Milestone: More private sector jobs today than when Obama took office.

No, only about 60 million or so, who think their $6.5Trillions in income should not be taxed more than the $1Trillion or so they already pay, even though it is fully one half of the national personal income.

 

LOL, only you would consider the cumulative loss from Jan 2009 to March 2010 the first month of Obama's Presidency.

 

The Pass the Buck generation.

 

Is that what Rush is telling you?

Total private sector jobs:
Jan 2009 110.985 million
Aug 2012 111.400 million

http://www.bls.gov/webapps/legacy/cesbtab1.htm

 

No it doesn't. Feel free to prove it.

Peter Schiff. Now I see why you are so misinformed.

Good for them.

Good for them.

Republicans have increased spending far faster than Dems over the past 30 years.

Clinton wasn't president when the Housing Bubble blew up and then started collapsing.

Like the conservative darling Ireland? LOL

You can for a temporary period.

So you figure the Great Recession occurred because about 8 million people all got lazy at the same time and decided to live off those luxurious Govt handouts rather than work?

Conservative economics makes sense. If you ignore reality.

 

I guess that might seem funny. Except I didn't do that.

 

Is that what Rush is telling you?

Total private sector jobs:
Jan 2009 110.985 million
Aug 2012 111.400 million

http://www.bls.gov/webapps/legacy/cesbtab1.htm

 

You are still on this BS? Man go learn some economics.

Its not the absolute number of jobs thats important, its the jobs to population ratio. That ratio has been constasnt at slightly above 58% since obama took office. That means no job creation since obama took office. No surge from the stimulus. Nothing. All obama and dems are doing is maintaining the status quo.

 

Please explain why you and others believe that 'most' so-called Americans do not need to pay for the government they are demanding?

The USA is supposed to be 'united', all for one...one for all, do a hard days work, stay out of trouble, live within our means, save for tomorrow, etc. What happened to this concept??

 

Call them what you like but the fact remains most so-called Americans ARE NOT paying for the government they are demanding.

Please tell me what is wrong with every American paying a 'minimum' of $200 per year to Uncle Sam?

 

The post I responded by endthefed claimed: "we lost 25million priv sector jobs so far under obama"

I responded to that claim with proof that was wrong by showing the number of private sector jobs today is higher than when Obama took office.

Total private sector jobs:
Jan 2009 110.985 million
Aug 2012 111.400 million

You want to defend endthefed's claim or explain how my data was wrong or irrelevant to prove his claim was wrong?

If not did you have anything relevant you wanted to add, or are you just pouting and felt the need to take an ad hom shot?

 

I don't have a problem with everyone paying a minimum of $200 per year, but its not near enough to fund the Govt.

 

Your numbers come from Employment, Hours, and Earnings from the Current Employment Statistics survey (National) but does not include the jobs needed to keep up with population growth.

 

So what.

Feel free to prove that "we lost 25million priv sector jobs so far under obama" if you think my post is not accurate.

 

25 million is high, the number including those needed to be created is more around 11 to 12 million.

 

How about these numbers. Comparing the employment situation charts from February 2009 and August 2012 (number in thousands):

In 2009:
Total Civilian labor force was 154,214
Total Unemployed: 12,467
Total working-age people not in the labor force: 80,699

In 2012:
Total Civilian labor force is 154,645
Total Unemployed: 12,544
Total working-age people not in the labor force: 88,921

So, while the number of jobs has increased, there are 77,000 more unemployed workers than when he started and over 8.2 million workers have left the labor force.

 

And that proves "we lost 25million priv sector jobs so far under obama" how?

I agree when you throw in the effects of the recession, Obama's numbers look worse. Why are you blaming Obaaaama for the recession?

 

So if you agree with me the claim is bull(*)(*)(*)(*), then what the hell is your point?

 

LMAO! Thanks for the humorous interlude.

 

Under normal circumstances, job creation is around 400,000 a month. obama is averaging about 100,000 a month. Thats a deficit of 300,000 a month for a total of about 13.2 million jobs lost under obama.

If obama can claim without any proof that he "saved or created" 3 million jobs with the stimulus, then my arguement (which is based on some quantitative foundation) that obama lost 13.2 million jobs has merit.

You lose.

 

Oh that is "normal" circumstances to your expert knowledge, eh?

Please list the years where we've had "normal" job creation of 400,000 a month or 4.8 million new jobs a year.

It's just amazing how some folks will just flat out lie and make (*)(*)(*)(*) up because that is the only way they can try to make a point.

The post I responded by endthefed claimed: "we lost 25million priv sector jobs so far under obama"

I responded to that claim with proof that was wrong by showing the number of private sector jobs today is higher than when Obama took office.

Total private sector jobs:
Jan 2009 110.985 million
Aug 2012 111.400 million

You've shown absolutely nothing proving I was wrong or he was right.


I'll let others decide who the loser is.

 

Using normal job creation? Even if the numbers are correct, that doesn't make any sense! Extraordinary circumstances are obviously at play

 

400,000 new jobs a month would be 4.8 million a year, or 19.2 million over a 4 year period. The best job creation record of all time was Clinton, 22.7 million new jobs over 8 years.

There has never been 4.8 million new jobs created in any year, much less 19.2 million in 4 years.

400,000 isn't "normal", or even abnormal. It's a fake number, a lie, completely made up by Gator in a lame attempt to try to make a point about Obama. Or maybe he just regurgitated what Rush told him, I don't know.

Which is why he high-tailed it out of here.

 

You know how people should not have a right to complain about government if they don't vote?

Do you think people have a right to demand more government if they are not paying a single dime in taxes?

Who cares the amount; at least be an American...pay something.

What percentage of those not paying a dime in taxes are volunteering 50% of their time?

Lastly, whatever amount it is that ALL AMERICANS can pay each year towards the federal government, this defines precisely how much the government can spend! If 50-100 million refuse to pay a dime, don't expect the others to make up for this; it is what it is...period! Government cannot continue spending, spending, spending with zero accountability...

 

If in one year you have (x) population, and (y) unemployment...for example population of 300 million and 5% unemployment, then four years later you have (>x) population and (>y) unemployment...for example 310 million population and 8% unemployment, assuming the labor force remains a steady percentage of population (around 45%), we can let the math tell us what happened;

300 million Americans equals a workforce of 135 million and 5% unemployment means 6.8 million unemployed. 310 million Americans means a workforce of 139.5 million and 8% unemployment means 11.2 million unemployed. Of course these are very gross numbers, and you can change the numbers as you wish, but the answer will be similar. Using the steady 45% variable accounts for everyone no matter if they have dropped out of looking for work. What this does not tell us is how many workers are under-employed?

Caveat; I never believe the unemployment rates so 5% might really be 6% or 8% might really be 9%?? And it's smoke and mirrors how the unemployment rate is calculated. If we actually knew the quantity of workers, instead of those not working, I think we would have a clearer picture about employment...