More private Sector Jobs created in 2010

[Savage Beatings]

Yesterday I filled up my car with gas. During that one visit to the gas station I added more fuel to my vehicle than during the previous 7 days combined.

[Azazello1313]

amazing the picture you can paint by cherry-picking data. why just 2010, hmm?

 

let's look at something a little more meaningful. we have 19 months of jobs data in since the stimulus bill was signed into law. in march 2009, the first month after the stimulus bill was signed into law, bls estimated there were 109,510,000 private sector jobs in the US. in september 2010, they estimated there were 107,970,000. that is a decline of 1,540,000 jobs in the private sector economy since the stimulus bill was signed into law.

 

you want to compare that with bush? ok, let's compare it with some evil bush tax cuts, the "Jobs and Growth Tax Relief" bill, signed into law in May 2003. in June 2003, the first month after the act was signed into law, BLS estimated 108,233,000 private sector jobs. after 19 months of jobs data, they estimated payrolls at 110,624,000 in Dec 2004. that is an increase of 2,391,000 jobs over the same time period.

 

the difference between the two? basically 4 million jobs over a year and a half, or 207,000 jobs per month.

[Perchoutofwater]

amazing the picture you can paint by cherry-picking data. why just 2010, hmm?

 

let's look at something a little more meaningful. we have 19 months of jobs data in since the stimulus bill was signed into law. in march 2009, the first month after the stimulus bill was signed into law, bls estimated there were 109,510,000 private sector jobs in the US. in september 2010, they estimated there were 107,970,000. that is a decline of 1,540,000 jobs in the private sector economy since the stimulus bill was signed into law.

 

you want to compare that with bush? ok, let's compare it with some evil bush tax cuts, the "Jobs and Growth Tax Relief" bill, signed into law in May 2003. in June 2003, the first month after the act was signed into law, BLS estimated 108,233,000 private sector jobs. after 19 months of jobs data, they estimated payrolls at 110,624,000 in Dec 2004. that is an increase of 2,391,000 jobs over the same time period.

 

the difference between the two? basically 4 million jobs over a year and a half, or 207,000 jobs per month.

 

Ouch, that's going to leave a mark.

[driveby]

Ouch, that's going to leave a mark.

meh. Hard to see a new bruise on top of an existing one.

[Ursa Majoris]

let's look at something that bashes Obama regardless

Fixed

[Perchoutofwater]

meh. Hard to see a new bruise on top of an existing one.

 

What is interesting is tax cuts increase job growth, while stimulus spending decreases it.

[bpwallace49]

What is interesting is tax cuts did not magically prevent the recession, while stimulus spending was done to try and prevent a depression.

 

fixed

[SEC=UGA]

What is interesting is tax cuts increase job growth, while stimulus spending decreases it.

 

What's interesting is after Democrats took control of the Legislature everything went to crap...

[bpwallace49]

What's interesting is after Democrats took control of the Legislature everything went to crap...

 

 

I really hope that the Roadmap gets integrated somehow into the self serving agendas of the right and left. I severely doubt it will . . so here comes more of the same crapola stretched out into the forseeable future.

[SEC=UGA]

 

I really hope that the Roadmap gets integrated somehow into the self serving agendas of the right and left. I severely doubt it will . . so here comes more of the same crapola stretched out into the forseeable future.

 

I don't think that the public, at-large, realizes how incredibly f*cked we truly are... It is truly a sad state that this country is in with regard to the lack of education (with regard to politicians) the general public has.

[Perchoutofwater]

 

I really hope that the Roadmap gets integrated somehow into the self serving agendas of the right and left. I severely doubt it will . . so here comes more of the same crapola stretched out into the forseeable future.

 

Something we can agree on. I really want the Roadmap to be followed, but the only way I see that happening is with a Republican super majority, which can't happen for another two years, and even then I'd say it only has about a 20% chance. Until we can get it to where politicians can't purchase votes, it is going to be very hard to do, as it is just so much easier to buy peoples votes with other peoples money than it is to do what is right for the country.

[bpwallace49]

Something we can agree on. I really want the Roadmap to be followed, but the only way I see that happening is with a Republican super majority, which can't happen for another two years, and even then I'd say it only has about a 20% chance. Until we can get it to where politicians can't purchase votes, it is going to be very hard to do, as it is just so much easier to buy peoples votes with other peoples money than it is to do what is right for the country.

 

Perch . . . the GOP has taken great pains to label it as "Paul Ryan's Roadmap" and NOT their agenda. Dont fool yourself into thinking that this is embraced by the GOP, cause it aint . . . The GOP has their own special interests to serve, and some of them conflict with areas of the Roadmap.

[SEC=UGA]

Perch . . . the GOP has taken great pains to label it as "Paul Ryan's Roadmap" and NOT their agenda. Dont fool yourself into thinking that this is embraced by the GOP, cause it aint . . . The GOP has their own special interests to serve, and some of them conflict with areas of the Roadmap.

 

So, are you saying that pot holes, road blocks, and speed bumps are in the way of the road map?

[Perchoutofwater]

Perch . . . the GOP has taken great pains to label it as "Paul Ryan's Roadmap" and NOT their agenda. Dont fool yourself into thinking that this is embraced by the GOP, cause it aint . . . The GOP has their own special interests to serve, and some of them conflict with areas of the Roadmap.

 

I agree completely, though I think the GOP will come closer to embracing it than will the Dems. That is the reason I said the only way it passes is with a GOP super-majority and then I only give it a 20% chance.

 

Right now you have the left trying to purchase the votes of the entitlement class with more redistribution, and you have the right facing them with the funding of businesses, that they they are beholden too proposing more tax cuts. I honestly don't know how this country is going to survive. The only chance we have is to somehow reduce the size and scope of the federal government, but in order to do that you are going to have to find real statesmen that are more interested in the health and prosperity of our country than they are about their reelection chances. There are some very tough decisions that need to be made, many of which are going to piss off large voting blocks. We have to do something to reign in spending and in order to do that entitlements have to be addressed including SS, medicare, and medicaid. We have to increase taxes in order to pay down our debt, though I think this should be postponed until we are on firmer economic ground. Personally I think the whole thing goes back to the "progressive" income tax. As long as we have that we are screwed. Until everyone has skin in the game, people are going to continue to vote for people that will either give them more of other peoples money or vote for someone that will give them a tax loophole.

[Azazello1313]

Perch . . . the GOP has taken great pains to label it as "Paul Ryan's Roadmap" and NOT their agenda. Dont fool yourself into thinking that this is embraced by the GOP, cause it aint . . . The GOP has their own special interests to serve, and some of them conflict with areas of the Roadmap.

 

this is obviously true. part of that is just election year crap..."paul ryan's roadmap" actually addresses the problem of out of control entitelement spending, and it does so in a way that is sensible and responsible, but in addressing the problem it dares to mention the idea of phased in cuts to benefits. if you live anywhere near a close race this fall, no doubt you've seen plenty of disingenuous scare-ads from BOTH parties about ZMOG! cuts to medicare and SS. republicans don't want to expose themselves to that kind of attack any more than necessary (kinda like how very few democrats ever take a strong position with respect to gay marriage).

 

so in a sense, yes, paul ryans are rare on either side of the aisle. but if you like his thinking in particular, I mean it's pretty damn clear his ideas are going to get a greater reception in a republican congress than a democratic one, it's really quite silly to argue that it makes no difference.

 

if he runs in 2012 on his roadmap, it's going to be funny to watch you suddenly become a critic.

[yo mama]

What's interesting is after Democrats took control of the Legislature everything went to crap...

Meh. They just failed to get us out of the crap and - arguably - failed to avoid making things worse. At best, the current administration has produced only mixed results. But query as to whether any of the other idiots in Washington would have done a better job. I doubt it. I'm 100% convinced the GOP would have also screwed things up, just differently.

 

I firmly believe that the two major parties are privately content trading turns disappointing the country, as long as we stay polarized and are willing to vote for "the other guy" next year.

[Perchoutofwater]

so in a sense, yes, paul ryans are rare on either side of the aisle. but if you like his thinking in particular, I mean it's pretty damn clear his ideas are going to get a greater reception in a republican congress than a democratic one, it's really quite silly to argue that it makes no difference.

 

if he runs in 2012 on his roadmap, it's going to be funny to watch you suddenly become a critic.

 

Help me Paul Ryan Kenobi, you're my only hope.

[SEC=UGA]

Meh. They just failed to get us out of the crap and - arguably - failed to avoid making things worse. At best, the current administration has produced only mixed results. But query as to whether any of the other idiots in Washington would have done a better job. I doubt it. I'm 100% convinced the GOP would have also screwed things up, just differently.

 

I firmly believe that the two major parties are privately content trading turns disappointing the country, as long as we stay polarized and are willing to vote for "the other guy" next year.

 

Who has that quote in their sig: "When this idiot and I agree on something you know its got to be correct."

 

I'm gonna +1 that right now.

[Big John]

Who has that quote in their sig: "When this idiot and I agree on something you know its got to be correct."

 

I'm gonna +1 that right now.

Cre8tiff

[bpwallace49]

this is obviously true. part of that is just election year crap..."paul ryan's roadmap" actually addresses the problem of out of control entitelement spending, and it does so in a way that is sensible and responsible, but in addressing the problem it dares to mention the idea of phased in cuts to benefits. if you live anywhere near a close race this fall, no doubt you've seen plenty of disingenuous scare-ads from BOTH parties about ZMOG! cuts to medicare and SS. republicans don't want to expose themselves to that kind of attack any more than necessary (kinda like how very few democrats ever take a strong position with respect to gay marriage).

 

so in a sense, yes, paul ryans are rare on either side of the aisle. but if you like his thinking in particular, I mean it's pretty damn clear his ideas are going to get a greater reception in a republican congress than a democratic one, it's really quite silly to argue that it makes no difference.

 

if he runs in 2012 on his roadmap, it's going to be funny to watch you suddenly become a critic.

 

You couldnt be more wrong Sure the right is "more likely" to adopt the Roadmap, but I severely doubt they have the courage to do so either.

 

I have been a supporter of Paul Ryan since I first got here . .

[Ursa Majoris]

but if you like his thinking in particular, I mean it's pretty damn clear his ideas are going to get a greater reception in a republican congress than a democratic one, it's really quite silly to argue that it makes no difference.

 

if he runs in 2012 on his roadmap, it's going to be funny to watch you suddenly become a critic.

Maybe his ideas will get embraced in a new Congress (and many of them should be embraced, though by no means all). I doubt it though and the reason is in your second paragraph, oddly enough. You mention 2012, the next election after this one. Our country is in permanent election mode, thus our legislators are almost full-time campaigners rather than politicians. On top of getting rid of money from elections, I'd advocate going to a four year cycle for everyone and getting the whole enchilada out of the way in one fell swoop.

Edited October 12, 2010 by Ursa Majoris

[SEC=UGA]

Maybe his ideas will get embraced in a new Congress (and many of them should be embraced, though by no means all). I doubt it though and the reason is in your second paragraph, oddly enough. You mention 2012, the next election after this one. Our country is in permanent election mode, thus our legislators are almost full-time campaigners rather than politicians. On top of getting rid of money from elections, I'd advocate going to a four year cycle for everyone and getting the whole enchilada out of the way in one fell swoop.

 

And get rid of direct election for Senate

[Perchoutofwater]

And get rid of direct election for Senate

 

+1,000,000,000,000,000 or whatever our debt is.

[Yukon Cornelius]

I firmly believe that the two major parties are privately content trading turns disappointing the country, as long as we stay polarized and are willing to vote for "the other guy" next year.

yup

[bushwacked]

This.

 

 

 

 

...and this.

 

Bushy is hereby forever banned from giving other people crap about their sources.

 

 

The source of the data is the Bureau of Labor Statistics, so unless there is some reason to expect significant modifications on the data I'm not really sure what the issue with the data source is unless it's a kookoo for Cocoa Puffs conspiracy schtick. We've had 9 straight months of private sector job gains after catastrophic job losses. That is a fact, and it's positive news.

 

The fact that the tailgate righties can't acknowledgethis is nothing more than a reflex like repulsion founded on political hackery. That's obvious. If private sector jobs declined next month, many here would be absolutely ecstatic while bumping this thread. There is no doubt in my mind that many here want our economy to fail right now based on who our president is.