Employment Report

[beretta304]

Always nice when someone can assign me a position and then mock sed position.

Employment Report
Views: 953 Posted By AmyNation
The undecided voter is the uninformed voter. They...

The undecided voter is the uninformed voter. They see 8.1 they dont see how you want to slice the pie, which is why tv ads and debates are important.

Did you not say that? The Independents are the bulk of undecided voters. So by your logic they are uninformed and need TV ads and debates to decide.

I disagree with your premise. I don't think most independents are still undecided.[/QUOTE]

You can disagree all you like but it doesn't change what you said.

 

[Meister]

Doesn't mean that many retire because they reach the age.

Let's say that many retire monthly.



368,000 - 10,000 = 358,000 offf the rolls and still unemployed, yet not counted.

Isn't that what B.J. called arithmetic?

No, that's what is called "Fuzzy Math." That 368,000 is for the whole month August which has 31 days not one day in your "arithmetic." And even though not all who reach 65 will retire immediately, some will retire as early as 62 and many who didn't retire at 65 will retire after 65. Also some of those 368,000 will also be workers who have become disabled.

Fuzzy math is what you're trying to use to defend Obama.

Since you brought it up, get the stats on how many out of the 368,00 fall into the categories you're trying to use to make a point.

It's the only thing they can do. By the way, did you see that dismal speech he gave last night?

 

[AmyNation]

Employment Report
Views: 953 Posted By AmyNation
The undecided voter is the uninformed voter. They...

The undecided voter is the uninformed voter. They see 8.1 they dont see how you want to slice the pie, which is why tv ads and debates are important.

Did you not say that? The Independents are the bulk of undecided voters. So by your logic they are uninformed and need TV ads and debates to decide.

I disagree with your premise. I don't think most independents are still undecided.

You can disagree all you like but it doesn't change what you said.[/QUOTE]

That's true

 

[edthecynic]

Doesn't mean that many retire because they reach the age.

Let's say that many retire monthly.



368,000 - 10,000 = 358,000 offf the rolls and still unemployed, yet not counted.

Isn't that what B.J. called arithmetic?

No, that's what is called "Fuzzy Math." That 368,000 is for the whole month August which has 31 days not one day in your "arithmetic." And even though not all who reach 65 will retire immediately, some will retire as early as 62 and many who didn't retire at 65 will retire after 65. Also some of those 368,000 will also be workers who have become disabled.

Fuzzy math is what you're trying to use to defend Obama.

Since you brought it up, get the stats on how many out of the 368,00 fall into the categories you're trying to use to make a point.

I love it, you CON$ can claim without the slightest proof that the 368,000 were all people who want to work but were removed from the books, but you require me to prove that Boomers are retiring or becoming disabled.

 

[Meister]

Again, I will say this.....if a republican president had the numbers that Obama has, the liberals would be on him like white on rice.....make no mistake about that. They are only defending the party, not the country.

 

[Conservative]

Yet Obama created more private sector jobs in 4 years than Bush created in 8. That's arithmetic too. What is Obama doing right?

FactCheck.org : Obama’s Economic Sleight of Hand

In Cleveland, President Barack Obama claimed he created more private-sector jobs in the past 27 months than President George W. Bush created “during the entire seven years before this crisis.” But that’s like comparing apples and mangoes. The president is absolving himself of responsibility for the savage recession he inherited, while assigning to Bush responsibility for the recession that began within weeks of his taking office in 2001.

The fact is, the economy has gained just about the same number of private-sector jobs (Obama’s preferred measure) in the 27 months since the most recent job slump hit bottom as it did in the 27 months following the bottom of the first Bush slump. And looking at total jobs — the broader and more customary measure — Bush’s post-slump job creation record was significantly better than Obama’s.

Soon after Bush took office, the U.S. economy officially fell into a recession — which lasted from March 2001 to November 2001, as measured by the National Bureau of Economic Research. There is always a lag in job growth after a recession officially ends, and the low point for private-sector employment was not reached until July 2003, when it fell to 108,232,000. By October 2005, which would be 27 months after the job slump ended, the U.S. had 112,491,000 jobs — an increase of 4,259,000 jobs. That’s nearly identical to Obama’s best 27 months after the recession, as you can see from the chart below.

You’ll notice, too, that the chart above shows Bush had more total jobs — which includes not only private-sector jobs, but all government jobs. By using private-sector jobs, the president makes his job-creation record look better.

The U.S. has gained about 55,000 private-sector jobs since Obama became president in January 2009, but overall there has been a total job loss of 552,000

Aside from the Census spike, Obama’s best month was January of this year, with a 275,000 job gain. That didn’t equal Bush’s best month, and it’s been downhill since then.

 

[Full-Auto]

No, that's what is called "Fuzzy Math." That 368,000 is for the whole month August which has 31 days not one day in your "arithmetic." And even though not all who reach 65 will retire immediately, some will retire as early as 62 and many who didn't retire at 65 will retire after 65. Also some of those 368,000 will also be workers who have become disabled.

Fuzzy math is what you're trying to use to defend Obama.

Since you brought it up, get the stats on how many out of the 368,00 fall into the categories you're trying to use to make a point.

I love it, you CON$ can claim without the slightest proof that the 368,000 were all people who want to work but were removed from the books, but you require me to prove that Boomers are retiring or becoming disabled.

The fact remains people were dropped from the list.

You needed excuses ass wipe........

 

[beretta304]

No, that's what is called "Fuzzy Math." That 368,000 is for the whole month August which has 31 days not one day in your "arithmetic." And even though not all who reach 65 will retire immediately, some will retire as early as 62 and many who didn't retire at 65 will retire after 65. Also some of those 368,000 will also be workers who have become disabled.

Fuzzy math is what you're trying to use to defend Obama.

Since you brought it up, get the stats on how many out of the 368,00 fall into the categories you're trying to use to make a point.

It's the only thing they can do. By the way, did you see that dismal speech he gave last night?

I watched some of it and the rest of it this morning. I expected little and I got it.

 

[Meister]

No, that's what is called "Fuzzy Math." That 368,000 is for the whole month August which has 31 days not one day in your "arithmetic." And even though not all who reach 65 will retire immediately, some will retire as early as 62 and many who didn't retire at 65 will retire after 65. Also some of those 368,000 will also be workers who have become disabled.

Fuzzy math is what you're trying to use to defend Obama.

Since you brought it up, get the stats on how many out of the 368,00 fall into the categories you're trying to use to make a point.

I love it, you CON$ can claim without the slightest proof that the 368,000 were all people who want to work but were removed from the books, but you require me to prove that Boomers are retiring or becoming disabled.

You create your own premise that most are retirees, the numbers provided from the conservatives ARE backed up.

The fact of the matter, Ed, you made a claim you can't back up, just embrace that part of it, okay?

 

[beretta304]

No, that's what is called "Fuzzy Math." That 368,000 is for the whole month August which has 31 days not one day in your "arithmetic." And even though not all who reach 65 will retire immediately, some will retire as early as 62 and many who didn't retire at 65 will retire after 65. Also some of those 368,000 will also be workers who have become disabled.

Fuzzy math is what you're trying to use to defend Obama.

Since you brought it up, get the stats on how many out of the 368,00 fall into the categories you're trying to use to make a point.

I love it, you CON$ can claim without the slightest proof that the 368,000 were all people who want to work but were removed from the books, but you require me to prove that Boomers are retiring or becoming disabled.

Are you for real? You're the one that attempted and failed miserably to try and say that the 368,000 number is distorted. Then when you're called out on it and merely asked for proof, you whine with your bullshit CONs nonsense.

Get the fuck out here, nimrod. You're clueless. Come back when you have a case.

 

[Dick Tuck]

Yet Obama created more private sector jobs in 4 years than Bush created in 8. That's arithmetic too. What is Obama doing right?

FactCheck.org : Obama’s Economic Sleight of Hand

In Cleveland, President Barack Obama claimed he created more private-sector jobs in the past 27 months than President George W. Bush created “during the entire seven years before this crisis.” But that’s like comparing apples and mangoes. The president is absolving himself of responsibility for the savage recession he inherited, while assigning to Bush responsibility for the recession that began within weeks of his taking office in 2001.

You’ll notice, too, that the chart above shows Bush had more total jobs — which includes not only private-sector jobs, but all government jobs. By using private-sector jobs, the president makes his job-creation record look better.

The U.S. has gained about 55,000 private-sector jobs since Obama became president in January 2009, but overall there has been a total job loss of 552,000

Aside from the Census spike, Obama’s best month was January of this year, with a 275,000 job gain. That didn’t equal Bush’s best month, and it’s been downhill since then.

Your stupid graphs mean nothing. The fact remains that Obama created more private sector jobs in 4 years than Bush created in 8.

Why don't you try to explain why corporate profits, of American companies, are at record highs, and we still have unemployment over 8%? Is that a failure of the market?

 

[beretta304]

No, that's what is called "Fuzzy Math." That 368,000 is for the whole month August which has 31 days not one day in your "arithmetic." And even though not all who reach 65 will retire immediately, some will retire as early as 62 and many who didn't retire at 65 will retire after 65. Also some of those 368,000 will also be workers who have become disabled.

Fuzzy math is what you're trying to use to defend Obama.

Since you brought it up, get the stats on how many out of the 368,00 fall into the categories you're trying to use to make a point.

I love it, you CON$ can claim without the slightest proof that the 368,000 were all people who want to work but were removed from the books, but you require me to prove that Boomers are retiring or becoming disabled.

By the way, the BLS reported it. Do you need to look up what those letters mean as well?

 

[Meister]

Fuzzy math is what you're trying to use to defend Obama.

Since you brought it up, get the stats on how many out of the 368,00 fall into the categories you're trying to use to make a point.

I love it, you CON$ can claim without the slightest proof that the 368,000 were all people who want to work but were removed from the books, but you require me to prove that Boomers are retiring or becoming disabled.

Are you for real? You're the one that attempted and failed miserably to try and say that the 368,000 number is distorted. Then when you're called out on it and merely asked for proof, you whine with your bullshit CONs nonsense.

Get the fuck out here, nimrod. You're clueless. Comeback when you have a case.

ED's distortion ends up being:

 

[candycorn]

8.1 is better then 8.3 so it is what it is , getting better . Piss & moan all you want facts are

facts .

True that. Coming from the party whose Candidate is actually counting on losing 280,000 jobs through the same "drop out" methodology is really rich.

More growth is better than no growth, right?

 

[beretta304]

I love it, you CON$ can claim without the slightest proof that the 368,000 were all people who want to work but were removed from the books, but you require me to prove that Boomers are retiring or becoming disabled.

Are you for real? You're the one that attempted and failed miserably to try and say that the 368,000 number is distorted. Then when you're called out on it and merely asked for proof, you whine with your bullshit CONs nonsense.

Get the fuck out here, nimrod. You're clueless. Comeback when you have a case.

ED's distortion ends up being:

View attachment 21026

I hear you. GOD forbid a person should ask him for stats on his claim.

 

[Full-Auto]

8.1 is better then 8.3 so it is what it is , getting better . Piss & moan all you want facts are

facts .

True that. Coming from the party whose Candidate is actually counting on losing 280,000 jobs through the same "drop out" methodology is really rich.

More growth is better than no growth, right?

The number of net jobs fell.

Explain what growth is again.............

 

[edthecynic]

When the libs gloat about the unemployment coming down while over 300,000 fall off the books to attain a lower number. And, only 96,000 jobs created in the latest report, there is only one president we can blame for this so called recovery, and that would be Obama.

What I see with the democrats is that it is party over the country, because if a republican would have these kind of numbers after 3+ years in office they would have been all over the president, but they are defending Obama. go figure....

Fuzzy math is what you're trying to use to defend Obama.

Since you brought it up, get the stats on how many out of the 368,00 fall into the categories you're trying to use to make a point.

I love it, you CON$ can claim without the slightest proof that the 368,000 were all people who want to work but were removed from the books, but you require me to prove that Boomers are retiring or becoming disabled.

You create your own premise that most are retirees, the numbers provided from the conservatives ARE backed up.

The fact of the matter, Ed, you made a claim you can't back up, just embrace that part of it, okay?

You provided no backup for your claim that "300,000 fall off the books to attain a lower number." All you did was pontificate which would require a premise that no Boomers retired or became disabled, which is obviously moronic.

 

[GoneBezerk]

I knew the dumbfuck would show up praising the bogus numbers.

Here's an example dumbfuck....say a teacher throws out half your tests that are Fs so your GPA raises to D-, that doesn't make you smarter.

8.1 is better then 8.3 so it is what it is , getting better . Piss & moan all you want facts are

facts .

True that. Coming from the party whose Candidate is actually counting on losing 280,000 jobs through the same "drop out" methodology is really rich.

More growth is better than no growth, right?

 

[beretta304]

When the libs gloat about the unemployment coming down while over 300,000 fall off the books to attain a lower number. And, only 96,000 jobs created in the latest report, there is only one president we can blame for this so called recovery, and that would be Obama.

What I see with the democrats is that it is party over the country, because if a republican would have these kind of numbers after 3+ years in office they would have been all over the president, but they are defending Obama. go figure....

I love it, you CON$ can claim without the slightest proof that the 368,000 were all people who want to work but were removed from the books, but you require me to prove that Boomers are retiring or becoming disabled.

You create your own premise that most are retirees, the numbers provided from the conservatives ARE backed up.

The fact of the matter, Ed, you made a claim you can't back up, just embrace that part of it, okay?

You provided no backup for your claim that "300,000 fall off the books to attain a lower number." All you did was pontificate which would require a premise that no Boomers retired or became disabled, which is obviously moronic.

You really are fucking stupid aren't you? You're the one making claims that can't be backed up. The BLS reported the numbers you moron. HINT: The data is garnered from Unemployment data provided by the states to the BLS. They know how many get their last check, idiot.

Backup? The BLS or edwitheggonhisface? You decide!

 

[Conservative]

Your stupid graphs mean nothing. The fact remains that Obama created more private sector jobs in 4 years than Bush created in 8.

Why don't you try to explain why corporate profits, of American companies, are at record highs, and we still have unemployment over 8%? Is that a failure of the market?

On your first point... only to brain dead, partisan hacks like you. I proved you wrong, and you just can't handle it, so you do what many libtard asshats like yourself do... deny deny deny.

On your second point, I already answered that question when you posted it earlier. It's not my fault you can't keep up with the thread and have to ask the same thing over and over, even after it's been answered, you Dickless Fuck.