Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 01-06-2008, 11:51 AM
 
3,570 posts, read 3,741,473 times
Reputation: 1344

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fleet View Post
The employment level fell in Dec., 2007, but there was still more net job growth (18,000). Therefore, it is still 52 consecutive months of job growth. In fact, there have been 8.3 million jobs created since Aug., 2003, the longest continuous run of job growth on record.
Directly following....

Longest Period of Private Sector Job Losses (since WWII)

And every month less jobs were created, then the change of population.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 01-06-2008, 01:25 PM
 
19,198 posts, read 31,404,183 times
Reputation: 4013
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fleet View Post
Lol. Excuses, excuses! I know you hate any kind of good economic news when it involves the Bush administration, but the fact remains that there has been 52 consecutive months of job growth.
Only when job growth is construed to comprise only non-farm payrolls as taken from establishment rather than household surveys and then seasonally adjusted.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fleet View Post
Where is that figure from?
From one of the more salient BLS series than the one you choose to focus on (for obvious reasons)...LNS12000000.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fleet View Post
I'm not comparing it to Clinton's record. I'm pointing out the fact that the GDP has been growing very well. But if you want to compare, I will also point out the excellent 8.3% growth in one quarter of 2004 (higher than anytime during the '90s), which was the highest growth since the 9.7% in 1984 (with another Republican President).
You miss the point...namely that your citing GDP stats at all was an irrelevancy to start out with.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fleet View Post
Tax hikes hurt the economy; tax cuts help it.
In light of such astute generalization, why do we not just reduce all taxes to zero?

Last edited by saganista; 01-06-2008 at 01:35 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-06-2008, 01:34 PM
 
19,198 posts, read 31,404,183 times
Reputation: 4013
Quote:
Originally Posted by roseba View Post
Bushies usually compare Jr's best with Clinton's worse, ignoring Clinton's average which is a lot higher than Jr's average, and is light years away from Jr's worse.
Some number of the Bushies have sopped up so much right-wing propaganda that they simply don't recognize anything else anymore. Invalid and otherwise misconstructed arguments are what's for dinner over at their house. 2 + 2 = 5. You've heard it so often, how could anything else be true...
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-06-2008, 01:52 PM
 
Location: Arizona
5,408 posts, read 7,778,986 times
Reputation: 1198
All I know is that 1 in 6 manufacturing ("good") jobs have been lost since 2000 (over 3 million), sent to China and Mexico and India. People can spin whatever stats they want to and pretend more Mickey D jobs are a good thing for our country, but I work in manufacturing and I see people getting let go all the time.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-06-2008, 01:54 PM
 
Location: Old Town Alexandria
14,496 posts, read 26,536,953 times
Reputation: 8966
Quote:
Originally Posted by katzenfreund View Post
Jobless rate hits 5 percent, 2-year high - Yahoo! News (broken link)

Is this just a beginning?
What is the real percentage of those unemployed, since those number don't contain

- longtime unemployed
- independent contractors
- part time workers
Yes, and Bush says we have a "strong" economy
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-06-2008, 02:33 PM
 
Location: Northridge/Porter Ranch, Calif.
24,483 posts, read 33,188,159 times
Reputation: 7607
Quote:
Originally Posted by roseba View Post
Directly following....

Longest Period of Private Sector Job Losses (since WWII)

And every month less jobs were created, then the change of population.
That chart is out of date... it only goes up to 2003.

And there has still been a net growth of jobs. Note the word "net."
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-06-2008, 02:34 PM
 
Location: Northridge/Porter Ranch, Calif.
24,483 posts, read 33,188,159 times
Reputation: 7607
Quote:
Originally Posted by dreamofmonterey View Post
Yes, and Bush says we have a "strong" economy
It's certainly stronger than when he took office and inherited the Clinton recession.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-06-2008, 02:39 PM
 
Location: Northridge/Porter Ranch, Calif.
24,483 posts, read 33,188,159 times
Reputation: 7607
Quote:
Originally Posted by saganista View Post
Only when job growth is construed to comprise only non-farm payrolls as taken from establishment rather than household surveys and then seasonally adjusted.
That's also how it was calculated during the Clinton era (and the eras before that).

Quote:
From one of the more salient BLS series than the one you choose to focus on (for obvious reasons)...LNS12000000.
Link?

Quote:
You miss the point...namely that your citing GDP stats at all was an irrelevancy to start out with.
You are the one who brought in a Clinton comparison... I just added to it.

Quote:
In light of such astute generalization, why do we not just reduce all taxes to zero?
Because the government needs some money to run the country. But not a ridiculous 50% tax rate which some (Hillary) would like to have.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-06-2008, 02:52 PM
 
Location: Midwestern Dystopia
2,417 posts, read 3,552,027 times
Reputation: 3091
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fleet View Post
The employment level fell in Dec., 2007, but there was still more net job growth (18,000).
yeah, but what type of jobs are those? Service sector jobs mostly. That's great job growth!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-06-2008, 03:02 PM
 
Location: Arizona
5,408 posts, read 7,778,986 times
Reputation: 1198
Quote:
Originally Posted by Badger View Post
yeah, but what type of jobs are those? Service sector jobs mostly. That's great job growth!
SHHHH...that is the part they don't want to talk about.....
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 09:37 PM.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top