216,000 jobs created in February

[Syphon]

It definately beats the -700,000 job growth that the Bush Admin gave us at the end of his terms.

The perils of having a democrat controlled congress are well documented....

yup its well documented that more jobs are created when a Dem is in the WH than when a Repub.

 

[Syphon]

Hiring in the private sector picked up in February, according to a report released Wednesday by payroll processor ADP.
Private employers added 216,000 jobs in the month, ADP said, roughly in line with forecasts for 218,000 jobs gained.

Small businesses -- those with fewer than 50 employees -- made up half of the job gains in February, hiring 108,000 people.

A rise in manufacturing jobs was particularly encouraging. Factories added 21,000 jobs.

ADP Says U.S. Added 216,000 Jobs in February - Bloomberg

Private firms added 216,000 jobs in February, study says - latimes.com

ADP: Private sector adds 216,000 jobs in February - Mar. 7, 2012

With Democrats in the White House, the average annual job creation for the last 48 years was just a hair under 2.2 million additional jobs.
Under Republican presidents, half of that, 1.1 million jobs. GDP growth under Democrats, 3.2%. Under Republicans, 2.1%.
Now here it gets fun: Average annual S&P 500 growth rate under Democrats, 10.8%. Under Republicans, 2.3%.
All of this is public knowledge, you can get these results from Bloomberg, BLS and BEI. You can't argue with data. You can spin as much as you want, BS to the high heavens, but so many critical indices show again and again (I didn't even bring up debt to GDP performance) to very heavily favor Democratic presidents. So either there is an ideological economic advantage to Democratic policies, or Republicans have made terrible presidents.

Or maybe a little of both. Either way, you can't argue facts with opinions alone, and win any logical argument.

how will the GOP try to spin this their way now?

So you take the biggest economic downturn since the Great Depression and tack those statistics onto the Republican side of your tally...even though the real estate bubble that burst and led the crash was fully as much the fault of Democratic policies as it was Republican...and then you take the inevitable economic rebound from that downturn and credit it to the Democratic side of the tally? But that's not "spin"?

What has Barack Obama done to grow jobs? What's he done to grow the economy? The fact is, whatever growth we've had over the past three years would have occurred no matter who was sitting in the Oval Office. Giving Barry credit for the stock market rebound is ridiculous. He has no plan to grow jobs. He has no plan to grow the economy. He has no plan to combat higher energy costs and in fact wants to see them get higher. He has no plan to keep manufacturing jobs here in the US. He has no plan to help the housing sector.

The fact is...we've had three years of flowery speeches and further promises of "Hope & Change" with very little to back it up. We're still being told that "green energy" will be what our new economy is going to be based on even as the green energy industries that this Administration has propped up with our tax dollars struggle and go belly up. We've got more people on long term unemployment than at anytime since the Great Depression and this President STILL doesn't have a viable plan to address that. Someone needs to tell Barry that extending unemployment benefits isn't "dealing" with joblessness...it's a bandaid on gaping wound. Pointing fingers at others doesn't solve our problems. Neither does kicking the problem down the road for someone else to deal with. Have you noticed that all of Barry's cost cutting seems to come in the future...or has to be determined by a group other than him? That's lack of leadership...that's an unwillingness to make the tough calls. That's Barry voting "Present" and leaving the hard work to someone else. That's the President you want to elect for another term. Why would we want four more years of hot air and no results?

heres your job creation since the collapse. hmmmmm trending negative under Bush, then all of a sudden it turns around and trends positive under Obama.

wheres that precious GOP jobs bill?

 

[pinqy]

Hiring in the private sector picked up in February, according to a report released Wednesday by payroll processor ADP.
Private employers added 216,000 jobs in the month, ADP said, roughly in line with forecasts for 218,000 jobs gained.

Small businesses -- those with fewer than 50 employees -- made up half of the job gains in February, hiring 108,000 people.

A rise in manufacturing jobs was particularly encouraging. Factories added 21,000 jobs.

ADP Says U.S. Added 216,000 Jobs in February - Bloomberg

Private firms added 216,000 jobs in February, study says - latimes.com

ADP: Private sector adds 216,000 jobs in February - Mar. 7, 2012

With Democrats in the White House, the average annual job creation for the last 48 years was just a hair under 2.2 million additional jobs.
Under Republican presidents, half of that, 1.1 million jobs. GDP growth under Democrats, 3.2%. Under Republicans, 2.1%.
Now here it gets fun: Average annual S&P 500 growth rate under Democrats, 10.8%. Under Republicans, 2.3%.
All of this is public knowledge, you can get these results from Bloomberg, BLS and BEI. You can't argue with data. You can spin as much as you want, BS to the high heavens, but so many critical indices show again and again (I didn't even bring up debt to GDP performance) to very heavily favor Democratic presidents. So either there is an ideological economic advantage to Democratic policies, or Republicans have made terrible presidents.

Or maybe a little of both. Either way, you can't argue facts with opinions alone, and win any logical argument.

how will the GOP try to spin this their way now?

That's the ADP numbers. The real numbers come out tomorrow. ADP measures only their clients, so while it's admin data, as opposed to the survey done by the government, there is an inherent bias as it does not properly represent all businesses.

You've shown how many were added...

Now show how many were lost...

see what happens is the count up how many job are created..... thennnnnnnn they deduct (that means subtract) how many jobs were lost. and thats how you get to +216,000. i can do the math again really slowly if you need me to

I asked you to show me the number of jobs lost... Are you saying you can't provide that number?

ADP only provides the NET change, which was +216,000. So the jobs lost was 216,000 less than the jobs gained, though we don't know either exact figure.

Also, did initial jobless claims shrink or rise last week? How about the week before? How about the last 3 weeks?

Last three weeks they rose. But those are GROSS figures. The NET change was still positive.

The truth is, unemployment rose from 8.3 to 9% in February.

U.S. Unemployment Increases in Mid-February

You got to drink a lot of kool aid to see an improvement.

Now share the margins of error of the Gallup survey and the differences between it and the Current Population survey.

 

[Avorysuds]

That doesn't even keep pace with population growth.

Yet the UE number can go down .1% with only 80k jobs created... aaaammmmmmaaaazing!

Then noobz lik this OP claims conservatives will spin, how about telling us how UE goes down when jobs created does not even keep up with population growth.

 

[theHawk]

8 million jobs lost sinse Dems took over the government in 2007, and you fucking blowhards are still trying to spin 200k jobs as "good news".

 

[Syphon]

The truth is, unemployment rose from 8.3 to 9% in February.

U.S. Unemployment Increases in Mid-February

You got to drink a lot of kool aid to see an improvement.

http://www.kim********/news/busines...ications-hover-near-low-levels-141910233.html

Applications have fallen 14 percent since October. When applications fall below 375,000, that generally signals hiring is strong enough to reduce the unemployment rate. The steady decline has coincided with three months of big hiring gains.

 

[theHawk]

It definately beats the -700,000 job growth that the Bush Admin gave us at the end of his terms.

The perils of having a democrat controlled congress are well documented....

yup its well documented that more jobs are created when a Dem is in the WH than when a Repub.

The White House is only 1/3 of the policy making government. Its as much relevance as saying "more jobs are created when Party X controls the Senate".

What is important is who controls at least 2/3.

But, I don't expect an idiot lib blowhard like yourself to even understand how the government actually works in this country.

 

[Syphon]

The perils of having a democrat controlled congress are well documented....

yup its well documented that more jobs are created when a Dem is in the WH than when a Repub.

The White House is only 1/3 of the policy making government. Its as much relevance as saying "more jobs are created when Party X controls the Senate".

What is important is who controls at least 2/3.

But, I don't expect an idiot lib blowhard like yourself to even understand how the government actually works in this country.

so since the dems control 2/3's of government they get all the credit then right? thats what your logic says.

 

[Dr.House]

It definately beats the -700,000 job growth that the Bush Admin gave us at the end of his terms.

The perils of having a democrat controlled congress are well documented....

yup its well documented that more jobs are created when a Dem is in the WH than when a Repub.

Thank you for agreeing with my assessment of the perils of a democrat controlled congress... We'll have to make sure that just doesn't happen, won't we?

 

[pinqy]

8 million jobs lost sinse Dems took over the government in 2007, and you fucking blowhards are still trying to spin 200k jobs as "good news".

I love how you just make numbers up and don't even try to support it. Nice.

Just under 8 million jobs were lost, but over 3 million have been gained back. So, things aren't great, but better than they were and moving in the right direction.

Table B-1. Employees on nonfarm payrolls by industry sector and selected industry detail [In thousands]

 

[Avorysuds]

We will hit another recession before things are even considered "ok." I wonder what that recession will look like when we don’t even have a economy worth a shit, yet we get another recession.

What will be more fun for the non partisan bias hacks out there is to watch the Progressives blame it all on Republicans by claiming Reps didn’t let the Dems do anything since Obama took office… Never answering how things were “getting better” despite Reps cock blocking everything Obama and Dems tried to do…

Dems are just as much hacks as the Reps, always blaming the other side while destroying the country together.

 

[Syphon]

We will hit another recession before things are even considered "ok." I wonder what that recession will look like when we don’t even have a economy worth a shit, yet we get another recession.

What will be more fun for the non partisan bias hacks out there is to watch the Progressives blame it all on Republicans by claiming Reps didn’t let the Dems do anything since Obama took office… Never answering how things were “getting better” despite Reps cock blocking everything Obama and Dems tried to do…

Dems are just as much hacks as the Reps, always blaming the other side while destroying the country together.

if the GOP really didnt like the Dem policies, then they should have just let them run with it for 4 years. then they would really be able to say "i told you so." but instead they took the obstructionist route which makes them look like there are in fact inhibiting growth. they would have either come out on top and retaken all of government back or they would have to blow sand because their policies dont work.

the same thing with the budget. if the GOP really wants a balanced budget, why dont they propose one. then the people can see all the cuts that would need to be make in order to balance the budget. let the people decide if thats what they are willing to do.

 

[Avorysuds]

yup its well documented that more jobs are created when a Dem is in the WH than when a Repub.

The White House is only 1/3 of the policy making government. Its as much relevance as saying "more jobs are created when Party X controls the Senate".

What is important is who controls at least 2/3.

But, I don't expect an idiot lib blowhard like yourself to even understand how the government actually works in this country.

so since the dems control 2/3's of government they get all the credit then right? thats what your logic says.

You're right, Dems saved America and Reps are just evil...

I'll bet people walk away from you in person when you talk about politics, either that or you don't have the balls to drop the kind of partisan bullshit in person as you do here on the boards where there is zero accountability.


While your at it, list me the things Obama and his super majority repealed of the evil Bush/Rep era...

Waiting for you to fail....

 

[iamwhatiseem]

They have real meaning. The rich do very well under the GOP, the rest of us, less well. If you want a robust economy that raises all boats, vote Democrat.

WHat the hell you talking about?
The best year for the finance industry and Wall Street in recorded history was 2009.

 

[Avorysuds]

We will hit another recession before things are even considered "ok." I wonder what that recession will look like when we don’t even have a economy worth a shit, yet we get another recession.

What will be more fun for the non partisan bias hacks out there is to watch the Progressives blame it all on Republicans by claiming Reps didn’t let the Dems do anything since Obama took office… Never answering how things were “getting better” despite Reps cock blocking everything Obama and Dems tried to do…

Dems are just as much hacks as the Reps, always blaming the other side while destroying the country together.

if the GOP really didnt like the Dem policies, then they should have just let them run with it for 4 years. then they would really be able to say "i told you so." but instead they took the obstructionist route which makes them look like there are in fact inhibiting growth. they would have either come out on top and retaken all of government back or they would have to blow sand because their policies dont work.

the same thing with the budget. if the GOP really wants a balanced budget, why dont they propose one. then the people can see all the cuts that would need to be make in order to balance the budget. let the people decide if thats what they are willing to do.

Bush and his Reps were Progressive liberals... They grew Government at every turn, they lost big time in the elections for it. Then Dems came into power claiming they would stop Bush, that they would not allow the spending and wars annnnnnnd BAM, Dems helped Bush spend even more because they knew most people are to stupid to realize congress plays a role in things meaning a bad economy would help Dems in 2008.

Now, the issue of course is that Reps won back the house and a fair amount of the Senate because Dems with a Dem President just kept spending as well as keeping or expanding every single Bush policy.

So at best the Reps that were re-elected were doing the bidding of the people. And as I said before, how can Dems blame Reps for obstructing EVERYTHING but then claim it was their policies (that were obstructed lol) that saved us? You want it both ways, because you're an inferior hack.

I blame Bush and the Reps because their policy is/was bad. I blame Dems because their policy is the same as Bush/Reps.... Bad. You see it as Dems good Reps evil, you're small minded and a fool.

We will enter another recession, I hope Obama is in office, it will be fun watching you spin so fast that you pass out from your own stupidity.

Also Rand Paul and 6 others in the Senate put up a balanced budget, but Obama was in favor of a budget that got us downgraded and pushed for it.... Then you blame Reps, as always.

 

[Dr.House]

Gallup is unimpressed....

U.S. Unemployment Up in February

 

[Inthemiddle]

I don't understand why it's so difficult for people to understand the concept of POSITIVE NET growth.

For comparison sake, Here is BLS's data for January. Their data for February will come out tomorrow.

 

[Katzndogz]

The big problem that democrats are going to have is to convince all those unemployed people they are either really working, or they are the only ones still unemployed.

 

[Si modo]

And, what's the net gain?

And, what is the balance over the last year, two years, three years?

 

[Inthemiddle]

And, what's the net gain?

It was in the OP.

And, what is the balance over the last year, two years, three years?

We'll know more about that tomorrow when the BLS report comes out. But seeing as the beginning of the year is traditionally a time for net job losses, starting out the year with two months of job gains probably means we're doing better than last year.