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.
Status:
"everybody getting reported now.."
(set 21 days ago)
Location: Pine Grove,AL
29,550 posts, read 16,536,658 times
Reputation: 6032
Advertisements
Quote:
Originally Posted by WaldoKitty
Maybe you should look at what you are posting before you say such things.
On that chart, a person getting paid for at least 1 hour/week = job. It's chartsmanship to hide the fact that millions of middle class well paying jobs disappeared and haven't come back.
Go generate a chart showing full time workers over that same period. Then we have a discussion.
The Person I responded to claimed republicans were responsible for the resurgence in jobs.
So you should tell him to stop taking credit for what you call a bad recovery.
But just to rebut your flawed argument, no job is one our a week. At best you meant a part time job which federal law dictates is 4 hours a week (one shift). If you are working 4 hours a week, it more likely because you want to not because you have to, because 4 hours a week is worthless to most companies.
republicans didnt take the House until Jan 2011, that means we were in positive numbers a full year before you guys even had half of congress, and the numbers had been going up since 2009.
Why do you believe a falsehood that is so easily disproven ????
I ask you the same. Even your chart shows that we didn't have positive jobs growth until Republicans were elected to control the House and get the debt under control. If we had left nancy & harry in charge of things, we would be in the same place as Greece right now.
The Person I responded to claimed republicans were responsible for the resurgence in jobs.
So you should tell him to stop taking credit for what you call a bad recovery.
But just to rebut your flawed argument, no job is one our a week. At best you meant a part time job which federal law dictates is 4 hours a week (one shift). If you are working 4 hours a week, it more likely because you want to not because you have to, because 4 hours a week is worthless to most companies.
Completely incorrect.
Please check your facts in the future. This is directly from the BLS which generated those numbers using this definition.
Employed persons (Current Population Survey) Persons 16 years and over in the civilian noninstitutional population who, during the reference week, (a) did any work at all (at least 1 hour) as paid employees; worked in their own business, profession, or on their own farm, or worked 15 hours or more as unpaid workers in an enterprise operated by a member of the family; and (b) all those who were not working but who had jobs or businesses from which they were temporarily absent because of vacation, illness, bad weather, childcare problems, maternity or paternity leave, labor-management dispute, job training, or other family or personal reasons, whether or not they were paid for the time off or were seeking other jobs. Each employed person is counted only once, even if he or she holds more than one job. Excluded are persons whose only activity consisted of work around their own house (painting, repairing, or own home housework) or volunteer work for religious, charitable, and other organizations.
Your rebuttal failed. But don't feel bad. It seems that you are not alone based on this topic in believing nonsense that coming out of the Obama Administration. This definition proves it. You almost have to try not to be counted as "employed".
That is exactly what you are doing with that statement. On that chart Job = getting paid for 1 hour/week. You don't address that because you can't, so instead you make a post about me.
According to the BLS, average weekly hours have been at pre-recession levels for a while now. This ties with the fact that the vast majority of jobs created during the recovery, contrary to GOP myths, have been full time positions: Graph: Total Private Average Weekly Hours of All Employees
Keep trying.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tall Traveler
If it wasn't for the public getting smarter and electing Republicans to run Congress, he would already have more than doubled the deficit.
Most of the deficit spending comes from GOP policies--Bush's wars and tax cuts in particular have cost us trillions of dollars. So what do "smart" Republicans want to do? Push for more tax cuts, of course: http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/ar...n-dollar-binge
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tall Traveler
I ask you the same. Even your chart shows that we didn't have positive jobs growth until Republicans were elected to control the House and get the debt under control. If we had left nancy & harry in charge of things, we would be in the same place as Greece right now.
Huh? The chart clearly shows that the recovery began in early 2010, a full year before Republicans retook the House.
BTW, you never addressed how bullish the economy was in 1994 (a whopping 3.9 million jobs created, record Dow Jones averages) , before the GOP took Congress. The idea that Republicans came in an fixed everything is laughable.
Greece is in the mess they're in thanks to austerity measures, which is what the GOP pushed throughout the Great Recession. You could argue their actions prolonged the recovery.
Last edited by RaymondChandlerLives; 07-06-2015 at 01:09 PM..
Status:
"everybody getting reported now.."
(set 21 days ago)
Location: Pine Grove,AL
29,550 posts, read 16,536,658 times
Reputation: 6032
Quote:
Originally Posted by WaldoKitty
Completely incorrect.
Please check your facts in the future. This is directly from the BLS which generated those numbers using this definition.
Employed persons (Current Population Survey) Persons 16 years and over in the civilian noninstitutional population who, during the reference week, (a) did any work at all (at least 1 hour) as paid employees; worked in their own business, profession, or on their own farm, or worked 15 hours or more as unpaid workers in an enterprise operated by a member of the family; and (b) all those who were not working but who had jobs or businesses from which they were temporarily absent because of vacation, illness, bad weather, childcare problems, maternity or paternity leave, labor-management dispute, job training, or other family or personal reasons, whether or not they were paid for the time off or were seeking other jobs. Each employed person is counted only once, even if he or she holds more than one job. Excluded are persons whose only activity consisted of work around their own house (painting, repairing, or own home housework) or volunteer work for religious, charitable, and other organizations.
Your rebuttal failed. But don't feel bad. It seems that you are not alone based on this topic in believing nonsense that coming out of the Obama Administration. This definition proves it. You almost have to try not to be counted as "employed".
I have no problem admitting I was wrong about the minimum hours a person can work in a week to be considered employed. I based my argument on what I was told by my employer when it came to scheduling part times. the DM said it was a federal rule, he was wrong, and I repeated it.
That doesnt change the fact that no one is working 1 hour a week, or the fact that your argument should be aimed at the Republican who is continuing to claim the economy was saved by them while you are claiming it is still falling apart under them. but we all know right wingers follow Reagan's 11th commandment.
Status:
"everybody getting reported now.."
(set 21 days ago)
Location: Pine Grove,AL
29,550 posts, read 16,536,658 times
Reputation: 6032
Quote:
Originally Posted by WaldoKitty
When Obama took office the Federal Debt = $10T/239 years
Today Federal debt = $18.2T
Obama's Tally so far = $8.2T/6.5 years.
At this rate of increase, Obama will have increased the national debt as much as every other US President combined.
The Problem with your argument is you are attributing debt to the President as if he is responsible for it all.
We spend money on national defense regardless of who is president. Now if you want to argue the amount he spent over the last President on an individual item, that is fine, but arguing the simply total sum is simplistic.
But there are multiple flaws in you numbers just by themselves. The National debt after the 2009 fiscal year( which started in October of 2008) was 11.9 trillion, not 10
so you 8.2 for Barack Obama should actually be 6.3 And if BLS andthe Congressional budget Office are right, we will end Fiscal year 2016 and 2017 with a total debt of the last 8 years as 7.1
Status:
"everybody getting reported now.."
(set 21 days ago)
Location: Pine Grove,AL
29,550 posts, read 16,536,658 times
Reputation: 6032
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tall Traveler
I ask you the same. Even your chart shows that we didn't have positive jobs growth until Republicans were elected to control the House and get the debt under control. If we had left nancy & harry in charge of things, we would be in the same place as Greece right now.
Umm, What chart did you read ? Or do you just not know what month the Republicans took over ?????
The Problem with your argument is you are attributing debt to the President as if he is responsible for it all.
The President signs every bill that Congress must pass to spend money.
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.
