[Bob Seger]

I'll post what I wish. That link is from the President's website, dispute his numbers if you wish. I could really care less. Maybe you aren't classified as one of those small businesses. You did say you had the biggest bigness of your kind in the state of Kentucky, or to put it in your words, "none bigger". In keeping with your theme, you vote for who you wish, and I'll vote for who I wish.

That should be enough to say it all. When has he or his group of spincasters ever stated a truth on anything?

[Old School]

That should be enough to say it all. When has he or his group of spincasters ever stated a truth on anything?

Bob, how can we argure with BHO's own website? It has to be the truth, after all he wouldn't lie especially while campaigning for a second term.

[Hoot Gibson]

From above.


"When President Obama took office, the economy was losing more than 700,000 jobs per month. President Obama acted quickly to pass the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, which cut taxes for small businesses and 95 percent of working families. It also included emergency funding to support about 300,000 educator jobs, more than 4,600 law enforcement positions, and investments in the clean energy sector that supported 224,500 jobs through 2010. Through April 2012, the economy has added more than 4.2 million private sector jobs over 26 consecutive months of job growth."

Fewer people are working today than were working when Obama took office in 2009. Are you really going to argue that Obama has turned the economy around and done a bang up job with the economy in his first term? Seriously?

[TheRealVille]

Fewer people are working today than were working when Obama took office in 2009. Are you really going to argue that Obama has turned the economy around and done a bang up job with the economy in his first term? Seriously?

He's got his numbers, you've got yours, you two decide who's wrong.

[Hoot Gibson]

Bob, how can we argure with BHO's own website? It has to be the truth, after all he wouldn't lie especially while campaigning for a second term.

The problem that anybody who is actively campaigning for Obama, such as RV, vector, and Billy, who accept the administration's statistics as rock solid, is that with just a little bit of digging through the same reports it becomes obvious to any fair-minded person that there are fewer people in the work force and fewer people who, are in fact working, today than when Obama took the oath of office. As John Adams said, "Facts are stubborn things," so Obama supporters just ignore them.

To make the case that Obama was worked miracles with the economy requires a willing - err... an extremely eager suspension of disbelief, and a heavy dose of very careful cherry picking.

[Hoot Gibson]

He's got his numbers, you've got yours, you two decide who's wrong.

My numbers come from Obama's Bureau of Labor Statistics, not his campaign website. :lmao:

[Old School]

The problem that anybody who is actively campaigning for Obama, such as RV, vector, and Billy, who accept the administration's statistics as rock solid, is that with just a little bit of digging through the same reports it becomes obvious to any fair-minded person that there are fewer people in the work force and fewer people who, are in fact working, today than when Obama took the oath of office. As John Adams said, "Facts are stubborn things," so Obama supporters just ignore them.

To make the case that Obama was worked miracles with the economy requires a willing - err... an extremely eager suspension of disbelief, and a heavy dose of very careful cherry picking.

I guess they take everything at face value because they are afraid of what they may find if they dig to deep.

[Bob Seger]

Bob, how can we argure with BHO's own website? It has to be the truth, after all he wouldn't lie especially while campaigning for a second term.

Absolutely mind blowing that there are people who buy this garbage hook, line, and sinker, isn't it?

[TheRealVille]

My numbers come from Obama's Bureau of Labor Statistics, not his campaign website. :lmao:

Feel free to post your numbers from that website.

[Hoot Gibson]

I guess they take everything at face value because they are afraid of what they may find if they dig to deep.

Yes - if you want to support Obama and avoid inadvertently running into the truth, then you stick to the official Obama campaign website for all of your "facts." Even Obama friendly websites like Think Progress cannot avoid letting the bad news that is the Obama economic record seep out once in awhile. There are very few safe places to hide if you are an Obama cheerleader.

As the chart below, which appears in the Think Progress website, shows, the number of people who are working in the private sector today barely exceeds the number who were employed when Obama took office. The total number of people who are employed, including those in the public sector, has actually decreased significantly.

[Image: http://thinkprogress.org/wp-content/uplo...24x743.jpg]

[TheRealVille]

Yes - if you want to support Obama and avoid inadvertently running into the truth, then you stick to the official Obama campaign website for all of your "facts." Even Obama friendly websites like Think Progress cannot avoid letting the bad news that is the Obama economic record seep out once in awhile. There are very few safe places to hide if you are an Obama cheerleader.

As the chart below, which appears in the Think Progress website, shows, the number of people who are working in the private sector today barely exceeds the number who were employed when Obama took office. The total number of people who are employed, including those in the public sector, has actually decreased significantly.

Show the chart from the government website you listed. And, even if you on a slight chance might be right, have you ever considered the "baby boomers" retiring at this point in time? And, on your chart, private sector jobs are on the increase since Feb. 10.

This is from the same page your chart comes from,

As of April, there are now more private sector jobs in the United States than there were in January 2009, when President Obama took office. You read that right. We have now replaced all of the private sector jobs lost while Obama has been president. And that was no mean feat, given that over the course of 2009, the private sector shed about 4.2 million jobs.
Unfortunately, the news is not nearly so good when it comes to the public sector, where there are currently 607,000 fewer people working than there were when President Obama took office.
The chart below tells the whole story. Under President Obama, the private sector has experienced a relatively robust recovery, and is now back to where it started when he took office. The public sector continues to shed jobs, and as a result, the overall jobs picture in the US remains weak. If you want to understand why conservative efforts to slash funding for teachers, firefighters, cops is bad for the economy, look no further than this graph.

You are worried about jobs, yet your kind want to cut monies to public sector employment. Funny stuff. The only sector not recovering is the sector that you all try to kill.

[Hoot Gibson]

Show the chart from the government website you listed. And, even if you on a slight chance might be right, one you get away from a fringe website, have you ever considered the "baby boomers" retiring at this point in time? And, on your chart, private sector jobs are on the increase since Feb. 10.

Do your own research, RV. I have posted the numbers from the BLS before and the website is easy to find. Or just spend all of your time on Democratic campaign websites and take the candidates' word as fact.

The demographics in this country are changing but not fast enough to account for the sharp decline in jobs under Obama. The population has been rising and the number of jobs has decreased. Yet the unemployment rate is decreasing, according to Obama. Does that not suggest to you that something is not kosher about the spin being placed on the jobs numbers by this White House?

[OrangenowBlue]

These allegations are false. Romney acts too much like a wuss to be a bully. Most of those prep schools are full of spoiled rich kids. With that being said, I will still vote for Romney as we need a change fast and he appears to be our only alternative. It is a shame that politics has come to voting for the "lesser of two evils". I did that in the last governor's election voting Democrat and now I am going to do it in the presidential election voting Republican.

[TheRealVille]

Yes - if you want to support Obama and avoid inadvertently running into the truth, then you stick to the official Obama campaign website for all of your "facts." Even Obama friendly websites like Think Progress cannot avoid letting the bad news that is the Obama economic record seep out once in awhile. There are very few safe places to hide if you are an Obama cheerleader.

As the chart below, which appears in the Think Progress website, shows, the number of people who are working in the private sector today barely exceeds the number who were employed when Obama took office. The total number of people who are employed, including those in the public sector, has actually decreased significantly.

The big job loss happened in '09. Are you trying to say Obama wrecked employment that quick. I thought you all say that the stuff from the previous administration is still trickling down at that point.

[Hoot Gibson]

Show the chart from the government website you listed. And, even if you on a slight chance might be right, have you ever considered the "baby boomers" retiring at this point in time? And, on your chart, private sector jobs are on the increase since Feb. 10.

This is from the same page your chart comes from,


You are worried about jobs, yet your kind want to cut monies to public sector employment. Funny stuff. The only sector not recovering is the sector that you all try to kill.

The public sector is shedding jobs because there are not enough people working in the private sector to sustain them in state and local governments, which generally must balance their budgets. Increasing the size of government necessarily drains wealth from the private sector, which leads to fewer jobs. I suppose that you would like to give Obama credit for decreasing jobs in the public sector, but he has obviously done nothing to discourage the growth of government.

[TheRealVille]

Do your own research, RV. I have posted the numbers from the BLS before and the website is easy to find. Or just spend all of your time on Democratic campaign websites and take the candidates' word as fact.

The demographics in this country are changing but not fast enough to account for the sharp decline in jobs under Obama. The population has been rising and the number of jobs has decreased. Yet the unemployment rate is decreasing, according to Obama. Does that not suggest to you that something is not kosher about the spin being placed on the jobs numbers by this White House?

That's why I asked you to post the numbers of people in the work force, now compared to '08, because it isn't visible on the government site.

[Hoot Gibson]

The big job loss happened in '09. Are you trying to say Obama wrecked employment that quick. I thought you all say that the stuff from the previous administration is still trickling down at that point.

What I am saying is that all the statistics from Obama's website that claim, or at least imply, positive job growth during his first term consists of nothing but smoke and mirrors. Only poorly informed Obama followers who plan to vote for him come hell or high water will believe those numbers that you are spouting.

[TheRealVille]

The public sector is shedding jobs because there are not enough people working in the private sector to sustain them in state and local governments, which generally must balance their budgets. Increasing the size of government necessarily drains wealth from the private sector, which leads to fewer jobs. I suppose that you would like to give Obama credit for decreasing jobs in the public sector, but he has obviously done nothing to discourage the growth of government.

Look at the chart, there is the same number of people in the private sector that there was in '09. How can you say the public sector is losing jobs because there isn't enough private jobs to keep them going when there are the same or slightly more private jobs now? I thought you wanted smaller government?

[Hoot Gibson]

Look at the chart, there is the same number of people in the private sector that there was in '09. How can you say the public sector is losing jobs because there isn't enough private jobs to keep them going when there are the same or slightly more private jobs now? I thought you wanted smaller government?

Obama took office in the depths of a deep recession - nobody disputes that fact. State governments took a huge hit in tax revenues during that period and most of them did all that they could to avoid laying off employees. In other words, in early 2009, there were not enough jobs in the private sector to support the number of state and local government employees that were in place and there still is not. That is why California currently has an "unexpectedly" high budget deficit of $16 billion and its left wing governor is seeking another huge increase in taxes to avoid spending cuts.

I saw the extent of belt tightening that Haley Barbour's administration did first hand when I worked during 2009 near his office. Employees were advised to do everything possible to reduce paper usage and cartons of paper were placed in supervisors' offices to discourage paper use. Unpaid furloughs had begun when I left Mississippi in 2010 in an unsuccessful effort to avoid layoffs. Many of the state employees with whom I worked, some of them who had been state employees for 20 years or more, now work in the private sector but there are not enough private sector jobs to absorb all of the laid off state employees.

I do want smaller government, at all levels. Unfortunately, the reaction of politicians to a weak economy is almost always to raise taxes, which puts a damper on the expansion of the private sector. California, Illinois, New York, and Michigan are prime examples of states that have reacted to loss of manufacturing jobs by raising taxes, only to see more job losses, as companies flock to states with lower taxes - mostly in the south.

[Hoot Gibson]

From the United States Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics:

[INDENT]

THE EMPLOYMENT SITUATION: JANUARY 2009

THE EMPLOYMENT SITUATION —APRIL 2012

[/INDENT]

As you can see, the explosion of jobs that Obama claims on his campaign website required some very creative accounting tricks. Obama's campaign in 2012 will be nothing more than smoke, mirrors, and smears.

Total Non-farm Jobs, January 2009: 134,580 (thousands)

Total Non-Farm Jobs, April 2012: 132,989 (thousands)

[TheRealVille]

From the United States Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics:

[INDENT][/INDENT]

As you can see, the explosion of jobs that Obama claims on his campaign website required some very creative accounting tricks. Obama's campaign in 2012 will be nothing more than smoke, mirrors, and smears.

Total Non-farm Jobs, January 2009: 134,580 (thousands)

Total Non-Farm Jobs, April 2012: 132,989 (thousands)

Like your twisted numbers here?

[Hoot Gibson]

Like your twisted numbers here?

What is twisted about them? First you challenged me to produce the pages containing the jobs numbers that I referenced after you had been unable to find (BTW, it was very easy to find them with a couple of simple Google searches) and now you accuse me of "twisting" numbers that you can read for yourself, directly from the BLS website. Fact do not seem to matter to you, RV. You have been all too eager to post the misleading campaign rhetoric of Obama's political machine and all too willing to ignore the facts when they are placed directly beneath your nose.

[TheRealVille]

What is twisted about them? First you challenged me to produce the pages containing the jobs numbers that I referenced after you had been unable to find (BTW, it was very easy to find them with a couple of simple Google searches) and now you accuse me of "twisting" numbers that you can read for yourself, directly from the BLS website. Fact do not seem to matter to you, RV. You have been all too eager to post the misleading campaign rhetoric of Obama's political machine and all too willing to ignore the facts when they are placed directly beneath your nose.

Civilian Labor force(in thousands) in Jan '09- !53,716.
Civilian Labor force April '12 - 242,784

[Hoot Gibson]

Civilian Labor force(in thousands) in Jan '09- !53,716.
Civilian Labor force April '12 - 242,784

Your problem seems to be that you do not know how to read or interpret statistics. The "Civilian Labor Force" is not the number of people who are working - it is the number of people who are both working and actively seeking employment. Those who have just given up finding jobs in this feeble economy are no longer counted as unemployed, even though they are, in fact, unemployed.

For some reason, you posted the "Civilian noninstitutional population" for April 2012 and compared it to the "Civilian labor force" for January 2009 and labeled both numbers as "Civilian Labor force (in thousands)" - and you accused me of twisting the numbers. My numbers were accurate and they were correctly labeled as well. Your's...well, they just do not make much sense.

Whether you use the total non-farming jobs that I listed in my previous post, or the total employed number, which I assume also includes those employed in agricultural occupations, the result is the same - more people were employed in January 2009 than are employed now.

2009 - 142,099
2012 - 141,865

I see that Vector is also having some trouble interpreting the numbers. Maybe y'all should stick to your talking points from Media Matters and the Obama Campaign website. They will be glad to misinterpret the data for you.

[TheRealVille]

Your problem seems to be that you do not know how to read or interpret statistics. The "Civilian Labor Force" is not the number of people who are working - it is the number of people who are both working and actively seeking employment. Those who have just given up finding jobs in this feeble economy are no longer counted as unemployed, even though they are, in fact, unemployed.

For some reason, you posted the "Civilian noninstitutional population" for April 2012 and compared it to the "Civilian labor force" for January 2009 and labeled both numbers as "Civilian Labor force (in thousands)" - and you accused me of twisting the numbers. My numbers were accurate and they were correctly labeled as well. Your's...well, they just do not make much sense.

Whether you use the total non-farming jobs that I listed in my previous post, or the total employed number, which I assume also includes those employed in agricultural occupations, the result is the same - more people were employed in January 2009 than are employed now.

2009 - 142,099
2012 - 141,865

I see that Vector is also having some trouble interpreting the numbers. Maybe y'all should stick to your talking points from Media Matters and the Obama Campaign website. They will be glad to misinterpret the data for you.

I looked at the wrong colum. Sorry.

Civilian labor force.

jan '09 153,716

april '12 154,365

Numbers don't lie, anyway you try to twist it. The labor force is higher now than it was in '09. You have said before that it was lower.

[Hoot Gibson]

I looked at the wrong colum. Sorry.

Civilian labor force.

jan '09

april '12 154,365

Again, the civilian labor force has nothing to do with jobs created. The shrinking civilian labor force is the reason that the unemployment rate has not risen further, despite the fact that the number of people employed was greater when Obama entered office than it is now.

Where are the jobs of which you speak?

The Obama campaign will try its best to claim that Obama has created jobs during his first term. If you repeat that claim here, then be prepared to tie yourself in knots. The BLS numbers do not support his claims. It is not likely that on election day 2012 that the number of people working will exceed the number who were working on Jan. 20, 2009. That is why he will cherry pick the stats and boast of a declining unemployment rate, which is still much higher than it was when he took office, and will start talking about adding private sector jobs while he ignores the net loss of total jobs. Obama will lie with statistics and the media will just wink and play along.

[Bob Seger]

Again, the civilian labor force has nothing to do with jobs created. The shrinking civilian labor force is the reason that the unemployment rate has not risen further, despite the fact that the number of people employed was greater when Obama entered office than it is now.

Where are the jobs of which you speak?

The Obama campaign will try its best to claim that Obama has created jobs during his first term. If you repeat that claim here, then be prepared to tie yourself in knots. The BLS numbers do not support his claims. It is not likely that on election day 2012 that the number of people working will exceed the number who were working on Jan. 20, 2009. That is why he will cherry pick the stats and boast of a declining unemployment rate, which is still much higher than it was when he took office, and will start talking about adding private sector jobs while he ignores the net loss of total jobs. Obama will lie with statistics and the media will just wink and play along.

........

[Hoot Gibson]

I looked at the wrong colum. Sorry.

Civilian labor force.

jan '09 153,716

april '12 154,365

Numbers don't lie, anyway you try to twist it. The labor force is higher now than it was in '09. You have said before that it was lower.

You are right. The numbers don't lie. The size of the Civilian Labor Force is not the same as the number of people employed. This is a pretty simple concept, yet you keep pointing to the size of the work force and away from the number of people employed.

In Jan. 2009, the Civilian Labor Force represented 65.5 percent of the adult population.

153,716 - 142,099 employed = 11,617 unemployed
142,099/153,716 = 7.56 percent unemployed

In April 2012, the Civilian Labor Force represented 63.3 percent of the adult population.

154,365 - 141,865 employed = 12,500 unemployed
12,500/154,365 = 8.10 percent unemployed

The numbers to keep your eye on are the number of employed people, which was higher in 2009 and the number of unemployed people which is higher now. Everything else coming from Obama and his cheerleaders are just campaign noise meant to confuse fact with fantasy.

No net jobs have been created since Obama took office. The unemployment rate is up and total employment is down. It really is that simple.

[TheRealVille]

You are right. The numbers don't lie. The size of the Civilian Labor Force is not the same as the number of people employed. This is a pretty simple concept, yet you keep pointing to the size of the work force and away from the number of people employed.

In Jan. 2009, the Civilian Labor Force represented 65.5 percent of the adult population.

153,716 - 142,099 employed = 11,617 unemployed
142,099/153,716 = 7.56 percent unemployed

In April 2012, the Civilian Labor Force represented 63.3 percent of the adult population.

154,365 - 141,865 employed = 12,500 unemployed
12,500/154,365 = 8.10 percent unemployed

The numbers to keep your eye on are the number of employed people, which was higher in 2009 and the number of unemployed people which is higher now. Everything else coming from Obama and his cheerleaders are just campaign noise meant to confuse fact with fantasy.

No net jobs have been created since Obama took office. The unemployment rate is up and total employment is down. It really is that simple.

But, it is back to near what it was. There has been a 26 month job growth. We are going in the right direction. We were in the middle of a massive recession in '09, and no matter who took office then, it would have been the same with the layoffs. Obama has turned the employment problem around. Nobody is arguing that the economy is weak, but Obama has it going forward instead of backward.

[Hoot Gibson]

But, it is back to near what it was. There has been a 26 month job growth. We are going in the right direction. We were in the middle of a massive recession in '09, and no matter who took office then, it would have been the same with the layoffs. Obama has turned the employment problem around. Nobody is arguing that the economy is weak, but Obama has it going forward instead of backward.

Obama has done nothing to turn the economy around, with the possible exception of reneging on his pledge to let the Bush tax cuts expire. Deep recessions have always been followed by strong recoveries in the past, but this has been the slowest recovery since records have been kept. Yet, once again Obama is promising to raise taxes if he is reelected - but only for those who are most successful, and responsible for creating the jobs that have been created.

RV, you are smart enough to know that the economy is not a winning issue for Obama. There really are no winning issues for him. Obamacare remains very unpopular and will probably be struck down as unconstitutional in a few weeks. Even if the Supreme Court upholds Obamacare, it will remain a campaign issue and it is an issue that Republicans will be standing on the same side as the majority of Americans.

What else can Obama point to as an accomplishment? Neither the war in Iraq nor the war in Afghanistan has gone particularly well since he took office.

The national debt has soared under Obama. Maybe he can get away with saddling Bush with all of the blame for the 2009 deficit, but that leaves him with three consecutive $trillion plus deficits for which he has nobody but himself to blame. The last budget that Obama submitted to the Senate on which there was a vote received zero votes from either party and the Democrat-controlled Senate has refused to pass a budget in more than 1,000 days.

I don't see any way that Obama can run a positive campaign, so all that leaves is a long series of silly attacks on Romney, such as this ridiculous "Romney was a high school bully" seems to have lost its legs when his alleged victim went public to refute the charge and the "witness" admitted that he was not present during the alleged incident.

Seriously, if you ever truly considered voting for Romney, you should take another look because Obama is not worthy of anybody's vote after his poor performance the past three years.