph does provide proof in some ways that the economy did start to turn around before Obama took office, that is something you cannot deny.
Re: 2012 U.S. Presidential Election
relying on one metric is probably going to result in oversimplication
since real GDP values are reliant on price indexing, what if high levels of consumer (and social) credit in the united states provided for relative inelasticity from 2008 Q3 to Q4? unless such credit capacity is at its limit, a falling rate of decline could be indicative of bottoming out towards an absolute credit-based minimum, after which a greater collapse would have followed, rather than representing the beginning of recovery as this article suggests
of course, such use of credit only makes sense in the context of the employment numbers, so
Re: 2012 U.S. Presidential Election
In other news, Clint Eastwood gave an interview to a reporter from his local paper in an attempt to explain his now-infamous speech at the RNC. He claims that he thought the whole thing up while in the green room right before he was introduced.
Sadly, trying to explain it only makes things worse. A comedian who has to explain a joke is a rotten comedian, as any respectable one would tell you.
But the more I think of it, the more I'm willing to cut Clint some slack. He was an action star. Action stars who try to do comedy usually don't do so well. (Watch Arnold Schwarzenegger in Twins or Junior, and you'll see what I mean.)
If it was anyone's fault, it was the RNC organizer who thought it would be a good idea.
Edit: A word before I go to work. The Gallup Poll shows a small bump for Mr. Obama after the DNC. His approval rating is now 51%, and he now leads Romney by two points in the nationwide poll.
This may not seem like an awful lot, but it is better than what Romney got from the RNC: No bump at all.
Last edited by Dark Sage; 7th September 2012 at 02:45 PM.
Re: 2012 U.S. Presidential Election
And of course you have proof to back this up correct?
Some times comedians have to explain their jokes, as it goes over the head of some of the masses.
Actually again if we go back to the MOE, you have no idea if it is better or worse. But it will be interesting to see how it plays out next week. After a piss poor speech, and horrible economic numbers today, it should be interesting to see how the public reflects on that.
Re: 2012 U.S. Presidential Election
*midst
Re: 2012 U.S. Presidential Election
Romney is now criticising the President's speech, even though he admits he didn't watch it.
Let me explain something to you Roy...
The reason why the DNC was more successful than the RNC (and don't insult my intelligence by saying otherwise) was because every speaker at the RNC focused on the negative. They didn't do much except attack Obama and his administration, putting the blame squarely on him for the last four years.
The DNC, however, did a complete 180 from that strategy, focusing on the positive and hardly mentioning the opposition at all.
People took notice, Roy. They saw the RNC as a mudslinging fest, and the DNC as a group of people who actually professed to care about the American people.
And it worked. Because a selfless optimist tends to make a lot of friends, while a very negative person who blames everyone but himself doesn't make any at all.
Re: 2012 U.S. Presidential Election
Yes.. because that is the only way for a person to know what was in the speech.
And... what conventions were you watching again? Because you seem to have the two mixed up.
Yeah... wanna look at some of those scare tactics used by the DNC again about how Romney and Ryan are going to end Medicare?
But here is the great thing, no matter how optimistic they were, it still does not take away from Obama's piss poor speech.
Posting Permissions
