7 things Republicans forget about Ronald Reagan (house of representatives, cocaine, Afghanistan, regular)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
2009:
Feb. - -509,000
Mar. - -923,000
April - -69,000
May - -402,000
June - -245,000
July - -107,000
Aug. - -417,000
Sept. - -671,000
Oct. - -389,000
Nov. - +244,000
Dec. - -640,000
Besides there only being one month in his first year where 700,000+ jobs were lost and only two that were just under -700,000, even if you take the average you still only get -344,000 a month lost.
I'm going to assume you simply meant something entire different than you posted and in liberal la la land that's not a lie, you simply needed to wait until more facts came in (despite having those readily available to you).
First of all, I don't know where you are getting your numbers, but they are wrong. Here's a link directly to BLS non-farm payrolls data:
And here's the 2009 numbers:
-794 -695 -830 -704 -352 -472 -351 -210 -233 -170 -21 -220
In the first 4 months of 2009 there was only ONE month NOT in excess of 700,000 (and THAT month was just 5,000 short of that number).
More to the point though - in your typical misleading manner, you IGNORE the fact that even BEFORE Obama came into office there were HUGE jobs cuts from mid-late 2008. Here's the numbers for THAT year:
So, there were 2 full months of +700,000 job losses even BEFORE Obama stepped into office, PLUS 3 full months of +700,000 job losses as he was still settling into the office (one of which was +800,000) and ANOTHER month of NEARLY 700,000. so there was essentially HALF A YEAR of 700,000 (or very close to it) job losses/month. And that doesn't include the 2 months of 2008 that had nearly HALF A MILLION job losses - NOR the 5 months in 2008 that had over 100,000 job losses NOR the 7 months in 2009 that had job losses of over 100,000 (as the job cuts wound down).
What it all boils down to is that EVEN BEFORE Obama stepped into office there were ALREADY 3.5 MILLION people dumped on the UE rolls by his predecessor, PLUS an economy that was STILL shedding on average of 700,000 jobs/month as he worked to bring his administration up to speed.
Apparently what you refer to as "liberal la la land" is simply a reality you don't like.
And here's the 2009 numbers:
-794 -695 -830 -704 -352 -472 -351 -210 -233 -170 -21 -220
In the first 4 months of 2009 there was only ONE month NOT in excess of 700,000 (and THAT month was just 5,000 short of that number).
More to the point though - in your typical misleading manner, you IGNORE the fact that even BEFORE Obama came into office there were HUGE jobs cuts from mid-late 2008. Here's the numbers for THAT year:
So, there were 2 full months of +700,000 job losses even BEFORE Obama stepped into office, PLUS 3 full months of +700,000 job losses as he was still settling into the office (one of which was +800,000) and ANOTHER month of NEARLY 700,000. so there was essentially HALF A YEAR of 700,000 (or very close to it) job losses/month. And that doesn't include the 2 months of 2008 that had nearly HALF A MILLION job losses - NOR the 5 months in 2008 that had over 100,000 job losses NOR the 7 months in 2009 that had job losses of over 100,000 (as the job cuts wound down).
What it all boils down to is that EVEN BEFORE Obama stepped into office there were ALREADY 3.5 MILLION people dumped on the UE rolls by his predecessor, PLUS an economy that was STILL shedding on average of 700,000 jobs/month as he worked to bring his administration up to speed.
Apparently what you refer to as "liberal la la land" is simply a reality you don't like.
Ken
I got them from:
Quote:
Series Id: LNS12000000
Seasonally Adjusted Series title: (Seas) Employment Level Labor force status: Employed Type of data: Number in thousands Age: 16 years and over
Top of the list... LNS12000000 - Employment Level - Civilian Labor Force
Not being obtuse at all, your link simply didn't work. I wasn't about to go dig it up. It's up to you to provide the link.
But in any event regarding your data, I see it's a different data set that doesn't exactly match the non-farms payroll data that is generally considered the most-watched jobs report (though the numbers are not too far off in general terms) - and that you did you own math (which I'll simply assume you did correctly).
Aside from that, I'll mention again that you seemed to deliberately IGNORE the fact that even BEFORE being sworn in, Obama had somewhere in the neighborhood of 3.5 MILLION unemployed as a backlog.
Ken
Last edited by LordBalfor; 06-07-2013 at 06:22 PM..
It may be true that "is generally considered the most-watched jobs report" but the one I provided doesn't use the FTE standard where one person with 3 20 hour a week jobs comes out to 1.5 FTE jobs. If you're 1 person and you have 1 or 10 jobs you're still just one person that's employed.
So maybe that's where the differences are. Personally if I work 100 hours in a week I don't all the sudden becomes 2.5 people. Do you (even though I think you're retired --- don't know, just going by you referring to your traveling you referred to in several posts a few months ago)?
It may be true that "is generally considered the most-watched jobs report" but the one I provided doesn't use the FTE standard where one person with 3 20 hour a week jobs comes out to 1.5 FTE jobs. If you're 1 person and you have 1 or 10 jobs you're still just one person that's employed.
So maybe that's where the differences are. Personally if I work 100 hours in a week I don't all the sudden becomes 2.5 people. Do you (even though I think you're retired --- don't know, just going by you referring to your traveling you referred to in several posts a few months ago)?
Well, whatever.
The fact remains that whether you use YOUR numbers or the ones I provided, it was still a HUGE number of people being laid off in the 11 months prior to Obama being sworn in and the year or so afterwards. It was a HUGE mess to have to deal with - and BOTH Reagan AND Obama had ENORMOUS challenges (as I've said MANY TIMES over the past few years). I have great respect for both men (again, as I've said many times). I certainly wouldn't want to deal with those problems.
Regardless of what a leftist paper prints (notice no mention of the funds allowed for HIV/AIDS?), it's still a fact that the Reagan administration spent billion on HIV/AIDS throughout the 1980s. It's not my "estimation," it was actual figures I posted.
BTW, what did the Clinton administration do about HIV/AIDS?
I provided a link. Mock the source all you'd like...there was a direct quote from Reagan's own Surgeon General, C. Everett Koop, stating that he'd been cut out of any meetings regarding AIDS. Here's another source that rates each president from Reagan to Obama (incomplete, of course), so it includes Clinton:
I provided a link. Mock the source all you'd like...there was a direct quote from Reagan's own Surgeon General, C. Everett Koop, stating that he'd been cut out of any meetings regarding AIDS. Here's another source that rates each president from Reagan to Obama (incomplete, of course), so it includes Clinton:
Two really important things Republicans remember and love about Ronald Reagan:
"Mr. G, tear down this wall..."
Aw, sheeze. Really?
Saint Reagan made a comment, waved his magic palm, and the Berlin Wall fell and the Soviet Union collapsed.
What a load of *******s.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
