Skip to main content

Recently, the unemployment rate of 4.9 percent was hailed as proof that jobs were recovering.  Even though the it was 5 percent before that.

News, folks, with the pitiful recovery rate over the last seven years of 1.93 percent of average GDP, the only way that rate rose was for lower paying jobs replacing higher paying jobs.

Of course, the U6 real employment rate over the last few years reveals a much different picture.

http://data.bls.gov/pdq/SurveyOutputServletU6 graph

 

TRUTH -- THE NEW HATE SPEECH!

Attachments

Images (1)
  • U6 graph
Original Post

Replies sorted oldest to newest

jtdavis posted:

Call it pitiful if you want, it's far better than the crash brought on by Bush and company.

What crash? There was no crash. Obama and the left are the ones that put the country on the road to ruin. Can you explain your fairy tale or post a link showing where you found it, a legitimate site please, or are you once more just throwing **** against the wall to see if any of it will stick?

Last edited by giftedamateur
jtdavis posted:

Call it pitiful if you want, it's far better than the crash brought on by Bush and company.

Call it pitiful if you want, it's far better than the crash brought on by Clinton administration, Congress, Bush administration, greedy lenders and borrowers and in company with foreign investors flooding the market with cash.

Fixed your partially correct statement.

jtdavis posted:

Call it pitiful if you want, it's far better than the crash brought on by Bush and company.

I'm unsure if JT is deflecting the subject, or reflecting ignorance of economics.  The thread subject is the miserable recovery coupled with an equally miserable employment picture.

There were worse recessions and depressions in the last 100 years -- from which the nation recovered.  This is the slowest recovery in over 100 years -- got that!   The nature of employment, while more jobs,  since the recession are jobs with less pay -- many part time. The reason for both of the above is the incompetence of the administration. Obama stated he wished to fundamentally change the nation, which he has accomplished.  I suspect even he does not wish a miserable economy.  However, by ignorance of economics, an inability to change political doctrine, or both, he will not implement changes  necessary to significantly improve the economy.

direstraits posted:
jtdavis posted:

Call it pitiful if you want, it's far better than the crash brought on by Bush and company.

I'm unsure if JT is deflecting the subject, or reflecting ignorance of economics.  The thread subject is the miserable recovery coupled with an equally miserable employment picture.

There were worse recessions and depressions in the last 100 years -- from which the nation recovered.  This is the slowest recovery in over 100 years -- got that!   The nature of employment, while more jobs,  since the recession are jobs with less pay -- many part time. The reason for both of the above is the incompetence of the administration. Obama stated he wished to fundamentally change the nation, which he has accomplished.  I suspect even he does not wish a miserable economy.  However, by ignorance of economics, an inability to change political doctrine, or both, he will not implement changes  necessary to significantly improve the economy.

He's showing his ignorance of EVERYTHING. He's like Ralphie from the Simpsons.

Last edited by Bestworking
jtdavis posted:

Call it pitiful if you want, it's far better than the crash brought on by Bush and company.

The recession was the consequence of a combination of the easy money and low interest rates engineered by the Federal Reserve and the easy housing engineered by a variety of government agencies and policies. Those agencies include the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) and two nominally private “government-sponsored enterprises” (GSEs), Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. The agencies — along with laws such as the Community Reinvestment Act (passed in the 1970s, then fortified in the Clinton years), which required banks to make loans to people with poor and nonexistent credit histories — made widespread homeownership a national goal. Fannie/Freddie injected $1 trillion into the housing market – by buying mortgages and issuing bonds backed by mortgages (iffy and otherwise).  Housing costs shot thru the roof – constantly increasing, rather like the tulip bulb bubble and others.  For the first time in 150 years, homes were an appreciating rather than a wasting asset.  Most of this started well before 2001.

direstraits posted:
jtdavis posted:

Call it pitiful if you want, it's far better than the crash brought on by Bush and company.

I'm unsure if JT is deflecting the subject, or reflecting ignorance of economics.  The thread subject is the miserable recovery coupled with an equally miserable employment picture.

There were worse recessions and depressions in the last 100 years -- from which the nation recovered.  This is the slowest recovery in over 100 years -- got that!   The nature of employment, while more jobs,  since the recession are jobs with less pay -- many part time. The reason for both of the above is the incompetence of the administration. Obama stated he wished to fundamentally change the nation, which he has accomplished.  I suspect even he does not wish a miserable economy.  However, by ignorance of economics, an inability to change political doctrine, or both, he will not implement changes  necessary to significantly improve the economy.

I believe Obama was thinking with his heart and not his mind. The resulting economy is overburdened by regulations like an overloaded and underpowered airplane that can't climb out of ground effect. And because we aren't flying high, we might land in a field and walk away with minor injuries or we'll hit a large immovable object and crash and burn just as badly as if we fell from greater heights like 2008.

jtdavis posted:

I stated that the recovery was far better than the recession caused by Bush and his policies. If you choose to ignore the facts, there's nothing I can do to make either of you see the truth.

I've shown the time line and what contributed to the crash. Then, that the recovery is the worst in over 100 years. JT simply makes a statement that we must believe him and not ignore facts -- while revealing no facts.  The seeds of the recession were planted well before Bush.  How one may blame him with an avalanche already in process proves an inability to analyze evidence.  I hope he doesn't bring up Glass-Steagall next.  When a left brings falls back on that, it proves he has no idea of what he's speaking of.

 

jtdavis posted:

I stated that the recovery was far better than the recession caused by Bush and his policies. If you choose to ignore the facts, there's nothing I can do to make either of you see the truth.

I could say that Bush had a better recovery after the Dot-com and ENRON bust from Clinton's time than Obama did after the the housing bust in Bush's time but I would be as misleading as JT. A single man does not create a economic collapse or create a booming economy instantly all by hisself. 

Bush is somewhat responsible because he did not get the votes to change the laws and rules that produced the outcome his administration had predicted when he came to office. Clinton is somewhat responsible for the crash because he put his okie-dokie on the rules and laws that Congress passed that unscrupulous people used to create a housing bust.

Last edited by Stanky

Jt can talk about his "facts" all he wants, but people without jobs, and the ones that had to take low paying jobs meant for teens, college students, part-time and retired folks know the left is full of it. The leftie solution? Pay a lot of money for the little "starter jobs". I wonder if a one of them has ever talked to those teens and asked them if they are going to make flipping hamburgers their life's work. Then ask the others how they wound up there. Lefties talk out of both sides of their mouth. It's all about what they think the other fellow should pay. Not a one of them addressed this example of how it works.

Example of one large "hire"-When they hired for the census those were counted as "new hires", and many were laid off almost immediately or never made a dime from it, but some were rehired and counted AGAIN as "new hires", but NO WHERE are they listed as "jobs lost", and of course they didn't get unemployment so they don't show up there. That goes on all over, and has always been that way. The left will argue that because it has always been that way it somehow gives them the right to manipulate the numbers. Fill out a "new hire" form and two weeks later the person either quits or isn't working out for whatever reason and is let go. He's on the "books" as a new hire. Jt and the other lefties are so afraid that someone might have a dime more than them that it drives them crazy trying to figure out how they can steal it from them. It's not your money lefties, and no matter how the person got it, as long as it was obtained legally you have no right to talk about it, or try to take it.

Last edited by Bestworking

Jt can talk about his "facts" all he wants, but people without jobs, and the ones that had to take low paying jobs meant for teens, college students, part-time and retired folks know the left is full of it.

Who is responsible for that? I don't think it's the president or congress, I think it is the fault of the business owners and managers. They try to hire cheaper than they will work themselves. If the $7.25 minimum wage is repealed, the boss will drop the wage as far as possible.

I could say that Bush had a better recovery after the Dot-com and ENRON bust from Clinton's time than Obama did after the the housing bust in Bush's time but I would be as misleading as JT. A single man does not create a economic collapse or create a booming economy instantly all by hisself. 

In one year, Bush took a budget surplus and turned it into a deficit (remember his main campaign point, tax cut, let the people pay less tax).  The stock market fell by 1/2 or 2/3 under Bush. Had you forgot? What did the unemployment do under Bush? Did it double? 

Reagan had a big tax cut and the deficit boomed and economy fell. Bush had a tax cut and the same thing happened. Remember?

Last edited by jtdavis
jtdavis posted:

I could say that Bush had a better recovery after the Dot-com and ENRON bust from Clinton's time than Obama did after the the housing bust in Bush's time but I would be as misleading as JT. A single man does not create a economic collapse or create a booming economy instantly all by hisself. 

In one year, Bush took a budget surplus and turned it into a deficit (remember his main campaign point, tax cut, let the people pay less tax).  The stock market fell by 1/2 or 2/3 under Bush. Had you forgot? What did the unemployment do under Bush? Did it double? 

Reagan had a big tax cut and the deficit boomed and economy fell. Bush had a tax cut and the same thing happened. Remember?

Reagan's tax cut produced $2 trillion more in revenue than the previous administration.  Bush's tax cut produced $4.4 trillion more. Both numbers are normalized for inflation.  Its spending that's the problem.  I've shown these figures about fifteen times. JT, have you forgotten. I assume your wife keeps the checkbook. And, you are always complaining, "the account can't be overdrawn, we still have blank checks left over. "

Reagan's tax cut produced $2 trillion more in revenue than the previous administration.  Bush's tax cut produced $4.4 trillion more. Both numbers are normalized for inflation.  Its spending that's the problem.  I've shown these figures about fifteen times. JT, have you forgotten. 

That's the thing, I have not forgotten. You can post cooked up numbers all you want, both times the national debt went up and employment went down. Which of those two do you disagree with?

jtdavis posted:

Reagan's tax cut produced $2 trillion more in revenue than the previous administration.  Bush's tax cut produced $4.4 trillion more. Both numbers are normalized for inflation.  Its spending that's the problem.  I've shown these figures about fifteen times. JT, have you forgotten. 

That's the thing, I have not forgotten. You can post cooked up numbers all you want, both times the national debt went up and employment went down. Which of those two do you disagree with?

Once more:  My source is Whitehouse.gov, In particular the Office of Management and Budget historical tables.  As so many government and private sources use this data, no administration dares mess with it.  Sorry, JT, unless you're calling Obama a liar, no cooked numbers.

TAX CUT RESULTS

Attachments

Images (1)
  • TAX CUT RESULTS
Bestworking posted:

Jt, there was NO surplus. You need to stop beating that drum.

For the sake of us all, once more;  as anyone may see, Clinton borrowed from numerous government trust funds ( cited those recently) to produce a surplus in the annual deficit (short term debt) while producing a larger national debt (long term debt) . 

clintion deficit debt

Attachments

Images (1)
  • clintion deficit debt
Files (1)
jtdavis posted:

Jt, there was NO surplus. You need to stop beating that drum.

Best, should I believe you or professional economists?

You don't have to believe me, I never asked you to believe me. I don't do like you, just claim whatever I want without bothering to offer proof, and the proof is out there and all you have to do is look. Unless it fits what you want to think you wouldn't believe clinton himself if he told you he had no surplus. BTW, did he ever make that claim? Hmmmm What professional economists are you talking about jt? Don't you believe your own government figures? You are even more proof that leaving a lefty alone to do math is as dangerous as leaving a three year old alone with a can of gasoline and a flame thrower. You are so painfully ignorant of the facts that I almost feel sorry for you. Almost.

 

 
Last edited by Bestworking
Bestworking posted:

Jt, there was NO surplus. You need to stop beating that drum.

Poor JT, one can lead a liberal to knowledge. But, making him think is a whole nother story as the saying goes. 

Don't know whether its ideology or ignorance of math that's the problem.  Someone once stated that liberals do math, like conservatives do feelings. 

 

direstraits posted:
Bestworking posted:

Jt, there was NO surplus. You need to stop beating that drum.

Poor JT, one can lead a liberal to knowledge. But, making him think is a whole nother story as the saying goes. 

Don't know whether its ideology or ignorance of math that's the problem.  Someone once stated that liberals do math, like conservatives do feelings. 

 

I guess it's part of human nature to try oversimplify the world by creating living gods and demons. If the sun rises in the morning it's because of the pure thoughts of the living god in the White House or if its cold and rainy it's because of the devil in the capitol. Pity the fool who inherits the next crash and has to deal with the burdens of a fully functioning Obamadon'care law and Dodd-Frank regulations from the 111th Congress. Better than that, pity the fool who inherits the blame for the inevitable "Great Society" bust.

I wish I could find the old discussion where the liberal claimed that 90% of ALL economists agreed with obama's economic plans. She then went on to post that there are 1500 economists in the country, and 100 or so agreed with him. 100 out of 1500 is 90% in a libs world, never mind the fact that she claimed there were only 1500 economists in the country!!

Bestworking posted:

I wish I could find the old discussion where the liberal claimed that 90% of ALL economists agreed with obama's economic plans. She then went on to post that there are 1500 economists in the country, and 100 or so agreed with him. 100 out of 1500 is 90% in a libs world, never mind the fact that she claimed there were only 1500 economists in the country!!

Remember my statement about math and liberals.  Then, there's the warmists who insist that 97 or 98 percent of all scientists believe in global warming. Of course, that is based on a small sample of 79 climatologists at a convention. 

direstraits posted:
Bestworking posted:

I wish I could find the old discussion where the liberal claimed that 90% of ALL economists agreed with obama's economic plans. She then went on to post that there are 1500 economists in the country, and 100 or so agreed with him. 100 out of 1500 is 90% in a libs world, never mind the fact that she claimed there were only 1500 economists in the country!!

Remember my statement about math and liberals.  Then, there's the warmists who insist that 97 or 98 percent of all scientists believe in global warming. Of course, that is based on a small sample of 79 climatologists at a convention. 

 Yes, when you track down these so called scientists they are far from qualified to speak about global warming. I notice jt hasn't given us his list of all the "expert economists" that said clinton had a surplus. If he did, I missed it.

jtdavis posted:

Jt can talk about his "facts" all he wants, but people without jobs, and the ones that had to take low paying jobs meant for teens, college students, part-time and retired folks know the left is full of it.

Who is responsible for that? I don't think it's the president or congress, I think it is the fault of the business owners and managers. They try to hire cheaper than they will work themselves. If the $7.25 minimum wage is repealed, the boss will drop the wage as far as possible.

Who's responsible for what jt? The rotten economy with no jobs? Obama and you lefties. How is it the fault of business owners and managers? Some jobs just aren't worth a mint jt. I know a union leech doesn't like to hear that, but it's true. I have NEVER even thought about minimum wage when I hire. But I also know what the job is worth, to me, and the one doing it, and if they don't like what's offered they are free to go elsewhere. A dumb slob that had no interest in getting an education, that had rather hang out instead of preparing for their future, then comes in thinking they are worth the big bucks, can kiss my dog's ***.

Reagan's tax cut produced $2 trillion more in revenue than the previous administration.  Bush's tax cut produced $4.4 trillion more. Both numbers are normalized for inflation.  Its spending that's the problem.  

Who spent it? Why did unemployment go up each time? Why was construction killed under each? If tax cuts cause government income to go up, why not cancel tax? 

Who's responsible for what jt? The rotten economy with no jobs? Obama and you lefties. How is it the fault of business owners and managers? Some jobs just aren't worth a mint jt. I know a union leech doesn't like to hear that

Best, you brag about proof, can you prove any of your last 3 posts? How is Obama and lefties responsible for jobs? The only reason you hire someone is because you think they can do something for you that you want done. If the minimum wage was half, you'd be paying half as much. As for a union leech, if I had stayed on a computer as much as you, I would have been fired before break time.

jtdavis posted:

Reagan's tax cut produced $2 trillion more in revenue than the previous administration.  Bush's tax cut produced $4.4 trillion more. Both numbers are normalized for inflation.  Its spending that's the problem.  

Who spent it? Why did unemployment go up each time? Why was construction killed under each? If tax cuts cause government income to go up, why not cancel tax? 

JT, each time you ask the same question?  Is your memory suffering as well?

Who spent it?

Congress (both parties appropriated the money) and Reagan approved it.  The Democrats promised Reagan $3 in budgets cuts for every dollar of tax increase.  Reagan is still waiting.  Who knew the Communist Party would prove more trustworthy than the Democrat party?

Why did unemployment go up each time?

It didn’t!

unemployment

 

http://data.bls.gov/timeseries...;periods=Annual+Data

Why was construction killed under each?

Once more, that was a local cut to this area. Nationally, construction was doing well.

If tax cuts cause government income to go up, why not cancel tax? 

The ancient Greeks dealt with silly questions like that by embarrassing their students by calling them sophists.  Democrats believe that doubling the tax rate will double the revenue.  Even during the Medieval era, economists knew that to be untrue.  That’s why the English king had the Doomsday book compiled – so he knew the limits he could tax his subjects without them rebelling.  The Chicago and Austrian schools of economics believe that somewhere between 25 and 30 percent, revenue decreases.

 

 

 

Attachments

Images (1)
  • unemployment
Bestworking posted:

JT, each time you ask the same question?  Is your memory suffering as well?

 

 That's what he does. He will ask something, and when he gets an answer, he will ask again as if you didn't answer. He will do that right below the answer you posted. I don't know what he gets out of doing that, it only makes him look daffy.

JT went past the daffy duck stage long ago.

The Democrats promised Reagan $3 in budgets cuts for every dollar of tax increase.  

Tax increase? What was the top rate when Reagan went in, what was it when he went out? Quote from a 60 something year old man just before his reelection. This man was a millionaire. "I've voted democrat every time all my life. Now, I don't know who to vote for. Reagan gave me a bigger tax cut than most people make each year."   Tax increase???

 That's what he does. He will ask something, and when he gets an answer, he will ask again as if you didn't answer. He will do that right below the answer you posted. I don't know what he gets out of doing that, it only makes him look daffy.

In many cases the answers don't match facts reported in mainstream news.

JT went past the daffy duck stage long ago.

In addition to being an ex bookkeeper in Atlanta, now you are a brain expert.

jtdavis posted:

The Democrats promised Reagan $3 in budgets cuts for every dollar of tax increase.  

Tax increase? What was the top rate when Reagan went in, what was it when he went out? Quote from a 60 something year old man just before his reelection. This man was a millionaire. "I've voted democrat every time all my life. Now, I don't know who to vote for. Reagan gave me a bigger tax cut than most people make each year."   Tax increase???

Just another example of liberals deficiency in math and word problem comprehension.  The tax rates (percentages) were reduced.  The dollars in taxes (revenue) increased -- to the tune of over $2.9 trillion, 

jtdavis posted:

Why did unemployment go up each time?

You better read your posted chart. Even I can tell when the line is rising.

Not every well, you can't.  The unemployment rate rose because of the disastrous mess left by the second worst president in history (Jimmah Carter) and peaked around 1981-1982.  Then, dropped quickly until the end of the Reagan administration. 

Carter must pray regularly thanking Obama from rescuing him from the ignominious title of the worst president.

jtdavis posted:

 That's what he does. He will ask something, and when he gets an answer, he will ask again as if you didn't answer. He will do that right below the answer you posted. I don't know what he gets out of doing that, it only makes him look daffy.

In many cases the answers don't match facts reported in mainstream news.

JT went past the daffy duck stage long ago.

In addition to being an ex bookkeeper in Atlanta, now you are a brain expert.

Silly duck, I was a partner in a CPA firm -- one of the top 10.  After answering your last two questions, I am confirmed in my opinion per your cranial operations. 

Add Reply

Post

Untitled Document
×
×
×
×
Link copied to your clipboard.
×