Sponsor Message:
Non Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
US Added 240,000 Jobs; Rate Down  
User currently offlinezhiao From United States of America, joined Jan 2011, 394 posts, RR: 0
Posted (2 years 5 months 1 week 1 day 15 hours ago) and read 2971 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

A shocking jobs number, with upward revisions for months prior. Rate drops to 8.3%. Just about all sectors added employees.

Wonder what Romney will have to say now? Obama is now where Reagan was, going into his second term.

123 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineTOMMY767 From United States of America, joined Aug 2003, 6584 posts, RR: 11
Reply 1, posted (2 years 5 months 1 week 1 day 14 hours ago) and read 2955 times:

gallup reports unemployment rate is currently at 8.7% not sure where the 8.3% number is coming from. Even so, 8% is still high.


"Folks that's the news and I'm outta here!" -- Dennis Miller
User currently offlinezhiao From United States of America, joined Jan 2011, 394 posts, RR: 0
Reply 2, posted (2 years 5 months 1 week 1 day 14 hours ago) and read 2954 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Excuse me, but the labor force grew, and the decline in the rate was due 100% to an increase in employment. Read the report. I know this is bad news for Romney, but give credit where it's due.

User currently offlinecmhsrq From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 990 posts, RR: 4
Reply 3, posted (2 years 5 months 1 week 1 day 14 hours ago) and read 2946 times:

The good news is that all those jobs were created, it seems that things are starting to pick up. The bad news is 1.8 million people quit looking for work, and about 130,000 new jobs are needed every month just to keep up with people entering the work force. I hope the numbers continue to improve for the sake and good of all Americans.


The voice of moderation
User currently offlinemt99 From United States of America, joined May 1999, 6565 posts, RR: 6
Reply 4, posted (2 years 5 months 1 week 1 day 14 hours ago) and read 2946 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

If Mitt Romney doesn't worry about them why should you?

If you don't think that these unemployment numbers are not a big issue - then you couldn't have thought unemployment numbers were a big issue before.

Wall Street (the ones that can do no wrong) - have drunk the cool-aid. Can Wall Street be wrong?

The rally pushed pushed the Dow, up more than 5% in 2012, to the highest level since May 2008. The Nasdaq, up more than 11% for the year, climbed to its highest level since December 2000. The S&P 500 has gained almost 7% this year, and is at a six-month high.

http://money.cnn.com/2012/02/03/mark...markets_newyork/index.htm?iid=Lead

[Edited 2012-02-03 14:22:10 by SA7700]


Step into my office, baby
User currently offlinezhiao From United States of America, joined Jan 2011, 394 posts, RR: 0
Reply 5, posted (2 years 5 months 1 week 1 day 14 hours ago) and read 2948 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

@Tommy,


Th unemployment rate is indeed 8.3%. Gallup doesn't do unemployment figures.


User currently offlinezhiao From United States of America, joined Jan 2011, 394 posts, RR: 0
Reply 6, posted (2 years 5 months 1 week 1 day 14 hours ago) and read 2939 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

@cmh,


The labor force grew, as more people entered the LF than left. So yes, some left, but more came in.


User currently offlinezhiao From United States of America, joined Jan 2011, 394 posts, RR: 0
Reply 7, posted (2 years 5 months 1 week 1 day 14 hours ago) and read 2918 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Of course he would. A shame

User currently offlineCASINTEREST From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 4431 posts, RR: 2
Reply 8, posted (2 years 5 months 1 week 1 day 14 hours ago) and read 2912 times:

the economy is the number 1 way to win elections. Regardless of what effect the President has on it. If it is improving, then the GOP has a bigger problem unseating Obama. they will have to resort to polical battles on immigration, foreign policies, defense and social conservatism....... Which the GOP is still fighting about in the Primary's amongs themselves.

If Flanker is a strong GOP supporter, then one of the prime ammo tools for the election is slipping away.

[Edited 2012-02-03 14:24:20 by SA7700]


Older than I just was ,and younger than I will soo be.
User currently offlineDeltaMD90 From United States of America, joined Apr 2008, 7787 posts, RR: 52
Reply 9, posted (2 years 5 months 1 week 1 day 14 hours ago) and read 2903 times:

Regardless of your political stance, more jobs = good !!


Ironically I have never flown a Delta MD-90 :)
User currently offlineflanker From United States of America, joined Aug 2005, 1627 posts, RR: 2
Reply 10, posted (2 years 5 months 1 week 1 day 14 hours ago) and read 2901 times:

Adding jobs is great, nobody in their right mind would dispute that. But anyone could have seen this from a mile away in an election year. And if you guys think that these figures wont/ aren't be screwed with then you gotta wake up and smell the coffee.

Especially since the actual rate is around 15% at least give or take when you count all those previously mentioned variables.



Calling an illegal alien an 'undocumented immigrant' is like calling a drug dealer an unlicensed pharmacist
User currently offlineNoUFO From Germany, joined Apr 2001, 7935 posts, RR: 12
Reply 11, posted (2 years 5 months 1 week 1 day 14 hours ago) and read 2881 times:

Quoting TOMMY767 (Reply 2):
gallup reports unemployment rate is currently at 8.7% not sure where the 8.3% number is coming from.

Department of Labor.

It is a good sign that the unemployment rate goes down in winter. There have been reports saying that the U.S. economy was doing surprisingly well.



I support the right to arm bears
User currently offlinemt99 From United States of America, joined May 1999, 6565 posts, RR: 6
Reply 12, posted (2 years 5 months 1 week 1 day 14 hours ago) and read 2877 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting flanker (Reply 12):
Adding jobs is great, nobody in their right mind would dispute that. But anyone could have seen this from a mile away in an election year. And if you guys think that these figures wont/ aren't be screwed with then you gotta wake up and smell the coffee.

So.. GWB. actually screwed with the unemployment rate to keep it artificially high (and rising) for the 2008 election year?

Jun 2008: 5.6%
Jul 2008: 5.8%
Ago 2008: 6.1%
Sep 2008: 6.1%
Oct 2008: 6.5%
Nov 2008: 6.8%

If the number can be screwed around with - why didn't Obama had a 4% unemployment rate the las 3 years?

Quoting flanker (Reply 12):
And if you guys think that these figures wont/ aren't be screwed with then you gotta wake up and smell the coffee.
Quoting flanker (Reply 12):
Especially since the actual rate is around 15% at least give or take when you count all those previously mentioned variables.

So Wall-Street has been duped!?!!! The market keeps rising.Quick - let the, know its all a fake!

[Edited 2012-02-03 10:07:05]


Step into my office, baby
User currently offlinetugger From United States of America, joined Apr 2006, 5377 posts, RR: 8
Reply 13, posted (2 years 5 months 1 week 1 day 13 hours ago) and read 2858 times:

I keep wondering if this will be an opportunity lost for the Republican's who have been saying that every current policy of the administration is a failure and have been withholding action on job related tasks. Had they done anything the Republican's could at least point to that and say "Things are getting better because we did X....". Of course I am certain that what they will say is that "We prevented increases in taxes and that is what allowed the economy to improve."

I believe it was the hope/expectation that Republican's would have abetter chance at winning in the election cycle by being able to say "Look how terrible things are under this administration" etc. The problem is that the economy is cycling towards improvement (though you never know, things could always still tank). We'll have to see.


1.) We can't keep extending unemployment benefits. I personally believe they should not have been extended as much as they have already (and yes, I understand the extensive hardship that would have caused. I am not meaning to get into a debate about that.)
2.) In any economy there are people that are under employed and the fact is that type of employment increases during a down cycle. It is what it is, there is no way to "fix" under employment when someone is desperate for a job and has to take one. It happens.
3.) When discussing "people giving up looking for work" remember a portion of them are people that don't didn't want to work but needed the income of the benefits. It is not a large percentage but it is there. Also most people do not "give up" looking for work unless there is a new income stream that has appeared and allows them to be stable. Again some do just give up but it is not a large percentage.


Quoting flanker (Reply 12):
Adding jobs is great, nobody in their right mind would dispute that. But anyone could have seen this from a mile away in an election year. And if you guys think that these figures wont/ aren't be screwed with then you gotta wake up and smell the coffee.

Especially since the actual rate is around 15% at least give or take when you count all those previously mentioned variables.

So there is a vast left wing conspiracy? Always love the conspiracy theorists. The numbers are what they are and if they are "adjusted" they have always been adjusted to show the best numbers possible which keeps them consistent. That means the change at least is real.

Tugg


Edited for spelling

[Edited 2012-02-03 11:09:52]

[Edited 2012-02-03 14:27:43 by SA7700]


I don’t know that I am unafraid to be myself, but it is hard to be somebody else. -W. Shatner
User currently offlineDreadnought From United States of America, joined Feb 2008, 8780 posts, RR: 24
Reply 14, posted (2 years 5 months 1 week 1 day 13 hours ago) and read 2853 times:

Quoting zhiao (Reply 3):
Excuse me, but the labor force grew, and the decline in the rate was due 100% to an increase in employment. Read the report. I know this is bad news for Romney, but give credit where it's due.

Ever since 2008, BLS numbers have been showing ridiculously low or even negative growth rates for the US workforce population. On average, the US workforce increased in size by about 1.771 million people per year. since 2008, the average has been less than half that. People haven't stopped growing up.

If we adjust the total workforce to comply with the same growth rates that were in place from 2000-2008, the actual workforce should be 160.1 million, not the 152.8 million reported by BLS. That would change the current unemployment rate to 12.6%, down from a peak of nearly 14%.

That does not count the underemployed.

Some of you might cry foul, but I think it's fair to assume that in spite of recessions, people continue to grow up and enter the workforce.



Veni Vidi Castratavi Illegitimos
User currently offlinemt99 From United States of America, joined May 1999, 6565 posts, RR: 6
Reply 15, posted (2 years 5 months 1 week 1 day 13 hours ago) and read 2827 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 16):
That does not count the underemployed.

And it never has.. Whats your point?



Step into my office, baby
User currently offlineDreadnought From United States of America, joined Feb 2008, 8780 posts, RR: 24
Reply 16, posted (2 years 5 months 1 week 1 day 12 hours ago) and read 2806 times:

Quoting mt99 (Reply 17):

And it never has.. Whats your point?

Simply that the numbers are being fudged. Hardly a surprise, as 99% of people will ignore it. But the fact of the matter is that millions of people have been simply removed from the denominator in order to artificially lower the unemployment rate.

http://www.zerohedge.com/sites/default/files/images/user5/imageroot/2012/01/People%20Not%20In%20Labor%20Force.jpg

http://www.zerohedge.com/sites/default/files/images/user5/imageroot/2012/01/Participation%20Rate.jpg

in fact last month showed the biggest 1-month decline in work force participation in the past 60 years - over a million people in a single month - poof! They're gone.




Veni Vidi Castratavi Illegitimos
User currently offlinemt99 From United States of America, joined May 1999, 6565 posts, RR: 6
Reply 17, posted (2 years 5 months 1 week 1 day 12 hours ago) and read 2790 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 18):
Simply that the numbers are being fudged.

So Wall Street had fallen for this terrible deception?



Step into my office, baby
User currently offlineDreadnought From United States of America, joined Feb 2008, 8780 posts, RR: 24
Reply 18, posted (2 years 5 months 1 week 1 day 12 hours ago) and read 2776 times:

Quoting mt99 (Reply 19):

So Wall Street had fallen for this terrible deception?

Are they any different from anyone else? They watch the same news as we do, and generally don't go digging.



Veni Vidi Castratavi Illegitimos
User currently offlineSTT757 From United States of America, joined Mar 2000, 16793 posts, RR: 51
Reply 19, posted (2 years 5 months 1 week 1 day 12 hours ago) and read 2769 times:

Quoting zhiao (Thread starter):
Wonder what Romney will have to say now?

Romney, to the disbelief of the conservative media, has admitted the economy has been getting better. What he is saying is that it's no thanks to President Obama and that in fact the President has slowed the recovery. Romney's words, but he's not denying the (gradual) improvement.



Eastern Air lines flt # 701, EWR-MCO Boeing 757
User currently offlinemt99 From United States of America, joined May 1999, 6565 posts, RR: 6
Reply 20, posted (2 years 5 months 1 week 1 day 12 hours ago) and read 2767 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 20):

Are they any different from anyone else? They watch the same news as we do, and generally don't go digging.

I would certainly hope so!

So you think that the great Wall Street Companies do not do any research? Whats more - you are saying that you know more than ANY of them.

You just blew the lid on this secret buddy!. Congratulations. Until you post - no one new that these numbers do not include underemployment.



Step into my office, baby
User currently offlineDreadnought From United States of America, joined Feb 2008, 8780 posts, RR: 24
Reply 21, posted (2 years 5 months 1 week 1 day 12 hours ago) and read 2751 times:

Quoting mt99 (Reply 22):
I would certainly hope so!

So you think that the great Wall Street Companies do not do any research? Whats more - you are saying that you know more than ANY of them.

You just blew the lid on this secret buddy!. Congratulations. Until you post - no one new that these numbers do not include underemployment.

So you are not denying that the 8.3% unemployment number is fudged, right?



Veni Vidi Castratavi Illegitimos
User currently offlinemt99 From United States of America, joined May 1999, 6565 posts, RR: 6
Reply 22, posted (2 years 5 months 1 week 1 day 12 hours ago) and read 2746 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 23):
So you are not denying that the 8.3% unemployment number is fudged, right?

Its the same formula that was used during Reagan, Clinton, Bush I and I - But -hey tell us about the underemployed during Reagan and GWB.

So, you are not denying that you know more than all of the Wall Street trading companies?



Step into my office, baby
User currently offlinetugger From United States of America, joined Apr 2006, 5377 posts, RR: 8
Reply 23, posted (2 years 5 months 1 week 1 day 12 hours ago) and read 2747 times:

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 18):
Simply that the numbers are being fudged.

The graphs don't tell much. There is no back up to them as you did not post the contributing article that they support. Also the ranges that they cover are pretty tight which can lead to distortions. For the labor force participation rate I would have to see what the historic cycle is, the graph presented looks like it could be just one cycle of a normal cycle. Without a larger view you can't tell if they are just cherry picking.

Also ZeroHedge is known to be a "stir the pot" blog. Stirring things up and getting others to look and then see if things are discovered to back up the assertions. Not saying it is a bad site, just how it operates. What it states is not always fact and often enough conjecture backed up with numbers that others have to vet. They have made some good points and discovered some good things but they stir first to get other to dig.

Tugg



I don’t know that I am unafraid to be myself, but it is hard to be somebody else. -W. Shatner
User currently offlineCASINTEREST From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 4431 posts, RR: 2
Reply 24, posted (2 years 5 months 1 week 1 day 12 hours ago) and read 2740 times:

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 18):
Simply that the numbers are being fudged. Hardly a surprise, as 99% of people will ignore it. But the fact of the matter is that millions of people have been simply removed from the denominator in order to artificially lower the unemployment rate.

Show your source for the first graph?
The following source ,which is the DOL. Shows your graph is a sham.
http://www.bls.gov/news.release/pdf/empsit.pdf

Your 2nd graph doesn't take into account that the retirees are living longer in retirement. Along

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 18):
in fact last month showed the biggest 1-month decline in work force participation in the past 60 years - over a million people in a single month - poof! They're gone.

Nope
Nope it went up by over a million



Older than I just was ,and younger than I will soo be.
User currently offlinetugger From United States of America, joined Apr 2006, 5377 posts, RR: 8
Reply 25, posted (2 years 5 months 1 week 1 day 12 hours ago) and read 2792 times:

Quoting STT757 (Reply 21):
Romney, to the disbelief of the conservative media, has admitted the economy has been getting better. What he is saying is that it's no thanks to President Obama and that in fact the President has slowed the recovery. Romney's words, but he's not denying the (gradual) improvement.

That's what I would expect the Republican's to say. And if the economy continues to improve they will say it even more stridently.

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 23):
So you are not denying that the 8.3% unemployment number is fudged, right?

Are you denying they were fudged when the rate was 4%? Are you saying they are not always shown to be as favorable as possible? The "real rate" can almost always be shown to be about twice what the "published" rate is, the key thing is consistency so that the markets can manage and plan with.

Should GWB have insisted that the calculation be changed to a "less favorable" calculation during his administration "So people will know the real number instead of this artificially low number!"? How do you think the markets would have reacted even during the relative prosperity of that time?

And regarding my comment in my previous post about the labor force participation rate and the cycles involved, check this out:
http://research.stlouisfed.org/publications/review/08/01/DiCecio.pdf

Quote:
CONCLUSION: THE FUTURE OF LABOR FORCE PARTICIPATION

During the past half century, the U.S. LFPR has seen dramatic changes, which have been driven by the rise of women’s participation, an aging of the baby-boom generation, and growing ethnic diversity within the general population. What does the future hold for U.S. labor force participation? According to a report published by the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the overall LFPR is projected to decrease slightly to 65.6 percent in 2014 (Toossi, 2005). Twomain factors are expected to continue to exert downward pressure on the participation rate: the continued decline in the teen LFPR—which is projected to decline from 43.9 percent in 2004 to 39.3 percent in 2014— and the aging of the baby-boom generation. This second factor, however, is likely to lower aggregate participation rates for the next several decades.

As mentioned earlier, the baby boomers have already begun entering into the 55-and-older age category. In her BLS report, Toossi (2005) projected that the fraction of Americans in this age group will rise from 28.4 percent of the adult population today to 33.7 percent by 2014; the Census Bureau projects this figure to be 39 percent by 2030. In contrast, the fraction of the population in the prime-age working group is projected to fall from 55.3 percent today to 51.1 percent by 2014 and 47 percent by 2030.

As baby boomers enter successive age groups, their LFPR should fall dramatically. For instance, the 55 to 59 age group had an LFPR of 72 percent in 2006, and the 60 to 64 age group had an LFPR of approximately 53 percent. Among those 65 and older, the LFPR was just over 15 percent. These numbers, coupled with the increasing proportion of the U.S. population beyond their prime working age over the coming years, suggest that successive generations will be unable to compensate for the baby boomers’ exit from the labor force and U.S. labor supply will decline.


Tugg

[Edited 2012-02-03 12:21:07]


I don’t know that I am unafraid to be myself, but it is hard to be somebody else. -W. Shatner
User currently offlinezhiao From United States of America, joined Jan 2011, 394 posts, RR: 0
Reply 26, posted (2 years 5 months 1 week 1 day 11 hours ago) and read 2749 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

There is no fudging; if people left the labor force and this leads to an unemployment rate that is lower but for the exit, it's simply a fact, and not a conspiracy of the BLS. But of course, many left the LF because they are retiring early, so it's not entirely true that this people are exiting because they have given up.

User currently offlineDeltaMD90 From United States of America, joined Apr 2008, 7787 posts, RR: 52
Reply 27, posted (2 years 5 months 1 week 1 day 9 hours ago) and read 2741 times:

Quoting tugger (Reply 27):
Quoting STT757 (Reply 21):
Romney, to the disbelief of the conservative media, has admitted the economy has been getting better. What he is saying is that it's no thanks to President Obama and that in fact the President has slowed the recovery. Romney's words, but he's not denying the (gradual) improvement.

That's what I would expect the Republican's to say. And if the economy continues to improve they will say it even more stridently.

Well think about that for a second. It makes sense that you can have an ineffective leader that doesn't do much to fix the economy, but the economy will naturally rebound. It pretty much disproves the "Obama is teh worst evar!!!!1" chants and that the economy is going down the drains. Slow growth does not necessarily mean good policy. In the end, it is up to the people to decide



Ironically I have never flown a Delta MD-90 :)
User currently offlineRara From Germany, joined Jan 2007, 2048 posts, RR: 2
Reply 28, posted (2 years 5 months 1 week 1 day 8 hours ago) and read 2713 times:

Quoting mt99 (Reply 4):

If you don't think that these unemployment numbers are not a big issue - then you couldn't have thought unemployment numbers were a big issue before.

OK maybe it's because I've been out drinking, but I've just spent a couple minutes over this sentence and still haven't worked it out.   



Samson was a biblical tough guy, but his dad Samsonite was even more of a hard case.
User currently offlineDocLightning From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 19275 posts, RR: 58
Reply 29, posted (2 years 5 months 1 week 1 day 7 hours ago) and read 2709 times:

Quoting flanker (Reply 10):
Adding jobs is great, nobody in their right mind would dispute that. But anyone could have seen this from a mile away in an election year. And if you guys think that these figures wont/ aren't be screwed with then you gotta wake up and smell the coffee.

I do wonder if the President was a Republican if you would be so suspicious. Even in the Detroit area, the papers are filling with want ads. Are they also being invented by this administration?

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 18):
Are they any different from anyone else? They watch the same news as we do, and generally don't go digging.

Ah yes, the classical conspiracy theory. Everyone else are dumb sheep with no critical thinking skills but YOU and YOU ALONE, Dreaddy are wise and astute enough to see through this propaganda from the Obama politbureau. I'm so glad we have you to be a warrior on the side of truth and light.  
Quoting CASINTEREST (Reply 24):
The following source ,which is the DOL. Shows your graph is a sham.

Oh dear... you mean that someone might be manipulated by heavily partisan sources of information? Someone who might accuse all nonpartisan sources of information of being in cahoots?

Have you ever been in cahoots? It's a lovely place. The only thing is that you can't go there alone. You always have to be in cahoots with someone else...  

All kidding aside (and it was kidding, Mods, not a "personal attack" on another board member who I respect, even though he's always wrong about everything   ), this is good news, but it is not GREAT news. It will take the better part of a decade at this rate to bring the unemployment rate below the magical 5% number. As for Romney (or whomever the GOP picks), this is not necessarily horrible news, either. We could be doing a lot better, which is a point that a challenging candidate could seize on.


User currently offlineseb146 From United States of America, joined Nov 1999, 11463 posts, RR: 15
Reply 30, posted (2 years 5 months 1 week 1 day 6 hours ago) and read 2668 times:

Quoting zhiao (Thread starter):
Obama is now where Reagan was, going into his second term.

Hasn't the right-wing been screaming about how much Obama hates corporations and capitalists and hates the markets and the high unemployment that began under Bush II was actually Obama's fault? I just wonder how Obama Lite (Romney) and the Second Coming of Reagan (Gingrich) and "Our only job is to make sure Obama is not re-elected" McConnell will spin this to make themselves look like roses and Obama look like the evil Communist/Socialist/Marxist/Maoist/Stateist/Kenyan Muslim they all claim he is, even though he proves time and again he is not!



Life in the wall is a drag.
User currently offlinePu From Sweden, joined Dec 2011, 696 posts, RR: 13
Reply 31, posted (2 years 5 months 1 week 1 day 6 hours ago) and read 2661 times:

It seems to me if the rate falls to well within the 7s, Obama is much harder to beat. If it falls to within the 6s by election day I say he is almost unbeatable.

Pu


User currently offlineCALTECH From Poland, joined May 2007, 2163 posts, RR: 25
Reply 32, posted (2 years 5 months 1 week 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 2644 times:

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 16):
Simply that the numbers are being fudged. Hardly a surprise, as 99% of people will ignore it. But the fact of the matter is that millions of people have been simply removed from the denominator in order to artificially lower the unemployment rate.

  

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 16):
in fact last month showed the biggest 1-month decline in work force participation in the past 60 years - over a million people in a single month - poof! They're gone.

  

A look at the bls.gov website shows that:

In December 2011, 132,952,000 people had a job.

In January 2012, 130,263,000 people had a job.

This is a net loss of 2,689,000 jobs from December to January.

The unemployment number is down because over a million people gave up looking for work.



UNITED We Stand
User currently offlineDreadnought From United States of America, joined Feb 2008, 8780 posts, RR: 24
Reply 33, posted (2 years 5 months 1 week 1 day 4 hours ago) and read 2639 times:

Quoting CASINTEREST (Reply 24):
Show your source for the first graph?
The following source ,which is the DOL. Shows your graph is a sham.
http://www.bls.gov/news.release/pdf/...t.pdf

You provided the source. Check page 7 of your link.



Veni Vidi Castratavi Illegitimos
User currently offlineeinsteinboricua From Puerto Rico, joined Apr 2010, 2934 posts, RR: 8
Reply 34, posted (2 years 5 months 1 week 1 day 4 hours ago) and read 2625 times:

Quoting CALTECH (Reply 32):
The unemployment number is down because over a million people gave up looking for work.

Is it that they stopped looking for a job or is it that they have retired? Or could it be that they have taken positions that other people have left behind while their old positions were frozen?

Does it hurt giving Obama credit for getting the economy going? I bet if it had been McCain, we'd be seeing posts worshiping him as the Ronald Reagan of the century.



"You haven't seen a tree until you've seen its shadow from the sky."
User currently offlineokie From United States of America, joined Jul 2003, 2966 posts, RR: 3
Reply 35, posted (2 years 5 months 1 week 1 day 4 hours ago) and read 2600 times:

Quoting CALTECH (Reply 32):
This is a net loss of 2,689,000 jobs from December to January.

Let us see food stamp recipients have grown 40% from 32M to 46M people under the present administration, kind of gives a clue that the work force has given up looking for work and need to feed their families.

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 29):
I do wonder if the President was a Republican if you would be so suspicious

I would like nothing more than to see the economy take off regardless of who is in the Whitehouse.
Massaging the numbers and touting a 2.5M loss in the work force is just seriously disingenuous.

Quoting Pu (Reply 31):
It seems to me if the rate falls to well within the 7s, Obama is much harder to beat. If it falls to within the 6s by election day I say he is almost unbeatable.

Precisely why the numbers are modified, The real number for the U3 would be closer to 10% than 8.3 and the U6 would be near 17% under/unemployed.

Using the present methods will make future growth under the next administration look huge for little effort.

Okie


User currently offlinetugger From United States of America, joined Apr 2006, 5377 posts, RR: 8
Reply 36, posted (2 years 5 months 1 week 1 day 3 hours ago) and read 2583 times:

I don't understand why people here keep just posting rhetoric and do not read what has been posted. Instead we have people intent on making some kind of political point.

The numbers are not gamed, manipulated, distorted, anymore than they always are. The change in the rate is real. The participation rate has been expected to change in the manner it is changing for quite a while. That more people are on food stamps and other forms of assistance is also expected, it happens any time there is a downturn in the economy.

That the economy is improving and unemployment rate is going down should not be a surprise to anyone actually paying attention. That it is occurring even with our screwed up politicians is what is actually impressive.

Tugg



I don’t know that I am unafraid to be myself, but it is hard to be somebody else. -W. Shatner
User currently offlineseb146 From United States of America, joined Nov 1999, 11463 posts, RR: 15
Reply 37, posted (2 years 5 months 1 week 16 hours ago) and read 2515 times:

Quoting tugger (Reply 36):
That the economy is improving and unemployment rate is going down should not be a surprise to anyone actually paying attention.

The right wing hates it because it is a Black Democrat in the White House doing it. Eight years of rich White guys screwing up the economy and only 3 of mixed race and mixed gender fixing it. The right wing HATES it! They are doing everything they can to spin this their way and keep everyone from seeing the Kenyan Muslim Marxist/Socialist/Communist is actually doing something good and right.

Quoting tugger (Reply 36):
That it is occurring even with our screwed up politicians is what is actually impressive.

Here is one thing the right can be proud of: These are low-wage jobs so those people can pay for tax breaks and welfare for the millionares and billionares. After all, one of these days, working part-time at Wal Mart, you too, will be able to enjoy those low, low tax rates and non-taxed income from dividends from the Cayman Islands accounts!



Life in the wall is a drag.
User currently offlinezhiao From United States of America, joined Jan 2011, 394 posts, RR: 0
Reply 38, posted (2 years 5 months 1 week 14 hours ago) and read 2491 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

They are not all low wage jobs; the healthcare industry and manufacturing both added large amounts of jobs, and they are high paying.

Manufacturing added 50,000 jobs, the highest since 1998. Manufacturing is coming back. Thanks Obama for bailing out the Big 3.


User currently offlineKen777 From United States of America, joined Mar 2004, 8162 posts, RR: 8
Reply 39, posted (2 years 5 months 1 week 14 hours ago) and read 2489 times:

Quoting CASINTEREST (Reply 8):
the economy is the number 1 way to win elections.

And most voters will evaluate the economy and politicians based on soundbites.

Quoting flanker (Reply 10):
Especially since the actual rate is around 15% at least give or take when you count all those previously mentioned variables.

There are a lot of ways to look at the country's unemployment situation, including rates that include those who have stopped looking for work and the underemployed. I think both are legitimate approaches and should be looked at over a long period of time to put it into perspective.

Quoting tugger (Reply 13):
In any economy there are people that are under employed and the fact is that type of employment increases during a down cycle.

What we have to focus on with the underemployed is the potential loss they represent. Made a mortgage payment before the axe fell? Solid credit ratings? University educated (with student loans to pay)?

Now they don't have money to pay the mortgage or the student loans. So they default on the house just as that market is collapsing. Credit rating is far lower, maybe with a bankruptcy. And maybe even low income federal and state benefits being paid out. But they have a "job".

Quoting tugger (Reply 13):
Also most people do not "give up" looking for work unless there is a new income stream that has appeared and allows them to be stable.

Or they discover how much money is to be made cooking & selling meth. Or any of the other drugs that generate a profit.

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 14):
Some of you might cry foul, but I think it's fair to assume that in spite of recessions, people continue to grow up and enter the workforce.

Of course we will continue with people entering the workforce. The scary part is that a lot of quality jobs are being shipped overseas so we will continue shifting to a service economy. Flipping burgers instead of working in manufacturing does nothing to build confidence in the country's future.


User currently offlineDocLightning From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 19275 posts, RR: 58
Reply 40, posted (2 years 5 months 1 week 8 hours ago) and read 2448 times:

Quoting okie (Reply 35):
Let us see food stamp recipients have grown 40% from 32M to 46M people under the present administration, kind of gives a clue that the work force has given up looking for work and need to feed their families.

Which is less than under the previous administration, actually.

Quoting seb146 (Reply 37):
The right wing hates it because it is a Black Democrat in the White House doing it.

He is? How? He's sure tried, but the GOP has blocked every effort. In spite of that, the economy is slowly recovering, which is absolutely amazing.


User currently offlineseb146 From United States of America, joined Nov 1999, 11463 posts, RR: 15
Reply 41, posted (2 years 5 months 1 week 5 hours ago) and read 2422 times:

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 40):
Quoting okie (Reply 35):Let us see food stamp recipients have grown 40% from 32M to 46M people under the present administration, kind of gives a clue that the work force has given up looking for work and need to feed their families.
Which is less than under the previous administration, actually.

And it is very telling what kind of jobs are being created. People keep saying how they want jobs created so people can feed themselves and house themselves and buy themselves health care, but when these jobs only pay enough for some of the rent and some of the food and none of the health care, there is a problem. I love how the charities step in to help, like the right wing loves to say.



Life in the wall is a drag.
User currently offlineDocLightning From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 19275 posts, RR: 58
Reply 42, posted (2 years 5 months 1 week 4 hours ago) and read 2413 times:

Quoting seb146 (Reply 41):
And it is very telling what kind of jobs are being created. People keep saying how they want jobs created so people can feed themselves and house themselves and buy themselves health care, but when these jobs only pay enough for some of the rent and some of the food and none of the health care, there is a problem. I love how the charities step in to help, like the right wing loves to say.

I'm reminded of this point in the Clinton administration. There was a political cartoon of Clinton bragging about new job creation: "Our administration has created XXX Jobs!" and there was a waiter standing behind him saying: "Yes, and I have three of them."

There is recovery. But we didn't get into this mess overnight and we won't be getting out of it overnight.


User currently offlinePangea From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 43, posted (2 years 5 months 6 days 18 hours ago) and read 2356 times:

Quoting seb146 (Reply 37):
The right wing hates it because it is a Black Democrat in the White House doing it.

No, the right wing and folks with common sense hate obama's agenda because we know what he wants is extremely detrimental to the US as a whole. Have you seen America's debt? Apparently not. Obama has out spent the last white guy in the the white house in 3 years which took Bush 8.

Quoting seb146 (Reply 37):
Eight years of rich White guys screwing up the economy and only 3 of mixed race and mixed gender fixing it.

If obama, reid and polosi did nothing the economy would be fairing far better, with far less debt. BTW, the economy didn't start to turn the corner until republicans won the house 2 years ago, which slowed liberal spending. And the root cause of the Obama depression was the result of a liberal social welfare program called the community reinvestment act.

Quoting seb146 (Reply 37):
The right wing hates it because it is a Black Democrat in the White House doing it

If a White Guy said that about a minority he'd be labeled a racist.   

Quoting seb146 (Reply 37):
They are doing everything they can to spin this their way and keep everyone from seeing the Kenyan Muslim Marxist/Socialist/Communist is actually doing something good and right.

  

Seb146,

Obama along with his profligate spending liberal friends are the ones responsible for America loosing its AAA bond rating. And NO? It's not the Tea Parties fault. It simply comes down to the US taking on way too much dept which has now exceed 15 trillion.

You're the one guilty of spinning things my friend!   

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3CMy2M32g4k

[Edited 2012-02-05 06:35:20]

[Edited 2012-02-05 06:36:49]

User currently offlinePangea From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 44, posted (2 years 5 months 6 days 17 hours ago) and read 2351 times:

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 40):
He's sure tried, but the GOP has blocked every effort. In spite of that, the economy is slowly recovering, which is absolutely amazing.

That's inaccurate. The democrat controlled senate has not passed a budget in over 1000 days... that's one thousand days, close to 3 years. The rep controlled House on the other hand has made several attempts to lower spending only to be demagogged.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/...et/2012/02/03/gIQAbLwfpQ_blog.html

Also worth mentioning is Obama's budget failed in the Senate 97-0. Looks like democrats are to blame too.   

http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2011/05/029100.php

NOT A SINGLE SENATOR SUPPORTS BARACK OBAMA’S BUDGET


User currently offlineseb146 From United States of America, joined Nov 1999, 11463 posts, RR: 15
Reply 45, posted (2 years 5 months 6 days 15 hours ago) and read 2299 times:

Quoting Pangea (Reply 43):
republicans won the house 2 years ago, which slowed liberal spending.

And how many years did the right-wing controlled House spend because (to quote the former VP Cheney) "Deficits don't matter" and they just spent, and spent, and spent. We did not amass this $15 Trillion in only 2 years. Keep in mind how many years the right wing held on to the House, where spending originates.

Quoting Pangea (Reply 43):
root cause of the Obama depression was the result of a liberal social welfare program called the community reinvestment act.

Riiiiiight. It wasn't the global empire and wars and creating new departments and new levels of government between 2000 and 2008. That had nothing to do with it at all.

I just wonder what the economy would be like right now if Obama hadn't bailed out the auto companies.



Life in the wall is a drag.
User currently offlineDeltaMD90 From United States of America, joined Apr 2008, 7787 posts, RR: 52
Reply 46, posted (2 years 5 months 6 days 13 hours ago) and read 2262 times:

This left vs right, democrat vs republican pissing match is the reason why nothing ever gets done in this country. No one ever owns up to their party or mistakes. Disgraceful


Ironically I have never flown a Delta MD-90 :)
User currently offlinetugger From United States of America, joined Apr 2006, 5377 posts, RR: 8
Reply 47, posted (2 years 5 months 6 days 12 hours ago) and read 2254 times:

Quoting seb146 (Reply 37):
The right wing hates it because it is a Black Democrat in the White House doing it.

Very uncalled for. Very untrue.

Quoting Pangea (Reply 43):
Obama along with his profligate spending liberal friends are the ones responsible for America loosing its AAA bond rating.

No it is not at all. It is the inability of the the legislature to work together and balance revenues and expenses that caused the rating to drop. Nothing else. Had the legislature raised taxes to meet obligations or cut expenses or a combination of both the rating would likely not have been lowered.

You (as an individual or a country) can spend as much money as you want as long as as you plan and have the income to cover it. You can spend as little money as you want as long as you address the needs of the citizens.
BUT either needs to be planned and be under control and have balance.

You can't just cut expenses to become successful (as a company or country) nor can you just spend your way to success either. You must have a plan and a team that works together toward a common goal.

Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 46):
This left vs right, democrat vs republican pissing match is the reason why nothing ever gets done in this country.

  

Tugg



I don’t know that I am unafraid to be myself, but it is hard to be somebody else. -W. Shatner
User currently offlinePangea From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 48, posted (2 years 5 months 6 days 12 hours ago) and read 2237 times:

Quoting seb146 (Reply 45):
nd how many years did the right-wing controlled House spend because (to quote the former VP Cheney) "Deficits don't matter" and they just spent, and spent, and spent. We did not amass this $15 Trillion in only 2 years. Keep in mind how many years the right wing held on to the House, where spending originates.


Unfortunately, you're not seeing my point and I never said you/obama/liberals amassed a $15 trillion deficit. I just pointed out how much obama added to it in such a minute time. Obama was elected to stop wasteful spending or at least he said he would. What did he do? Raised the deficit the equivalent in 3 years what George Bush raised in 2 terms in office, i.e. 8 years. So heinous was Obama's spending the US lost its long term AAA bond rating. An unprecedented event caused solely by Obama and liberal Keynesian spending.

What did the Stimulus cost? Almost $1 trillion. Did it work? NO!

Bush raised the deficit 4 trillion in 8 years. It took Obama less than 3 to reach that mile stone. So, using your logic it was wrong for the rich, white republicans to spend what obama has in 3 years which took the reps 8 years. Obama would have spend billions, trillions more if not for the tea party/reb landslide victory in 2010. Sorry, but that doesn't pass the smell test.  

Quoting seb146 (Reply 45):
I just wonder what the economy would be like right now if Obama hadn't bailed out the auto companies.


Well, the US would be less in debt, auto companies would have restructured to a more cost effective business model, ultimately reducing the likelihood of future bailouts... saving tax payer money!

sep146,

Where would the US economy be if Obama didn't waste billions on solyndra and chevy volt?   

http://washingtonexaminer.com/opinio...-exposes-lie-government-investment

Solyndra scandal exposes the lie of government 'investment'

Read more at the Washington Examiner: http://washingtonexaminer.com/opinio...overnment-investment#ixzz1lXcKamiv


User currently offlinePangea From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 49, posted (2 years 5 months 6 days 11 hours ago) and read 2234 times:

Quoting tugger (Reply 47):

No it is not at all. It is the inability of the the legislature to work together and balance revenues and expenses that caused the rating to drop. Nothing else. Had the legislature raised taxes to meet obligations or cut expenses or a combination of both the rating would likely not have been lowered.

You're mistaken and that's simply a progressive media talking point to spread the blame on everyone when it solely falls on Obama/reid/pelosi. The House passed a bill that would have avoided the down grade. But Harry Reid didn't even allow the bill to be voted on. I will state this again: The US was down graded because we took on too much debt, debt that we can not pay back. Credit agencies deal with facts, not emotions.

If ObamaCare wasn't implemented the likelihood of a down grade would have been drastically reduced. Same goes for his wasteful and costly stimulus.


User currently offlinezckls04 From United States of America, joined Dec 2011, 1247 posts, RR: 3
Reply 50, posted (2 years 5 months 6 days 11 hours ago) and read 2222 times:

Quoting Pangea (Reply 49):
The US was down graded because we took on too much debt, debt that we can not pay back

Not true. The US wasn't downgraded because of the debt, but because of the inability of Congress to compromise and form a coherent strategy for paying it off. It's the partisanship that is hurting the US most of all right now.



If you're not sure whether to use a piece of punctuation, it's best not to.
User currently offlineD L X From United States of America, joined May 1999, 11155 posts, RR: 52
Reply 51, posted (2 years 5 months 6 days 11 hours ago) and read 2223 times:

Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 11):

Regardless of your political stance, more jobs = good !!

This is why you're on my RR list.

Quoting zckls04 (Reply 50):
Not true. The US wasn't downgraded because of the debt, but because of the inability of Congress to compromise and form a coherent strategy for paying it off.

This is absolutely true. It is quite ironic that the person that you were replying to claims that this is just a progressive media talking point, while he is ignoring the actual stated reasons for the downgrade while himself repeating talking points.


Throw the talking points away people. Don't let someone else tell you what to think. Use your own brains.



Send me a PM at http://www.airliners.net/aviation-forums/sendmessage.main?from_username=NULL
User currently offlinePangea From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 52, posted (2 years 5 months 6 days 10 hours ago) and read 2195 times:

Quoting zckls04 (Reply 50):

Not true. The US wasn't downgraded because of the debt, but because of the inability of Congress to compromise and form a coherent strategy for paying it off. It's the partisanship that is hurting the US most of all right now.
Quoting D L X (Reply 51):

This is absolutely true. It is quite ironic that the person that you were replying to claims that this is just a progressive media talking point, while he is ignoring the actual stated reasons for the downgrade while himself repeating talking points.

With all due respect folks, it's completely asinine to believe the downgrade, which happened during Obama's 3rd year in office, was the result of congress's inability to compromise. Gridlock has been part of the America's political process for over 2 hundred years. Never has America's credit rating been threatened when gridlock was present before. But now that Obama's POTUS, having super majorities in both houses of congress during his 1st 2 years in office it's everyone's fault??? Rubbish! Obama's policies have failed and damaged this nation's future.

If Obama, Reid & Pelosi hadn't spent our grand children's money, while raising America's debt to GDP to close to 100 % we could have had gridlock for Obama's entire 1st term and not been in any jeopardy of loosing our long term AAA bond rating. Why? Because he would not have put the US in such dire circumstances with high debt that was unfortunately have currently.


User currently offlinemt99 From United States of America, joined May 1999, 6565 posts, RR: 6
Reply 53, posted (2 years 5 months 6 days 8 hours ago) and read 2170 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting Pangea (Reply 52):
With all due respect folks, it's completely asinine to believe the downgrade, which happened during Obama's 3rd year in office, was the result of congress's inability to compromise.

Can it be more clear?

"More broadly, the downgrade reflects our view that the effectiveness,
stability, and predictability of American policymaking and political
institutions have weakened at a time of ongoing fiscal and economic
challenges to a degree more than we envisioned when we assigned a
negative outlook to the rating on April 18, 2011.

Since then, we have changed our view of the difficulties in bridging the
gulf between the political parties over fiscal policy, which makes us
pessimistic about the capacity of Congress and the Administration to be
able to leverage their agreement this week into a broader fiscal
consolidation plan that stabilizes the government's debt dynamics any
time soon."

http://www.standardandpoors.com/rati...icles/en/us/?assetID=1245316529563

[Edited 2012-02-05 15:54:59]


Step into my office, baby
User currently offlineDreadnought From United States of America, joined Feb 2008, 8780 posts, RR: 24
Reply 54, posted (2 years 5 months 6 days 4 hours ago) and read 2140 times:

Quoting zckls04 (Reply 50):
Not true. The US wasn't downgraded because of the debt, but because of the inability of Congress to compromise and form a coherent strategy for paying it off. It's the partisanship that is hurting the US most of all right now.

Are you saying that if our debt was much lower, and Congress was still at loggerheads, we would have still lost our credit rating? Utter horse manure.



Veni Vidi Castratavi Illegitimos
User currently offlineseb146 From United States of America, joined Nov 1999, 11463 posts, RR: 15
Reply 55, posted (2 years 5 months 6 days 4 hours ago) and read 2139 times:

Quoting D L X (Reply 51):
Throw the talking points away people. Don't let someone else tell you what to think. Use your own brains.

This makes me sick! When anyone said this under the Bush regeme, we were laughed at and called terrorists and how we hated America.

Quoting Pangea (Reply 48):
Solyndra scandal exposes the lie of government 'investment'

Solyndra had already been approved by the Bush Administration to recieve funding. Another right-wing talking point. Under the Bush rules, Solyndra qualified for funding for Bush Administraion investment.

Quoting Pangea (Reply 48):
Where would the US economy be if Obama didn't waste billions on solyndra and chevy volt?

In a deep DEEP depression!

Quoting Pangea (Reply 48):
Bush raised the deficit 4 trillion in 8 years. It took Obama less than 3 to reach that mile stone. So, using your logic it was wrong for the rich, white republicans to spend what obama has in 3 years which took the reps 8 years.

So, you are saying it is okay for the rich white guy to do it AND take away jobs but for the Democrat it is the worst possible thing ever to do?



Life in the wall is a drag.
User currently offlinePangea From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 56, posted (2 years 5 months 6 days 4 hours ago) and read 2132 times:

Quoting mt99 (Reply 53):
Can it be more clear?

You forgot to mention S&P's headline: "Rising Debt Burden; Outlook Negative". And I stand by what I said. All this could have been avoided if Obama and his boys didn't raise our debt to unprecedented dangerous levels, not seen since WWII. Curious the stuff hits the fiscal fan in Obama's 3rd year after Obama had 2 years of ultimate control of the US government. That's no coincidence.

Wow, this is very presidential.Though he was supposed to be the great uniter. Well, that was just another of his broken promises.   

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Iwt-GiNOiYU&feature=related


User currently offlinePangea From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 57, posted (2 years 5 months 6 days 4 hours ago) and read 2126 times:

Quoting seb146 (Reply 55):
how we hated America.

It appears you still do unfortunately.

Quoting seb146 (Reply 55):
Solyndra had already been approved by the Bush Administration to recieve funding. Another right-wing talking point. Under the Bush rules, Solyndra qualified for funding for Bush Administraion investment.

  

But did the Bush admin approve the loan? NO! The Bush admin in fact voted against the Solyndra loan. Obama approved it even after knowing Solyndra were in very poor shape. I know, I know... it's Bush's fault.   

http://nation.foxnews.com/solyndra/2...-admin-voted-against-solyndra-loan

Bush Admin. Voted AGAINST Solyndra Loan

The results of the Congressional probe shared Tuesday with ABC News show that less than two weeks before President Bush left office, on January 9, 2009, the Energy Department's credit committee had voted against offering a loan commitment to Solyndra.

Even after Obama took office on Jan. 20, 2009, analysts in the Energy Department and in the Office of Management and Budget were repeatedly questioning the wisdom of the loan. In one exchange, an Energy official wrote of "a major outstanding issue" -- namely, that Solyndra's numbers showed it would run out of cash in September 2011.


Read more: http://nation.foxnews.com/solyndra/2...gainst-solyndra-loan#ixzz1lZaGGu56


User currently offlinemt99 From United States of America, joined May 1999, 6565 posts, RR: 6
Reply 58, posted (2 years 5 months 6 days 3 hours ago) and read 2122 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting Pangea (Reply 56):
You forgot to mention S&P's headline: "Rising Debt Burden; Outlook Negative".

Did you not read what was next to that : "Political Risk"?

"United States of America Long-Term Rating Lowered To 'AA+' Due To Political Risks, Rising Debt Burden; Outlook Negative"

Actually "Political Risks" was mentioned BEFORE debt

http://www.standardandpoors.com/rati...icles/en/us/?assetID=1245316529563

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 54):
Are you saying that if our debt was much lower, and Congress was still at loggerheads, we would have still lost our credit rating? Utter horse manure.

Sure, why would it be mentioned so prominently (and repeatedly) if that wasn't the case?

" The political brinksmanship of recent months highlights what we see as
America's governance and policymaking becoming less stable, less effective,
and less predictable than what we previously believed"

http://www.standardandpoors.com/rati...icles/en/us/?assetID=1245316529563

[Edited 2012-02-05 20:18:29]


Step into my office, baby
User currently offlineDeltaMD90 From United States of America, joined Apr 2008, 7787 posts, RR: 52
Reply 59, posted (2 years 5 months 6 days 3 hours ago) and read 2118 times:

Geez. Find the party that hasn't raised our debt ridiculously in the past decade so we can forever call them blameless. But both parties have been irresponsible! Each side points to the other's faults while refusing to take responsibility for their faults.

That's why these debates never get anywhere. Both sides are right with their criticism, constantly attacking each other so they can ignore their own poor policies.

Congress: look at where America is NOW and fix it! The people don't care who did what and when, they want Congress (not a single party) to fix this mess. Arghhh

A word of caution though to the Democrats. I'm not saying the policies implemented have worked or not. Just because we see growth now doesn't mean it will continue that way, and it doesn't necessarily mean the policies are working. Be very careful, try not to take the moral high ground over the Republicans, make sure the policies are indeed working!



Ironically I have never flown a Delta MD-90 :)
User currently offlineDreadnought From United States of America, joined Feb 2008, 8780 posts, RR: 24
Reply 60, posted (2 years 5 months 6 days 3 hours ago) and read 2114 times:

Quoting seb146 (Reply 55):
Solyndra had already been approved by the Bush Administration to recieve funding. Another right-wing talking point. Under the Bush rules, Solyndra qualified for funding for Bush Administraion investment.

The oft-repeated lie, Thanks to Pangea for refuting it (although I'm sure that you will continue to believe that it's all Bush's fault)

Quoting seb146 (Reply 55):
In a deep DEEP depression!

Based on an asset revaluation, which history shows, if government stays out of the way, hits hard and then the economy starts roaring back fairly quickly. But since we have attempted to soften that revaluation, all the government has done is delay the recovery.

Quoting mt99 (Reply 58):

Sure, why would it be mentioned so prominently (and repeatedly) if that wasn't the case?

" The political brinksmanship of recent months highlights what we see as
America's governance and policymaking becoming less stable, less effective,
and less predictable than what we previously believed"

So just because it is after a comma it is irrelevant?



Veni Vidi Castratavi Illegitimos
User currently offlinePangea From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 61, posted (2 years 5 months 6 days 3 hours ago) and read 2112 times:

Quoting seb146 (Reply 55):
Quoting Pangea (Reply 48):
Bush raised the deficit 4 trillion in 8 years. It took Obama less than 3 to reach that mile stone. So, using your logic it was wrong for the rich, white republicans to spend what obama has in 3 years which took the reps 8 years.

So, you are saying it is okay for the rich white guy to do it AND take away jobs but for the Democrat it is the worst possible thing ever to do?

I was trying to put things into their proper context with some sarcasm and humor added in. But it seems you missed that choosing to see things in just black and white.

Quoting seb146 (Reply 55):

Quoting Pangea (Reply 48):
Where would the US economy be if Obama didn't waste billions on solyndra and chevy volt?

In a deep DEEP depression!

  

Woh, having over 1/2 a billion dollars go completely down the drain benefited the economy? How in God's name is that possible? It's not. That's called government wasteful spending. That was nothing but a political pay back for one of Obama's crony friends. Scandalous! And you condone that sep146.

  

[Edited 2012-02-05 20:40:46]

User currently offlinemt99 From United States of America, joined May 1999, 6565 posts, RR: 6
Reply 62, posted (2 years 5 months 6 days 3 hours ago) and read 2107 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 60):

So just because it is after a comma it is irrelevant?

And everything that is before the comma is to be ignored?



Step into my office, baby
User currently offlineSuperfly From Thailand, joined May 2000, 39659 posts, RR: 75
Reply 63, posted (2 years 5 months 6 days 3 hours ago) and read 2108 times:

Quoting CALTECH (Reply 32):
The unemployment number is down because over a million people gave up looking for work.

Agreed but I wish the press and government officials stop using terms like "gave up looking for work". The fact is that many of those receiving unemployment ran out of their 99 weeks. The way unemployment is measured in the US is by those receiving benefits.
Those who ran out of benefits could very well still be looking for work but since they're out of the system, there is no way to measure their job search.
The amount of able body adults out of work is at it's highest in over 30 years. Income is down 10% from 3 years ago.

Quoting Pangea (Reply 44):
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/...et/2012/02/03/gIQAbLwfpQ_blog.html

Also worth mentioning is Obama's budget failed in the Senate 97-0. Looks like democrats are to blame too.

http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2011/05/029100.php

NOT A SINGLE SENATOR SUPPORTS BARACK OBAMA’S BUDGET

WOW!  Wow!
That isn't looking good for Obama.
Obama's budget must really suck if he can't even get Al Franken or Richard Blumenthal to support it.

Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 46):
This left vs right, democrat vs republican pissing match is the reason why nothing ever gets done in this country. No one ever owns up to their party or mistakes. Disgraceful

97-0 looks like a bi-partisan effort to me.

Quoting Pangea (Reply 57):
But did the Bush admin approve the loan? NO! The Bush admin in fact voted against the Solyndra loan. Obama approved it even after knowing Solyndra were in very poor shape. I know, I know... it's Bush's fault.

  
On top of that, the Obama administration speed up the loan process. Then he rushes out to California to give a speech about how Solyndra will is an example of the 'jobs of the future'.
I wonder how many former Solyndra employees are now out there Occupying Wall Street.  



Bring back the Concorde
User currently offlinePangea From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 64, posted (2 years 5 months 6 days 3 hours ago) and read 2106 times:

Quoting mt99 (Reply 58):
Did you not read what was next to that : "Political Risk"?

I read it. But did you read my post?   

Quoting Pangea (Reply 52):

With all due respect folks, it's completely asinine to believe the downgrade, which happened during Obama's 3rd year in office, was the result of congress's inability to compromise. Gridlock has been part of the America's political process for over 2 hundred years. Never has America's credit rating been threatened when gridlock was present before. But now that Obama's POTUS, having super majorities in both houses of congress during his 1st 2 years in office it's everyone's fault??? Rubbish! Obama's policies have failed and damaged this nation's future.

If Obama, Reid & Pelosi hadn't spent our grand children's money, while raising America's debt to GDP to close to 100 % we could have had gridlock for Obama's entire 1st term and not been in any jeopardy of loosing our long term AAA bond rating. Why? Because he would not have put the US in such dire circumstances with high debt that was unfortunately have currently.


User currently offlineDeltaMD90 From United States of America, joined Apr 2008, 7787 posts, RR: 52
Reply 65, posted (2 years 5 months 6 days 3 hours ago) and read 2103 times:

Quoting Superfly (Reply 63):
Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 46):
This left vs right, democrat vs republican pissing match is the reason why nothing ever gets done in this country. No one ever owns up to their party or mistakes. Disgraceful

97-0 looks like a bi-partisan effort to me.

Yikes, that hurts. Wasn't talking about that, just talking in general



Ironically I have never flown a Delta MD-90 :)
User currently offlinePangea From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 66, posted (2 years 5 months 6 days 3 hours ago) and read 2102 times:

  

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 60):

Based on an asset revaluation, which history shows, if government stays out of the way, hits hard and then the economy starts roaring back fairly quickly. But since we have attempted to soften that revaluation, all the government has done is delay the recovery.



Bingo

Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 46):
This left vs right, democrat vs republican pissing match is the reason why nothing ever gets done in this country. No one ever owns up to their party or mistakes. Disgraceful

The downgrade could have been avoided if there was gridlock during Obama's 1st 2 years in office. He would not have had the ability to spend tax payers money so idealistically and callously. What's disgraceful is what Obama, Reid & Pelosi have done to the our children's futures.

  


User currently offlinemt99 From United States of America, joined May 1999, 6565 posts, RR: 6
Reply 67, posted (2 years 5 months 6 days 3 hours ago) and read 2103 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting Pangea (Reply 64):
I read it. But did you read my post?

I did - but you confuse me.. you have changed your tune about this a few time within the same thread..

Quoting Pangea (Reply 49):
The US was down graded because we took on too much debt, debt that we can not pay back. Credit agencies deal with facts, not emotions.

You said that credit agencies did not take into account the "emotions" of political risk - which they clearly did...

Quoting Pangea (Reply 43):
And NO? It's not the Tea Parties fault.

The Tea Party did give Boehner a good run for his money

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011...-vote-on-revamped-debt-limit-bill/

"House Republican leaders unable to secure votes to pass the debt-reduction bill proposed by Speaker John Boehner will regroup Friday morning with a modified proposal aimed at satisfying Tea Party members who want greater cuts in federal spending before agreeing to hike the $14.3 trillion debt ceiling.

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011...ped-debt-limit-bill/#ixzz1lZeaH7rr

I even used your favourite news source, for your pleasure.



Step into my office, baby
User currently offlinePangea From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 68, posted (2 years 5 months 6 days 2 hours ago) and read 2085 times:

Quoting mt99 (Reply 67):

I did - but you confuse me.. you have changed your tune about this a few time within the same thread..

No I didn't

Quoting mt99 (Reply 67):

You said that credit agencies did not take into account the "emotions" of political risk - which they clearly did...

If they did they were wrong in doing so. They should have been apolitical.

Quoting mt99 (Reply 67):

The Tea Party did give Boehner a good run for his money

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011...-vote-on-revamped-debt-limit-bill/

"House Republican leaders unable to secure votes to pass the debt-reduction bill proposed by Speaker John Boehner will regroup Friday morning with a modified proposal aimed at satisfying Tea Party members who want greater cuts in federal spending before agreeing to hike the $14.3 trillion debt ceiling.


Nice try, but what you're conveniently neglecting to take into account is why we were in this debt reduction predicament in the 1st place. The answer is because of Obama, Reid's and Pelosi's over spending. If they didn't put the US on the verge of fiscal collapse the battle for debt reduction would not have been needed nor would a debt downgrade been an issue.

Republicans were trying to hold down Obama's colossal spending. Was Obama? No! He would have spent another couple of trillion if not for the mid term election.

Sorry, but your point is moot!


User currently offlineCASINTEREST From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 4431 posts, RR: 2
Reply 69, posted (2 years 5 months 5 days 17 hours ago) and read 2046 times:

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 33):
You provided the source. Check page 7 of your link.

yes,
But you failed to read page 6.
"
The adjustment increased the estimated size of the civilian noninstitutional population in December by
1,510,000, the civilian labor force by 258,000, employment by 216,000, unemployment by 42,000, and
persons not in the labor force by 1,252,000. Although the total unemployment rate was unaffected, the
labor force participation rate and the employment-population ratio were each reduced by 0.3 percentage
point. This was because the population increase was primarily among persons 55 and older and, to a
lesser degree, persons 16 to 24 years of age. Both these age groups have lower levels of labor force
participation than the general population
"

If we didn't have this adjustment. there would have been 508,000 new jobs created.


Either way, in my neck of the woods, there are a lot of new construction projects getting started, and the general mood on the economy is getting better. Especially with the recent run up in the Stock Market.



Older than I just was ,and younger than I will soo be.
User currently offlinemt99 From United States of America, joined May 1999, 6565 posts, RR: 6
Reply 70, posted (2 years 5 months 5 days 17 hours ago) and read 2036 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting Pangea (Reply 68):
If they did they were wrong in doing so.

"If they did"? The clearly did! I can post the direct link to S&P Statement once more. Will you read it this time?

Quoting Pangea (Reply 68):
They should have been apolitical.

It was apolitical. They did not blame either party. They just stated a fact they consider as correct.

Quoting Pangea (Reply 68):

Nice try, but what you're conveniently neglecting to take into account is why we were in this debt reduction predicament in the 1st place. T

Oh please.. If that's your thinking logic, then blame goes to Bush. Clinton left us with a surplus. Bush threw that way. If he had not, then we would have the current deficit. Is that not a fact?

http://www.factcheck.org/2008/02/the-budget-and-deficit-under-clinton/



Step into my office, baby
User currently offlineseb146 From United States of America, joined Nov 1999, 11463 posts, RR: 15
Reply 71, posted (2 years 5 months 5 days 16 hours ago) and read 2020 times:

Quoting Pangea (Reply 44):
http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2011/05/029100.phpNOT A SINGLE SENATOR SUPPORTS BARACK OBAMA’S BUDGET

It amazes me how a blog can post something with NO SOURCE and people believe it. I suppose if I wave the right-wing banner for a few months, I can also post lies and people will believe it. Not a bad idea!

Quoting Pangea (Reply 57):
But did the Bush admin approve the loan? NO! The Bush admin in fact voted against the Solyndra loan. Obama approved it even after knowing Solyndra were in very poor shape.

But, under the Bush rules, they did qualify. That was what I said. Go back and read.

Quoting Pangea (Reply 57):
It appears you still do unfortunately.

Yes. That's right. Those of us that speak out against right-wing policies hate America. It is only those that speak out against Democrats that are the patriots.

I really REALLY want all you right-wing zealots to go live in your right-wing havens like North Korea, Cuba, Venezuela and Somolia for a year each and tell me how much you love it.

Those are places where only a small group control everything but tell the masses "someday, through hard work at low paying (or no paying) jobs, this will all be yours but, at the same time, we will tell you what we want you to hear and you must pay higer taxes than our small group who have everything." Let me know how much you love your right-wingers then.

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 60):
Based on an asset revaluation, which history shows, if government stays out of the way, hits hard and then the economy starts roaring back fairly quickly.

Right. The government stayed out of the way of Wall Street under Bush and it is Obama's fault the housing and banking industries collaped? Huh? Explain, please.



Life in the wall is a drag.
User currently offlinePangea From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 72, posted (2 years 5 months 5 days 16 hours ago) and read 2003 times:

Quoting mt99 (Reply 70):

Oh please.. If that's your thinking logic, then blame goes to Bush. Clinton left us with a surplus. Bush threw that way. If he had not, then we would have the current deficit. Is that not a fact?

You're again conveniently missing a few things here.   

1st, Clinton worked with a republican congress, using conservatives ideas to rein in spending which eventually lead to a robust economy in his 2nd term. Remember Clinton's 1996 speach? : "The era of big government is over". Now that republicans are attempting to do the same, they're labeled racists. Has Obama worked as Clinton? No! He's the most partisan and polarizing president in my lifetime who is responsible for America's downgrade.


User currently offlinemt99 From United States of America, joined May 1999, 6565 posts, RR: 6
Reply 73, posted (2 years 5 months 5 days 16 hours ago) and read 2000 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting Pangea (Reply 72):
You're again conveniently missing a few things here.

I am not leaving out anything. The facts are there: There was a surplus with Clinton, a deficit with Bush.

Simple. It follows your logic...

[Edited 2012-02-06 08:14:22]


Step into my office, baby
User currently offlineD L X From United States of America, joined May 1999, 11155 posts, RR: 52
Reply 74, posted (2 years 5 months 5 days 15 hours ago) and read 1981 times:

Quoting seb146 (Reply 55):

Quoting D L X (Reply 51):
Throw the talking points away people. Don't let someone else tell you what to think. Use your own brains.

This makes me sick! When anyone said this under the Bush regeme, we were laughed at and called terrorists and how we hated America.

?????

I was one of the people saying it then too.



Send me a PM at http://www.airliners.net/aviation-forums/sendmessage.main?from_username=NULL
User currently offlineDreadnought From United States of America, joined Feb 2008, 8780 posts, RR: 24
Reply 75, posted (2 years 5 months 5 days 13 hours ago) and read 1953 times:

Quoting seb146 (Reply 71):
But, under the Bush rules, they did qualify. That was what I said. Go back and read.

The may have qualified to get their application up to the top, and then they were REJECTED. What part of that do you not get?

Quoting seb146 (Reply 71):
Right. The government stayed out of the way of Wall Street under Bush and it is Obama's fault the housing and banking industries collaped? Huh? Explain, please.

First of all, the government did not stay out of the way - they continued to push sub-prime loans.

As for Obama's fault in it, certainly he was not a prime mover, but he does hold some responsibility.

From his SOTU speech: "And most importantly, American values like fairness and responsibility.

We know what happened when we strayed from those values over the past decade – especially when it comes to our housing market.

Lenders sold loans to families who couldn’t afford them. Banks packaged those mortgages up and traded them for phony profits. It drove up prices and created an unsustainable bubble that burst – and left millions of families who did everything right in a world of hurt.

It was wrong. The housing crisis has been the single biggest drag on our recovery from the recession. It has kept millions of families in debt and unable to spend, and it has left hundreds of thousands of construction workers out of a job."



Here's a blast from the past (2007): Obamas own word about how giving loans out to people that cant afford it is a good idea..

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=FewmvkaTXHU

So which is it? Could those people afford that house or not?

Either way, these banks were FORCED to give these loans by the social do-gooders and this was one of the major reasons for the collapse in our economy.



Veni Vidi Castratavi Illegitimos
User currently offlineDocLightning From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 19275 posts, RR: 58
Reply 76, posted (2 years 5 months 5 days 12 hours ago) and read 1933 times:

Quoting Pangea (Reply 72):
Has Obama worked as Clinton? No! He's the most partisan and polarizing president in my lifetime who is responsible for America's downgrade.

Given that Obama had very little role in the CONGRESSIONAL budget talks, I would say that the above statement is false.

You could blame the congressional Democrats and I'd disagree with you, but at least you wouldn't be completely and demonstrably wrong.


User currently offlinetugger From United States of America, joined Apr 2006, 5377 posts, RR: 8
Reply 77, posted (2 years 5 months 5 days 12 hours ago) and read 1946 times:

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 54):
Are you saying that if our debt was much lower, and Congress was still at loggerheads, we would have still lost our credit rating? Utter horse manure.

And you are saying that you can write an alternate history book? OK you can write fiction, great. You cannot say what you just stated with absolute certainty. You can claim that it is your opinion, that it would have changed things, but it does go up against the written statements of the rating agency involved.

Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 59):
Geez. Find the party that hasn't raised our debt ridiculously in the past decade so we can forever call them blameless. But both parties have been irresponsible! Each side points to the other's faults while refusing to take responsibility for their faults.

That's why these debates never get anywhere. Both sides are right with their criticism, constantly attacking each other so they can ignore their own poor policies.

Congress: look at where America is NOW and fix it! The people don't care who did what and when, they want Congress (not a single party) to fix this mess. Arghhh

Ever feel like you are pissing into the wind with these discussion that devolve into "Uh uh, it's their fault!"?
Quoting Pangea (Reply 72):
1st, Clinton worked with a republican congress, using conservatives ideas to rein in spending which eventually lead to a robust economy in his 2nd term. Remember Clinton's 1996 speach? : "The era of big government is over". Now that republicans are attempting to do the same, they're labeled racists. Has Obama worked as Clinton? No! He's the most partisan and polarizing president in my lifetime who is responsible for America's downgrade.

During the Clinton administration the politics had not become so polarized that the two sides would not work together. Also a stated goal of "no compromise" had not become the definition of success. It frustrates me that the Republican's have removed themselves from the process by making "no comprise" how they define if they succeeded or not. Instead of working together to further the success of the nation and its citizens, the opposing sides have been playing politics and hoping "the other side" fails.

Sorry but "no compromise" is failure in politics. And "just don't let the other guy win in the next election" (or my favorite "anyone but Obama") is not a platform or a strategy.

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 75):
Either way, these banks were FORCED to give these loans by the social do-gooders and this was one of the major reasons for the collapse in our economy.

No bank was forced to provide any loan.

Tu



I don’t know that I am unafraid to be myself, but it is hard to be somebody else. -W. Shatner
User currently offlineDeltaMD90 From United States of America, joined Apr 2008, 7787 posts, RR: 52
Reply 78, posted (2 years 5 months 5 days 11 hours ago) and read 1918 times:

Quoting tugger (Reply 77):
Ever feel like you are pissing into the wind with these discussion that devolve into "Uh uh, it's their fault!"?

Yes, and I think many people go through this phase. I think it's my time to feel the piss in the face.

Quoting tugger (Reply 77):
Also a stated goal of "no compromise" had not become the definition of success.

I never got this concept either. With no compromise, essentially you are doomed to always get have only polarized bills passed through. And with a democrat president, guess which side gets the veto? Not to mention that the bills that do get through are few and far between. Sigh... hopefully 2012 will get rid of a LOT of people...



Ironically I have never flown a Delta MD-90 :)
User currently offlineseb146 From United States of America, joined Nov 1999, 11463 posts, RR: 15
Reply 79, posted (2 years 5 months 5 days 7 hours ago) and read 1887 times:

Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 78):
And with a democrat president, guess which side gets the veto?

Kinda like when DEMOCRATS are in control in Congress and the republi-CON is president? Guess what gets done in the name of "since I am president, I will never cave or compromise!"?

I also love how, all of a sudden, the right-wing is talking about the "real" jobless numbers and want to all of a sudden include those that have given up and those who are under-employed. They never wanted to count those people when there was a republi-CON in the White House....

BTW, keep mis-pronouncing/typing Democrats and I will keep mis-pronouncing/typing the right-wing party.



Life in the wall is a drag.
User currently offlinePangea From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 80, posted (2 years 5 months 5 days 7 hours ago) and read 1879 times:

Quoting seb146 (Reply 79):
I also love how, all of a sudden, the right-wing is talking about the "real" jobless numbers and want to all of a sudden include those that have given up and those who are under-employed. They never wanted to count those people when there was a republi-CON in the White House....

The reason why the size of the workforce is so significant now is due to it falling so quickly to a 30 year low which has contributed to half of the decline in the unemployment number. This was not the case 3 years ago, not even 10 years ago.


User currently offlinetugger From United States of America, joined Apr 2006, 5377 posts, RR: 8
Reply 81, posted (2 years 5 months 5 days 6 hours ago) and read 1876 times:

Quoting seb146 (Reply 79):
Kinda like when DEMOCRATS are in control in Congress and the republi-CON is president? Guess what gets done in the name of "since I am president, I will never cave or compromise!"?

I also love how, all of a sudden, the right-wing is talking about the "real" jobless numbers and want to all of a sudden include those that have given up and those who are under-employed. They never wanted to count those people when there was a republi-CON in the White House....

BTW, keep mis-pronouncing/typing Democrats and I will keep mis-pronouncing/typing the right-wing party.

Wow, seb (or is that supposed to be Seb?   ) take a deep breath!

I am saying this with humor but also honestly, this to me is approaching a gross overreaction to what he poster is trying to actually say. I spell democrat and republican with small letters all the time and mean no disrespect by it. Nor do I take it as disrespect if someone does it. You could say it is disrespectful to say just "Obama" versus "President Obama" or some such and you refer to him by just his name all the time.

To take offense to such small things... that a lot of people react so strongly to such small things bodes poorly for our country and the ability to actually work together and get things working again.

Listening to some of the reactions to Romney's comments on the economy and Chrysler's "Halftime in America" commercial you would think that some republicans (does that make things more even?) think that any comment that the economy is/could be improving is outright political support for President Obama. It's gotten to the point of being crazy.

As was stated earlier by DeltaMD90: "Regardless of your political stance, more jobs = good !!"


Quoting Pangea (Reply 80):
The reason why the size of the workforce is so significant now is due to it falling so quickly to a 30 year low which has contributed to half of the decline in the unemployment number. This was not the case 3 years ago, not even 10 years ago.

Do you really refuse to investigate this? See my post in reply 25:
http://research.stlouisfed.org/publications/review/08/01/DiCecio.pdf

Quote:

CONCLUSION: THE FUTURE OF LABOR FORCE PARTICIPATION

During the past half century, the U.S. LFPR has seen dramatic changes, which have been driven by the rise of women’s participation, an aging of the baby-boom generation, and growing ethnic diversity within the general population. What does the future hold for U.S. labor force participation? According to a report published by the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the overall LFPR is projected to decrease slightly to 65.6 percent in 2014 (Toossi, 2005). Twomain factors are expected to continue to exert downward pressure on the participation rate: the continued decline in the teen LFPR—which is projected to decline from 43.9 percent in 2004 to 39.3 percent in 2014— and the aging of the baby-boom generation. This second factor, however, is likely to lower aggregate participation rates for the next several decades.

As mentioned earlier, the baby boomers have already begun entering into the 55-and-older age category. In her BLS report, Toossi (2005) projected that the fraction of Americans in this age group will rise from 28.4 percent of the adult population today to 33.7 percent by 2014; the Census Bureau projects this figure to be 39 percent by 2030. In contrast, the fraction of the population in the prime-age working group is projected to fall from 55.3 percent today to 51.1 percent by 2014 and 47 percent by 2030.

As baby boomers enter successive age groups, their LFPR should fall dramatically. For instance, the 55 to 59 age group had an LFPR of 72 percent in 2006, and the 60 to 64 age group had an LFPR of approximately 53 percent. Among those 65 and older, the LFPR was just over 15 percent. These numbers, coupled with the increasing proportion of the U.S. population beyond their prime working age over the coming years, suggest that successive generations will be unable to compensate for the baby boomers’ exit from the labor force and U.S. labor supply will decline.

This was released in 2008 and so prepared and research prior to that.

Tugg



I don’t know that I am unafraid to be myself, but it is hard to be somebody else. -W. Shatner
User currently offlinePangea From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 82, posted (2 years 5 months 5 days 5 hours ago) and read 1851 times:

Quoting tugger (Reply 81):
Do you really refuse to investigate this?

I'm well aware of the retiring baby boomer generation. Which is why I bought an investment property in Lee co FL in 2010. Your thesis, however, is flawed because you're putting too much emphasis on the # BB-ers retiring, too little on the stagnant economy. The BB generation will be a more gradual decline in jobs participation. Not the spike down of 1.2 million people dropping out of the workforce in 1 month that we saw from circa- Nov 2011 to Jan 2012.

Quoting tugger (Reply 81):
and the aging of the baby-boom generation. This second factor, however, is likely to lower aggregate participation rates for the next several decades.


I still have many friends and friends of friends under the age of 45 that have been out of work for years. If things were so good. Those jobs being vacated by BBers would be immediately taken by hungry younger workers. But, it appears that's not happening, at least not yet. No correlation for college grads unemployment and the alleged mass exodus of BB-ers leaving the workforce.




Edit-additional:

If all these Baby Boomers are retiring and leaving the workforce, where are all their jobs? Is it assumed their jobs disappear when they retire? I think not. If there were ample jobs available there would be no Occupy Wall Street. But there is! lol

  




[Edited 2012-02-06 19:26:40]

User currently offlineDeltaMD90 From United States of America, joined Apr 2008, 7787 posts, RR: 52
Reply 83, posted (2 years 5 months 5 days 2 hours ago) and read 1823 times:

Quoting seb146 (Reply 79):

Uh, you completely misunderstood what I was trying to say. I was saying I don't understand the Republican's "no compromise" strategy because all it does is create a hyper-partisan atmosphere where bills usually either are supported to ONLY Democrats or ONLY Republicans, usually leading to failure do to lack of support. To further my confusion on this strategy, the Republicans don't have the Oval Office so even if they can get past the Democrats in Congress and push out a partisan bill in their favor (50%), it would just get vetoed (>66%). If anything, my post is against the Republicans, and that borderline goes against my policy of trying to not attack only one side (I placed blame solely on the Republicans).

I don't know how I am mistyping any side's name, I try to avoid name calling at all costs because it doesn't add anything to the discussion... it only causes arguments and further polarization. If you are talking about "democrat" with a little 'd,' I'll be honest and explain how I type posts. I am lazy. The first time I type 'R/republican or D/democrat' I type the rest of the post like that. Half my posts have little d's and r's, half have D's and R's. It is consistent within the post unless I make a mistake. I thought that was going way above and beyond trying to avoid bias this way, and I didn't think anyone actually kept track of my capitalization  



Ironically I have never flown a Delta MD-90 :)
User currently offlineCASINTEREST From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 4431 posts, RR: 2
Reply 84, posted (2 years 5 months 4 days 18 hours ago) and read 1794 times:

Quoting Pangea (Reply 82):
Not the spike down of 1.2 million people dropping out of the workforce in 1 month that we saw from circa- Nov 2011 to Jan 2012

That wasn't a spike down. Or people dropping out of the workforce. It was a population readjustment. Did you happen to notice that 2 million people joined the civilian population in that period as well?


    



Older than I just was ,and younger than I will soo be.
User currently offlinemt99 From United States of America, joined May 1999, 6565 posts, RR: 6
Reply 85, posted (2 years 5 months 4 days 17 hours ago) and read 1784 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting Pangea (Reply 82):
No correlation for college grads unemployment and the alleged mass exodus of BB-ers leaving the workforce.

Funny you should mention college grad unemployment rate. Its currently 4.2% and has held steady,.,,

Keep in school kids!



Step into my office, baby
User currently offlinetugger From United States of America, joined Apr 2006, 5377 posts, RR: 8
Reply 86, posted (2 years 5 months 4 days 16 hours ago) and read 1772 times:

Quoting Pangea (Reply 82):
I'm well aware of the retiring baby boomer generation. Which is why I bought an investment property in Lee co FL in 2010. Your thesis, however, is flawed because you're putting too much emphasis on the # BB-ers retiring, too little on the stagnant economy. The BB generation will be a more gradual decline in jobs participation. Not the spike down of 1.2 million people dropping out of the workforce in 1 month that we saw from circa- Nov 2011 to Jan 2012.

It is not my thesis. It is a well vetted source for why am making the statements I am making. What are your sources for the statements you are making? Where did you get your information?

I see that others have answered the questions you posed.

Tugg



I don’t know that I am unafraid to be myself, but it is hard to be somebody else. -W. Shatner
User currently offlineseb146 From United States of America, joined Nov 1999, 11463 posts, RR: 15
Reply 87, posted (2 years 5 months 4 days 15 hours ago) and read 1771 times:

Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 83):
I was saying I don't understand the Republican's "no compromise" strategy because all it does is create a hyper-partisan atmosphere where bills usually either are supported to ONLY Democrats or ONLY Republicans, usually leading to failure do to lack of support.

Both sides do this and it is stupid. They all get into "We'll show them by doing X" and, when someone from the other party sides with them, they are called all sorts of horrible names.

The biggest problem I have is that when the right-wing goes around protesting and calling people terrorist and anti-American and "respect the office of the president!" but when anyone else does the exact same thing, all of a sudden it is the worst thing to do ever; no one should ever protest, how dare the right be called terrorist and anti-American and "we can disrespect the office of the president all we want; freedom of speech!"

No only that, but when their hypocracy is pointed out, they start saying "well the other side did X first!" So, that makes it right?



Life in the wall is a drag.
User currently offlineDeltaMD90 From United States of America, joined Apr 2008, 7787 posts, RR: 52
Reply 88, posted (2 years 5 months 4 days 15 hours ago) and read 1771 times:

Quoting seb146 (Reply 87):
Both sides do this and it is stupid. They all get into "We'll show them by doing X" and, when someone from the other party sides with them, they are called all sorts of horrible names.

  

Quoting seb146 (Reply 87):
The biggest problem I have is that when the right-wing goes around protesting and calling people terrorist and anti-American and "respect the office of the president!" but when anyone else does the exact same thing, all of a sudden it is the worst thing to do ever; no one should ever protest, how dare the right be called terrorist and anti-American and "we can disrespect the office of the president all we want; freedom of speech!"

   Funny you should say this, I had a few revelations lately and I thought "why haven't more people thought of this?" then I realized "Oh, they did, the same people I used to call pussies"  
Quoting seb146 (Reply 87):
No only that, but when their hypocracy is pointed out, they start saying "well the other side did X first!" So, that makes it right?

   Yeah, I say this often, usually gets ignored.

I don't know why you got mad at my post. I was essentially agreeing with you...

And I was literally laying in bed and I have no idea why, but this popped in my head:

Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 83):
it would just get vetoed (>66%)

Should say "<66%"

[Edited 2012-02-07 08:33:10]


Ironically I have never flown a Delta MD-90 :)
User currently offlinezhiao From United States of America, joined Jan 2011, 394 posts, RR: 0
Reply 89, posted (2 years 5 months 4 days 13 hours ago) and read 1752 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

The unemployment rate is based on the household survey, which is different than the source where the 243,000 is from. The household survey showed 800,000 jobs being created, hence the drop in the rate. The LF did not shrink at all. There was a net increase!

User currently offlinePangea From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 90, posted (2 years 5 months 2 days 18 hours ago) and read 1680 times:

Gentlemen,

Current economic conditions, social events too i.e. OWS, show that the primary cause for the declining workforce is due to people of all ages leaving the workforce because they have given up due to a very poor economy. Retirements are a small, minute factor.

The Worst Economic Recovery Since The Great Depression
http://heartland.org/editorial/2012/...economic-recovery-great-depression

Notably, blacks have been suffering another depression under Obama, with unemployment today, 49 months after the recession started, still at 15.8%. Black unemployment has been over 15% for 2 ½ years under Obama. Black teenage unemployment today is over 40%, where it has persisted for over 2 years as well.

While Obama crows about 200,000 jobs created last month, the most for a month during his entire Administration, in September, 1983 the Reagan recovery less than a year after it began created 1.1 million jobs in that one month alone. Under Obama, we are still almost 6 million jobs below the peak before the recession started over 4 years ago! In the second year of the Reagan recovery, real economic growth boomed by 6.8%, the highest in 50 years.

Dependency Index Surges 23% Under President Obama
http://news.investors.com/Article/60...ce-jumps-under-president-obama.htm


Home prices still falling
http://money.msn.com/home-loans/arti...c0125c-e865-46f8-a776-34ab96abd3b6

Food Stamp Demand Increases
http://www.nbcsandiego.com/news/loca...ego-demand-increase-138972084.html


http://www.forbes.com/sites/peterfer...lan-pass-something-that-will-work/

The poverty rate climbed to 15.1%, higher than in the late 1960s when the War on Poverty was getting underway, $16 trillion ago.

The child poverty rate climbed to 22%, nearly a quarter of all American children. The total number of Americans in poverty is higher than at any time in the over 50 years that the Census Bureau has been tallying poverty.

The number of Americans ages 25-34 living with their parents has soared by 25% since the recession began.


User currently offlinezhiao From United States of America, joined Jan 2011, 394 posts, RR: 0
Reply 91, posted (2 years 5 months 2 days 15 hours ago) and read 1653 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

I repeat the LF did not shrink. The numbers from the BLS look that way because of population adjustment it made using 2010 Census numbers. The WSJ itself has said that this is simply a statistical change, and that the labor force in actuality grew.

User currently offlinetugger From United States of America, joined Apr 2006, 5377 posts, RR: 8
Reply 92, posted (2 years 5 months 2 days 15 hours ago) and read 1647 times:

Quoting zhiao (Reply 91):
I repeat the LF did not shrink. The numbers from the BLS look that way because of population adjustment it made using 2010 Census numbers. The WSJ itself has said that this is simply a statistical change, and that the labor force in actuality grew.

To whit:

Quote:
The employment gain wasn’t immediately obvious to some observers because of a quirk in this month’s report. Every January, the Labor Department readjusts its data to account for changes in the population. The tweaks are especially significant in years like this one that take into account a new decennial census.

This year, the population adjustment makes it look like the employment-population ratio didn’t change from December to January. In reality, the ratio improved by 0.3 percentage points. The gains were just masked by the population adjustments.

Here’s what happened: According to the Census Bureau, the civilian population grew by 1.5 million people in 2011. But the growth wasn’t distributed evenly. Most of the growth came among people 55 and older and, to a lesser degree, by people 16-24 years old. Both groups are less likely to work than people in their mid-20s to early 50s. So the share of the population that’s working is actually lower than previously believed. Taking that into account, the employment-population ratio went up. The unemployment rate wasn’t affected.

“There was not a big increase in discouraged workers,” economist Betsey Stevenson commented on Twitter. “What happened was Census found a bunch of old people we had assumed died.”
http://blogs.wsj.com/economics/2012/...behind-the-unemployment-rate-drop/

Tugg



I don’t know that I am unafraid to be myself, but it is hard to be somebody else. -W. Shatner
User currently offlineCASINTEREST From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 4431 posts, RR: 2
Reply 93, posted (2 years 5 months 2 days 15 hours ago) and read 1646 times:

Quoting Pangea (Reply 90):
Gentlemen,

Current economic conditions, social events too i.e. OWS, show that the primary cause for the declining workforce is due to people of all ages leaving the workforce because they have given up due to a very poor economy. Retirements are a small, minute factor

'Do you have anything other than regurgitated links from 4-6 months ago?
this post of yours ranks somwhere between outdated and irrelevant.



Older than I just was ,and younger than I will soo be.
User currently offlineseb146 From United States of America, joined Nov 1999, 11463 posts, RR: 15
Reply 94, posted (2 years 5 months 2 days 15 hours ago) and read 1640 times:

Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 88):
I don't know why you got mad at my post. I was essentially agreeing with you...

One thing that bothers me about the English language is there is no equivilant for "all of you" so we have to say "you" and people take it personal. I know and understand and write posts with the thought that there are those who understand beyond what MSM tells them. Then, there are those who simply parrot the talking points.

Both sides.

Also, let's not forget that it was unregulated capitalism and free market greed that the right-wing wanted that got us into this whole housing and spending mess in the first place.



Life in the wall is a drag.
User currently offlineTOMMY767 From United States of America, joined Aug 2003, 6584 posts, RR: 11
Reply 95, posted (2 years 5 months 2 days 15 hours ago) and read 1633 times:

Quoting seb146 (Reply 94):
Also, let's not forget that it was unregulated capitalism and free market greed that the right-wing wanted that got us into this whole housing and spending mess in the first place.

No. the democrats were the ones who were active is letting all those sub prime loans be handed out to people who didn't have the credentials to pay for them.



"Folks that's the news and I'm outta here!" -- Dennis Miller
User currently offlinemt99 From United States of America, joined May 1999, 6565 posts, RR: 6
Reply 96, posted (2 years 5 months 2 days 15 hours ago) and read 1631 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting TOMMY767 (Reply 95):
No. the democrats were the ones who were active is letting all those sub prime loans be handed out to people who didn't have the credentials to pay for them.

While certain Republican President stood and watched..



Step into my office, baby
User currently offlineKen777 From United States of America, joined Mar 2004, 8162 posts, RR: 8
Reply 97, posted (2 years 5 months 2 days 14 hours ago) and read 1625 times:

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 42):
There is recovery. But we didn't get into this mess overnight and we won't be getting out of it overnight.

Too many times people are saying the Great Recession is going to take a generation or two to recover.

Quoting Pangea (Reply 43):
we know what he wants is extremely detrimental to the US as a whole.

Everyone on the far right believes that, but his cleaning up of the Bush/Cheney Mess has been pretty effective. With the Party of No controlling the House and screwing up the Senate Obama's performance has been even more impressive

Quoting Pangea (Reply 43):
Obama has out spent the last white guy in the the white house in 3 years which took Bush 8.

That is the price of cleaning up the mess of 8 years of Bush & Cheney. The worst economic disaster since another Republican drove the country into the Great Recession and you want a cheap solution? Maybe if Bush & Cheney wasn't so in love with their Guns & Butter & Cake Economy we might have been able to have had a lower Republican Economic Disaster. And just think how well things would have gone if we had voted in a geriatric Bush III with Alaska Barbie as his economic backup.

Quoting Pangea (Reply 43):
If obama, reid and polosi did nothing the economy would be fairing far better

If Bush II had been able to talk Colin Powell into being his VP we could have avoided the trillions the Ego War is going to cost us, That takes the Guns & Butter out of the equation and maybe the "Let Them Eat Cake" mentality would have been muted some.

Quoting Pangea (Reply 43):
And the root cause of the Obama depression

The "Obama Depression". LOL!

You must believe that Bush II was an economic genius and left the country in great shape.   

Quoting TOMMY767 (Reply 95):
No. the democrats were the ones who were active is letting all those sub prime loans be handed out to people who didn't have the credentials to pay for them.

I've noted it before, but 40+ years ago when the Wife and & bought our first home on the GI Bill there were (generally) young families in the neighborhood who were buying houses on the 235 Program. They went to work and paid their mortgages, just like we did. But the neighborhood was not one of large homes. Great starter homes because there was a financial reality to them.

The difference with the housing bubble we experienced (and the bubble bursting under Bush II) was the fact that the financial sector and housing market worked out games so they could make a lot of profits if a mortgage failed. The focus shifted from a rational program to get people started on home ownership to churning sales regardless of the ability to pay. It was massively profitable venture for business and massively distractive for homeowners. Especially the homeowners today who are still paying their mortgages, but are so underwater they have no hope of traditional American mobility.

That financial sector abuse brings into focus that our problems are not based on the "liberals". We had conservatives and liberals when we bought out first home on the GI Bill. We also had a far more responsible financial sector. If low income housing programs could work back in the 60s and 70s with a responsible financial sector there is no reason why it could not have worked in this decade - if we had had a responsible financial sector who didn't play the games they were playing.


User currently offlineDeltaMD90 From United States of America, joined Apr 2008, 7787 posts, RR: 52
Reply 98, posted (2 years 5 months 2 days 14 hours ago) and read 1607 times:

Quoting seb146 (Reply 94):
One thing that bothers me about the English language is there is no equivilant for "all of you"

They do, it's "yall" 


But back on topic, how are we going to avoid a crisis like this if we can't even agree on the cause of it? Was it uncontrolled capitalism, or was it being too generous handing out loans/mortgages? I'm not taking anyone's word blindly, so I'm having a hard time finding the truth... or is it a combination of both of them? I don't care who's fault it is, D or R, I just want to know the policy (with the party remaining anonymous) that caused all this...



Ironically I have never flown a Delta MD-90 :)
User currently offlinePangea From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 99, posted (2 years 5 months 2 days 14 hours ago) and read 1604 times:

Reply 96- Mt99

Google: Youtube Republicans warned democrats of fanny mea and freddy mac. Youtube Fannie may freddie mac Barnnie frank.

I'd provide the link. But I'm at EWR via blackberry.

FYI, Republicans attempted to restructure FM and FM for years. And were labeled racists for doing so.


User currently offlinemt99 From United States of America, joined May 1999, 6565 posts, RR: 6
Reply 100, posted (2 years 5 months 2 days 14 hours ago) and read 1603 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting Pangea (Reply 99):
FYI, Republicans attempted to restructure FM and FM for years. A

Who was president? where does the proverbial "buck" stops?

So in their capacity as Presidents to dictate economic policy, GWB was completely innocent during the mortgage mess and Obama completely at fault for the current recovery?

Funny...



Step into my office, baby
User currently offlineTOMMY767 From United States of America, joined Aug 2003, 6584 posts, RR: 11
Reply 101, posted (2 years 5 months 2 days 14 hours ago) and read 1602 times:

Quoting mt99 (Reply 96):
While certain Republican President stood and watched..

Yeah we still got that. Bush and Obama are actually very similar in terms of the way they govern the Executive. They both do a horrible job of reaching across the isle in congress, they spend a crapload of taxpayer money, they flip flop a lot on the issues, and they give the worst speeches.

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 97):

Another BIG component of subprime mortgage crisis was the whole notion of living beyond ones means. The generation x'ers have some of the lowest savings of any generation, and they were buying large mc mansions that they couldn't afford. They were greedy, the banks were greedy, and in the end the American Dream was crushed.



"Folks that's the news and I'm outta here!" -- Dennis Miller
User currently offlinePangea From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 102, posted (2 years 5 months 2 days 13 hours ago) and read 1611 times:

Ok Mt99, yeah the buck stops with Obama. See my reply 90. lol

(Rotfl)


User currently offlinezhiao From United States of America, joined Jan 2011, 394 posts, RR: 0
Reply 103, posted (2 years 5 months 2 days 13 hours ago) and read 1604 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Let's wait until next months good employment number, and then the month after. Soon threre will be no excuses.

User currently offlinemt99 From United States of America, joined May 1999, 6565 posts, RR: 6
Reply 104, posted (2 years 5 months 2 days 13 hours ago) and read 1599 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting Pangea (Reply 102):
Ok Mt99, yeah the buck stops with Obama. See my reply 90. lol

and it didn't with Bush?



Step into my office, baby
User currently offlinemt99 From United States of America, joined May 1999, 6565 posts, RR: 6
Reply 105, posted (2 years 5 months 2 days 10 hours ago) and read 1587 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

"Forty percent (40%) of Likely U.S. Voters now rate the president’s performance in the economic area as good or excellent, according to a new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey"

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/publ...ame_bush_not_obama_for_bad_economy



Step into my office, baby
User currently offlineDocLightning From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 19275 posts, RR: 58
Reply 106, posted (2 years 5 months 2 days 6 hours ago) and read 1563 times:

Quoting mt99 (Reply 105):
"Forty percent (40%) of Likely U.S. Voters now rate the president’s performance in the economic area as good or excellent, according to a new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey"

November is a long time away...


User currently offlineCALTECH From Poland, joined May 2007, 2163 posts, RR: 25
Reply 107, posted (2 years 5 months 2 days 3 hours ago) and read 1542 times:

Quoting Superfly (Reply 63):
Agreed but I wish the press and government officials stop using terms like "gave up looking for work". The fact is that many of those receiving unemployment ran out of their 99 weeks. The way unemployment is measured in the US is by those receiving benefits.
Those who ran out of benefits could very well still be looking for work but since they're out of the system, there is no way to measure their job search.
The amount of able body adults out of work is at it's highest in over 30 years. Income is down 10% from 3 years ago.

They use the numbers, just like they change their campaign promises to protect themselves. The unemployment rate is very high.


No, nobody manipulates the figures,....

http://news.yahoo.com/white-house-is...s-forecast-disavows-133307929.html

"President Barack Obama will forecast a U.S. unemployment rate averaging 8.9 percent in 2012 in his annual budget on Monday - but before the document was even released a top aide called the projection "stale" and said it should be lower."

Most transparent administration, yeah, I'll agree with that. Let's spend waste another 800 Billion.



UNITED We Stand
User currently offlinemt99 From United States of America, joined May 1999, 6565 posts, RR: 6
Reply 108, posted (2 years 5 months 2 days 3 hours ago) and read 1542 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting CALTECH (Reply 107):
"stale"

""The forecast of the unemployment rate that will accompany the budget should be considered stale and out of date,""

http://news.yahoo.com/white-house-is...s-forecast-disavows-133307929.html

"out of date" data shouldn't be corrected?



Step into my office, baby
User currently offlineDeltaMD90 From United States of America, joined Apr 2008, 7787 posts, RR: 52
Reply 109, posted (2 years 5 months 2 days 3 hours ago) and read 1542 times:

I think the next few months will answer a lot of questions... are his policies working or is this month just a fluke? I really hope this is just the beginning of a great growth, but we shouldn't be so quick to say if his policies are or aren't working. If it isn't a fluke, the job rate should continue to go up and the people can make a fair assessment in November.

As a side note, I wonder what the GOP candidates will say if we are recovering? They seemed almost sunk before these new jobs were created



Ironically I have never flown a Delta MD-90 :)
User currently offlineDocLightning From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 19275 posts, RR: 58
Reply 110, posted (2 years 5 months 2 days 2 hours ago) and read 1543 times:

Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 109):
As a side note, I wonder what the GOP candidates will say if we are recovering?

Well, "Morals!" "Homosexuals are destroying Christian children!" "Death Panels!"

Worked great for Dole in 1996...


User currently offlineCALTECH From Poland, joined May 2007, 2163 posts, RR: 25
Reply 111, posted (2 years 5 months 1 day 6 hours ago) and read 1483 times:

Quoting mt99 (Reply 108):
"out of date" data shouldn't be corrected?

Sure. Just they aren't revising the unemployed figure upwards like they should. Manipulators. Dare I say it, liars. I am sure that folks that are saying this horrid economy under Obama is actually doing great, are the same folks who screamed how bad the economy was under Bushie when the unemployment rate was 4 - 5 %.

Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 109):
As a side note, I wonder what the GOP candidates will say if we are recovering? They seemed almost sunk before these new jobs were created

Hope they say great, but the economy is not getting better, no matter how Obama's cheerleaders in the media try to spin it. His policies are a disaster for The USA.

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 110):
Well, "Morals!" "Homosexuals are destroying Christian children!" "Death Panels!"Worked great for Dole in 1996...

Stained Blue Intern dresses and I didn't have sex with that woman, yeah baby, Morals.
Well, can you change it to "Homosexual Catholic Priests are destroying Christian boy children!" then we can be in agreement.
Death Panels? Do you mean these ?

UNITED We Stand
User currently offlinemt99 From United States of America, joined May 1999, 6565 posts, RR: 6
Reply 112, posted (2 years 5 months 1 day 6 hours ago) and read 1478 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting CALTECH (Reply 111):
Just they aren't revising the unemployed figure upwards like they should.

They are not talking about the "unemployed figure", They are talking about the "unemployment rate". Which in case you haven't noticed.. went down last Friday.

Quoting CALTECH (Reply 111):
Stained Blue Intern dresses and I didn't have sex with that woman, yeah baby, Morals.

When Newt was prosecuting Clinton, he was having an affair. How conservative!

Quoting CALTECH (Reply 111):
I am sure that folks that are saying this horrid economy under Obama is actually doing great, are the same folks who screamed how bad the economy was under Bushie when the unemployment rate was 4 - 5 %

Prove it. I think you are wrong. No on really though that the economy during Bush was bad. Bush wasn't liked for other reasons cough - Iraq - cough during In fact, if the economy would have held until past the 2008 election Bush would have been in the clear in the economic front.

But it didn't, it was not until the Spring of 2008 , that people realized that the great economy under Bush was full of hot air. But before that, most people gave him a pass in the economic department.

Quoting CALTECH (Reply 111):
Well, can you change it to "Homosexual Catholic Priests are destroying Christian boy children!" then we can be in agreement.

Now, now.. that has never happened..



Step into my office, baby
User currently offlineCALTECH From Poland, joined May 2007, 2163 posts, RR: 25
Reply 113, posted (2 years 5 months 1 day 4 hours ago) and read 1477 times:

Quoting mt99 (Reply 112):
They are not talking about the "unemployed figure", They are talking about the "unemployment rate". Which in case you haven't noticed.. went down last Friday.

Semantics. In which case if you haven't noticed, this economy is really the worst since Carter.

http://www.usnews.com/news/blogs/was...times-worse-than-carter-on-economy
"Carter, is seen as more than five times better than Obama on fixing the economy.
Didn't see that one coming.   

Quoting mt99 (Reply 112):
When Newt was prosecuting Clinton, he was having an affair. How conservative!

Clinton prosecuting Monica Lewinsky, now that was a smoking affair. Having a affair with a intern. How liberal.

Quoting mt99 (Reply 112):
Prove it.

Too easy.

"Where are the jobs, Mr. President?

- Nancy Pelosi August, 2003

“The fact is that President Bush’s misguided economic policies have failed to create jobs.(Unemployment rate in August, 2003 was 6.1%) Since President Bush took office, the country has lost 3.2 million jobs, the worst record since President Hoover. (4.3 million jobs lost since Obama took office) And today we learned that in July nearly half a million people gave up looking for a job. (An estimated 661,000 people gave up looking for work in January, 2010) Job losses are taking a real toll on the financial security of American families. While Democrats are fighting for opportunity, jobs, and economic security for working families, Republicans continue to focus on helping those who need help the least. (During 2009, large financial institutions received billions while nothing was done for small business or the middle class) According to today’s survey, while the national unemployment rate dropped slightly, it still stands at a near record high (At the time of Pelosi's rant, the unemployment rate was 6.1% compared to the current rate of 9.7%) . In addition, the unemployment rate for African Americans was still over 11 percent in July, and the unemployment rate for Hispanics was 8.2 percent in July. (Current 2010 unemployment rate for African-Americans is 17.2% and for Hispanic workers is 12.6%) It is time for President Bush and the Republicans to get to work for all Americans, not just the elite few.” (AIG, Goldman-Sachs, SEIU, UAW, GE, etc., etc. etc.)Where are the jobs, Mr. President?"

And many democrat politicians were echoing her hypocrisy, Reid chief among them.

Quoting mt99 (Reply 112):
But it didn't, it was not until the Spring of 2008 , that people realized that the great economy under Bush was full of hot air. But before that, most people gave him a pass in the economic department.

I think congratulations to Barney Frank and Chris Dodd are in order for that economy full of hot air. Along with Reid and Pelosi who were in charge of the Senate and House in 2006, just before that economy full of hot air collapsed. Hmmm, they take over the legislative branch and the economy tanks. Hmm. Bravo, kudos to those great democrats.

Quoting mt99 (Reply 112):
Now, now.. that has never happened..
http://www.towleroad.com/2010/03/cat...oys-vatican-failed-to-stop-it.html
"a priest who molested as many as 200 deaf boys"

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-16906573
"A former Roman Catholic priest from Staffordshire has been found guilty of sexually abusing seven boys."

Homosexual Pedophiliac Catholic Priests. Want to see more ? The list is extensive. Sick monsters preying on kids.



UNITED We Stand
User currently offlineseb146 From United States of America, joined Nov 1999, 11463 posts, RR: 15
Reply 114, posted (2 years 5 months 15 hours ago) and read 1437 times:

Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 98):
Was it uncontrolled capitalism, or was it being too generous handing out loans/mortgages?
Quoting TOMMY767 (Reply 95):
No. the democrats were the ones who were active is letting all those sub prime loans be handed out to people who didn't have the credentials to pay for them.

So, Tommy, it was never the banks approving loans? The banks had nothing to do with lumping all those sub-prime mortgages together with standard mortgages to people with excellent credit and selling them off as AAA rated and then the same banks betting those AAA bundles would fail? They made billions of dollars on those bets, BTW. It was all the Democrats doing that and not the banks at all? Really? How did that work, exactly? With the banks and all their assets not lending a cent and Freddie and Fannie and Chase and BofA and WaMu and all the banks being PRIVATE COMPANIES? How did that work?



Life in the wall is a drag.
User currently offlinePu From Sweden, joined Dec 2011, 696 posts, RR: 13
Reply 115, posted (2 years 5 months 6 hours ago) and read 1404 times:

Quoting Pangea (Reply 49):
The US was down graded because we took on too much debt, debt that we can not pay back. Credit agencies deal with facts, not emotions.

Incorrect.

A careful reading from S&P reveals the US credit rating was not downgraded because of inability to pay, in fact the financial ability of the American government to repay its debts were lauded as peerless.

The US credit rating was downgraded because of lack of political will to repay its debts in an orderly and stable manner. In other words the risk of domestic political infighting causing a technical default is in fact the only risk causing the credit rating to fall, actual ability to pay was and is not in question.

NOW, sorry for the interruption, please continue the political infighting and petty partisanship which is causing all the problems. It is of course better that your team win than it is to achieve what is best for your country.

Pu


User currently offlinePangea From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 116, posted (2 years 5 months 5 hours ago) and read 1399 times:

Quoting Pu (Reply 116):
NOW, sorry for the interruption, please continue the political infighting and petty partisanship which is causing all the problems. It is of course better that your team win than it is to achieve what is best for your country.

Pu

Hhmm, this super hyper partisan political infighting didn't seem to materialize until Obama took office. Obama mocking republicans while making statements like: "Republicans will have to sit in the back of the bus" really made for a wonderful political environment. Wow, so presidential!   

Quoting mt99 (Reply 105):
"Forty percent (40%) of Likely U.S. Voters now rate the president’s performance in the economic area as good or excellent, according to a new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey"

How many of these people who believe that are on some kind of gov assitance???   

A third of the U.S. population receives government money.
http://www.minbcnews.com/news/story.aspx?id=591287

CNBC says social welfare benefits account for 35% of wages and salaries in America.

Experts say the recession has a lot to do with that, but they also warn the growing trend could cause hardships in the future.

In 2011, one out of three people getting paid in the U.S. is getting their money from tax payers.


User currently offlinePangea From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 117, posted (2 years 5 months 4 hours ago) and read 1393 times:

Quoting zhiao (Thread starter):
Obama is now where Reagan was, going into his second term.

  

Maybe from a very questionable unemployment rate #. Other than that Obama's record on the economy is dire. Reagan's on the other hand was far more robust.


Quoting Pangea (Reply 90):
The Worst Economic Recovery Since The Great Depression
http://heartland.org/editorial/2012/...economic-recovery-great-depression

Notably, blacks have been suffering another depression under Obama, with unemployment today, 49 months after the recession started, still at 15.8%. Black unemployment has been over 15% for 2 ½ years under Obama. Black teenage unemployment today is over 40%, where it has persisted for over 2 years as well.

While Obama crows about 200,000 jobs created last month, the most for a month during his entire Administration, in September, 1983 the Reagan recovery less than a year after it began created 1.1 million jobs in that one month alone. Under Obama, we are still almost 6 million jobs below the peak before the recession started over 4 years ago! In the second year of the Reagan recovery, real economic growth boomed by 6.8%, the highest in 50 years.

Dependency Index Surges 23% Under President Obama
http://news.investors.com/Article/60...ce-jumps-under-president-obama.htm


Home prices still falling
http://money.msn.com/home-loans/arti...c0125c-e865-46f8-a776-34ab96abd3b6

Food Stamp Demand Increases
http://www.nbcsandiego.com/news/loca...ego-demand-increase-138972084.html


http://www.forbes.com/sites/peterfer...lan-pass-something-that-will-work/

The poverty rate climbed to 15.1%, higher than in the late 1960s when the War on Poverty was getting underway, $16 trillion ago.

The child poverty rate climbed to 22%, nearly a quarter of all American children. The total number of Americans in poverty is higher than at any time in the over 50 years that the Census Bureau has been tallying poverty.

The number of Americans ages 25-34 living with their parents has soared by 25% since the recession began.


User currently offlinePu From Sweden, joined Dec 2011, 696 posts, RR: 13
Reply 118, posted (2 years 4 months 3 weeks 2 days 11 hours ago) and read 1221 times:

Quoting Pangea (Reply 116):

Hhmm, this super hyper partisan political infighting didn't seem to materialize until Obama took office

Do you honestly not see the ridiculous partisan political infighting of which you practice as perfectly exemplified by your statement?

Solutions are irrelevant, the main goal is attacking the opposite team and getting your favourite team in power.

Pu


User currently offlineCASINTEREST From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 4431 posts, RR: 2
Reply 119, posted (2 years 4 months 3 weeks 2 days 6 hours ago) and read 1195 times:

Quoting Pu (Reply 118):
Do you honestly not see the ridiculous partisan political infighting of which you practice as perfectly exemplified by your statement?

Solutions are irrelevant, the main goal is attacking the opposite team and getting your favourite team in power.

Of course he doesn't.
He just regurgitated the same junk he couldn't defend earlier in the thread.. Lame and outdated info,



Older than I just was ,and younger than I will soo be.
User currently offlineDocLightning From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 19275 posts, RR: 58
Reply 120, posted (2 years 4 months 3 weeks 2 days 6 hours ago) and read 1200 times:

Quoting Pangea (Reply 116):
Hhmm, this super hyper partisan political infighting didn't seem to materialize until Obama took office.

Yeah. Well-spotted. It started with the Birthers. Then the Tea Party took over. But it REALLY got going after the Tea Party took over one half of one branch of government and ensured a complete shut-down of congress down to 9% approval rating.

So maybe it's not Obama.


User currently offlineDreadnought From United States of America, joined Feb 2008, 8780 posts, RR: 24
Reply 121, posted (2 years 4 months 3 weeks 1 day 17 hours ago) and read 1160 times:

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 120):
Yeah. Well-spotted. It started with the Birthers. Then the Tea Party took over. But it REALLY got going after the Tea Party took over one half of one branch of government and ensured a complete shut-down of congress down to 9% approval rating.

So maybe it's not Obama.

Let's review a few points:

- US was downgraded, in part because of the political infighting.
- The political infighting is between one group who wants to reduce spending and taxes - the other wants to continue to tax and spend without limits - hell, even without a budget - The Dems announced last week that they will not even try to pass a budget this year, for the 4th year running.

How the Dems can blame the GOP with a straight face for the downgrade is astounding, and just shows how stupid they think the American people are. The sad thing is that there ARE an awful lot of dumb people out there.



Veni Vidi Castratavi Illegitimos
User currently offlineSuperfly From Thailand, joined May 2000, 39659 posts, RR: 75
Reply 122, posted (2 years 4 months 3 weeks 18 hours ago) and read 1098 times:

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 121):
The sad thing is that there ARE an awful lot of dumb people out there.

Sad indeed but it's scary that they vote!



Bring back the Concorde
User currently offlineCASINTEREST From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 4431 posts, RR: 2
Reply 123, posted (2 years 4 months 3 weeks 5 hours ago) and read 1046 times:

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 121):
The sad thing is that there ARE an awful lot of dumb people out there

Statement's like yours are why the GOP is going down the toilet.
Belittleing those that diifer in opinion with the GOP.

The real issue is that the GOP is long on rhetoric and short on actions.


The GOP pretends that the debt and deficit will go away if we just cut spending and reduce taxes,but their last tax cut is at least 25-75% responsible for the current deficit. It increased peoples spendable income, and helped people spend more on houses,which led to the housing boom.... and subsequent bust. The wild abandon and bad loans all took place amidst a market rampage fueled by new capital and lower interest rates, due to those tax cuts. there were no subsequent revenue cuts.

Now the GOP claims that lower taxes and lower spendign will solve all problems, yet they can't get together a spending bill that passes the muster of lower spending without howles of pain and entitlement for defense, Medicare, Social Security, and other items in the budget. The same 3 items that currently occupy over 70-95% of projected spending going forward. Defense got cut by 500 billion over 10 years, and the GOP would have you believe it is the end of the world. Never mind the fact that defense spending has increased for the last 15 years, while private workers salaries have remained stagnent.
The GOP want cuts to the funding of Medicare and Social Securty , and to change the way these work, but Seniors already on these plans and those that are into their working careers want no such change,even though these items continue to require more funding.

To run the end around and raise the ire of the ignorant base, the GOP raises concerns and rage about programs that recieve less funding than the items truly causing the deficit, and pretends to take some sort of holier than thou stance on the Constitution of the founding fathers. The same constitution which denied women the right to vote, and made slaves less of a person . The GOP also loves to raise issues and find ways to alienate more of the voting population by taking bad positions on Social issues that should remain private rather than government controlled.

The GOP also ignores the fact that at this point, taxes are lower than they have been for the last 60+ years, and the deficit at this point is exacerbated by the very cuts the GOP rallies it's base aound.

To continue to rally the base around tax cuts only, and reduced spending, the GOP continues to live in a imaginary place, and from that place, they continue to write thier losses in the 2012 elections, as the largely smarter population will see that the GOP is not meeting their responsibilities when they fail to negotiate and recognize the need to pay off the deficit, while at the same time cutting spending. The democrats have had the support of the majority of the voters on this issue for the last 4 years. The GOP continues to pretend that NO is a viable word to govern people by. When no is said too often,instead of let's get a workable solution, folks begin to not beleive in the government. And right now as the GOP is currently running it's primaries, it is easy to see why the GOP is loosing support left and right.



Older than I just was ,and younger than I will soo be.
Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
Non-Farm Jobs In The US Increased 57,000 posted Sat Oct 4 2003 06:17:34 by L-188
Chrysler To Cut 13,000 Jobs posted Wed Feb 14 2007 15:40:30 by PanAmOldDC8
Merck (maker Of Vioxx) To Cut 7,000 Jobs posted Tue Nov 29 2005 01:20:37 by Garri767
U.S. Added 207,000 In July, Better Than Expected posted Fri Aug 5 2005 17:24:21 by MaverickM11
Hey PIT People! PNC To Cut 3,000 Jobs! posted Thu Jul 21 2005 01:54:47 by PITA333
Fannie Mae Launches Mortgages For Only $1,000 Down posted Sat Aug 7 2010 11:06:15 by Dreadnought
US Imprisonment Rate 9x (!) Higher Than Germany posted Wed Feb 3 2010 12:34:35 by NA
Where To Exchange 45,000 Fcfa In The US? posted Fri Mar 6 2009 08:15:27 by MaverickM11
US Unemployment Rate Up To 6.1% posted Fri Sep 5 2008 06:12:23 by Sv7887
US Copter Down In Iraq, 13 Dead posted Sat Jan 20 2007 21:46:43 by AirCop