Obama’s economy: Two food stamp recipients for every job created

boards of FL wrote:

nochain wrote:The numbers by BOF might be more impressive if the population had remained stagnant. Of course it hasn't so maybe this shows the real problem:

Go read my post to Markle.  You're doing the same thing he did.

nochain wrote:No point in it. You have picked your favorite tree to pee on, it fits your agenda the best so there you go. The major point you missed and the question I asked you that you dodged, is the slow job creation rate enough to sustain the dramatically increased entitlement rate? If you have no credible answer I can understand given your narrow view of the situation.

PkrBum wrote:It's kinda funny... pull the magic keynesian dollars out of this equation and the graphs would really scare the huddled masses... but if they had truly not been injected we might well have been recovering. The 1920 depression was an example of the later... the great depression an example of the former.

boards of FL wrote:

PkrBum wrote:It's kinda funny... pull the magic keynesian dollars out of this equation and the graphs would really scare the huddled masses... but if they had truly not been injected we might well have been recovering. The 1920 depression was an example of the later... the great depression an example of the former.

You're smarter than this, PkrBum. Is the Great Recession, by any stretch of the imagination, even remotely comparable to the recession of 1920?

PkrBum wrote:

boards of FL wrote:

PkrBum wrote:It's kinda funny... pull the magic keynesian dollars out of this equation and the graphs would really scare the huddled masses... but if they had truly not been injected we might well have been recovering. The 1920 depression was an example of the later... the great depression an example of the former.

You're smarter than this, PkrBum.  Is the Great Recession, by any stretch of the imagination, even remotely comparable to the recession of 1920?

It was just a broad point... I would never expect the approach to any crisis to be handled like the 1920 depression again.

boards of FL wrote:

nochain wrote:No point in it. You have picked your favorite tree to pee on, it fits your agenda the best so there you go. The major point you missed and the question I asked you that you dodged, is the slow job creation rate enough to sustain the dramatically increased entitlement rate? If you have no credible answer I can understand given your narrow view of the situation.

You are correct in that you that you started this thread about jobs created vs people added to food stamps.  I directly responded to that with numbers related to those parameters.  Shortly thereafter, you accused me of cherry picking data and basically changing the subject, as you then changed the subject to the cherry-picked U6 unemployment rate.  Fair enough, I directly responded to you with U6 unemployment rate numbers.  Then both you and Markle changed the subject again to the labor force participation rate and the employed-to-population ratio.  I pointed out that these two parameters are not the same as nominal job creation or the U6 unemployment rate.  Now you are changing the subject again, this time back to your original post, though somehow you have arrived at the idea that I have been the one changing the subject throughout this back and forth.  Whatever.  Being that we are back to your original topic, go back to my original response, and welcome back to the actual subject of the thread.

nochain wrote:

boards of FL wrote:

nochain wrote:No point in it. You have picked your favorite tree to pee on, it fits your agenda the best so there you go. The major point you missed and the question I asked you that you dodged, is the slow job creation rate enough to sustain the dramatically increased entitlement rate? If you have no credible answer I can understand given your narrow view of the situation.

You are correct in that you that you started this thread about jobs created vs people added to food stamps.  I directly responded to that with numbers related to those parameters.  Shortly thereafter, you accused me of cherry picking data and basically changing the subject, as you then changed the subject to the cherry-picked U6 unemployment rate.  Fair enough, I directly responded to you with U6 unemployment rate numbers.  Then both you and Markle changed the subject again to the labor force participation rate and the employed-to-population ratio.  I pointed out that these two parameters are not the same as nominal job creation or the U6 unemployment rate.  Now you are changing the subject again, this time back to your original post, though somehow you have arrived at the idea that I have been the one changing the subject throughout this back and forth.  Whatever.  Being that we are back to your original topic, go back to my original response, and welcome back to the actual subject of the thread.

Reading your post is like watching a ping pong match in China, endless back and forth. But I digress; I see you still haven't answered the question. Again.

boards of FL wrote:

nochain wrote:

boards of FL wrote:

nochain wrote:No point in it. You have picked your favorite tree to pee on, it fits your agenda the best so there you go. The major point you missed and the question I asked you that you dodged, is the slow job creation rate enough to sustain the dramatically increased entitlement rate? If you have no credible answer I can understand given your narrow view of the situation.

You are correct in that you that you started this thread about jobs created vs people added to food stamps.  I directly responded to that with numbers related to those parameters.  Shortly thereafter, you accused me of cherry picking data and basically changing the subject, as you then changed the subject to the cherry-picked U6 unemployment rate.  Fair enough, I directly responded to you with U6 unemployment rate numbers.  Then both you and Markle changed the subject again to the labor force participation rate and the employed-to-population ratio.  I pointed out that these two parameters are not the same as nominal job creation or the U6 unemployment rate.  Now you are changing the subject again, this time back to your original post, though somehow you have arrived at the idea that I have been the one changing the subject throughout this back and forth.  Whatever.  Being that we are back to your original topic, go back to my original response, and welcome back to the actual subject of the thread.

Reading your post is like watching a ping pong match in China, endless back and forth. But I digress; I see you still haven't answered the question. Again.

Having a back and forth dialogue with you is like doing the same with a computer that randomly generates phrases that are completely unrelated to the subject matter at hand.  For whatever reason, you are under the impression that you have asked me a question.  In reality, you have not.  Feel free to quote your original question and I'll do my best to respond.  

Eagerly awaiting your next subject change.

nochain wrote:

boards of FL wrote:

nochain wrote:

boards of FL wrote:

nochain wrote:No point in it. You have picked your favorite tree to pee on, it fits your agenda the best so there you go. The major point you missed and the question I asked you that you dodged, is the slow job creation rate enough to sustain the dramatically increased entitlement rate? If you have no credible answer I can understand given your narrow view of the situation.

You are correct in that you that you started this thread about jobs created vs people added to food stamps.  I directly responded to that with numbers related to those parameters.  Shortly thereafter, you accused me of cherry picking data and basically changing the subject, as you then changed the subject to the cherry-picked U6 unemployment rate.  Fair enough, I directly responded to you with U6 unemployment rate numbers.  Then both you and Markle changed the subject again to the labor force participation rate and the employed-to-population ratio.  I pointed out that these two parameters are not the same as nominal job creation or the U6 unemployment rate.  Now you are changing the subject again, this time back to your original post, though somehow you have arrived at the idea that I have been the one changing the subject throughout this back and forth.  Whatever.  Being that we are back to your original topic, go back to my original response, and welcome back to the actual subject of the thread.

Reading your post is like watching a ping pong match in China, endless back and forth. But I digress; I see you still haven't answered the question. Again.

Having a back and forth dialogue with you is like doing the same with a computer that randomly generates phrases that are completely unrelated to the subject matter at hand.  For whatever reason, you are under the impression that you have asked me a question.  In reality, you have not.  Feel free to quote your original question and I'll do my best to respond.  

Eagerly awaiting your next subject change.

I do believe you initiated the topic change - why that bothers you (except that it results in facts being posted you wish to avoid) I have no idea. A thread flows, points are made, discussion occurs - except in your narrow world I guess. Anyhoooo, the question I had for you is highlighted in red above.

boards of FL wrote:

nochain wrote:

boards of FL wrote:

nochain wrote:

boards of FL wrote:

nochain wrote: of the situation.

.

.

.

I do believe you initiated the topic change - why that bothers you (except that it results in facts being posted you wish to avoid) I have no idea. A thread flows, points are made, discussion occurs - except in your narrow world I guess. Anyhoooo, the question I had for you is highlighted in red above.

My honest answer:  I don't know.  All I can say is that an economy that adds millions of jobs over a five year period probably comes closer to sustaining this increase in food stamp recipients than would be the case in an economy that loses 618,000 private sector jobs over an eight year period.   If you agree, well...welcome to the point made in my first response to this thread.

nochain wrote:

boards of FL wrote:

nochain wrote:Of course you are entitled to your uninformed opinion. I don't recall seeing you in the voting booth with me during ANY election. You can continue to cherry pick your "jobs" and "economy" numbers but the sad fact is most Americans are worse off now than they were even 2-3 years ago.

It is completely bizarre that you are accusing me of cherry picking jobs numbers, and then in the very same post you cherry pick jobs numbers.  This thread is about jobs and food stamps, so I directly responded with numbers for jobs and food stamps.  Now you are ignoring that and are instead looking at the unemployment rate.  Not only that, but you are cherry picking a very specific, alternative measure of the unemployment rate - the U6 unemployment rate.  Fair enough, cherry-picker.  Have it your way, hambone.  Let's look at the U6 unemployment rate.

January 2001 U6 unemployment rate: 7.3%

January 2009 U6 unemployment rate: 14.2%  

June 2013 U6 unemployment rate: 14.3%*

* - Sequestration kicked in in March 2013.  The U6 was at 13.8% at that time, so it had declined since the changing of the guard.

Well how about that?  The U6 unemployment rate almost doubled under the guy that you voted for...twice.  Hell, if we use NewsWatcher's definition of "doubled", we could say that it quadroupled under Bush.  Meanwhile, it fell during Obama's time in office and only recently - likely due to sequestration - increased and is now essentially unchanged.  Also note that it peaked at 17.1% when it was at its worst, so clearly it is on the decline.

Which is better, nochain, an increasing - doubling - U6 unemployment rate, or a decreasing U6 unemployment rate?

http://portalseven.com/employment/unemployment_rate_u6.jsp

OK Poser Jr (are you and Sal the same person?) - round and round we go. This little exchange merely proves a point can be made in many directions. BTW, in your little example what happened to years 02-08? I think you may find they were not so bad until you get closer to 08 or so. The point of the thread in case you forgot is that while the unemployment rate is essentially dormant the number of food stamp recipients keeps growing. How sustainable do you think that is rocket scientist? It's this very fact that makes U6 data useful.

nochain wrote:You have to look at the big picture, not just self-serving data from an administration who is not realistically dealing with the issue. This little editorial may help - this chart is but one analytic used to filter through the typical D.C. rhetoric, the author did a good job of looking at the issue from several angles to try and reach a realistic DEFENSIBLE summation:

nochain wrote:

boards of FL wrote:

Markle wrote:
H

In January 2001, which is when Obama took office,

Hmmm, I must be under the mistaken impression that he was first elected in 2008.

boards of FL wrote:

nochain wrote:You have to look at the big picture, not just self-serving data from an administration who is not realistically dealing with the issue. This little editorial may help - this chart is but one analytic used to filter through the typical D.C. rhetoric, the author did a good job of looking at the issue from several angles to try and reach a realistic DEFENSIBLE summation:

I don't think I have ever seen a post that is more completely full of shit than this one.  In the very same post in which you are telling me that I need to "look at the big picture" rather than "self-serving data", you go on to give me jobs numbers that "Exclude Negative Months" of job creation.  Let me help you out here, nochain.  This is the "big picture", as you say.

Private sector jobs in January 2001: 109,774,000

Private sector jobs in January 2009: 109.156,000 (618,000 net loss)

Private sector jobs in June 2013: 114,998,000 (5,842,000 net gain)

Those are the actual numbers, nochain.  I'm not revising them or "excluding negative months".  These are the numbers.  It is completely beyond me how anyone could see simple, raw jobs numbers and think to themself "Hmm.  This is just some sort of self-serving information here.  Better it would be to exclude some of this and just look  at a narrow view that eliminates any negativity.  Yes.  That would certainly let me see the bigger picture."  You either don't even grasp your own words, or you do and you're an idiot.


In other news, Tim Tebow has a 100% completion percentage in the NFL! *


* - This data excludes incomplete passes.

nochain wrote:You are indeed a slow, slow child. Apparently you didn't read (more likely refused to understand) the entire article where you would have seen the author approached the issue from several different aspects, the negative month deletion merely being one approach. As usual you made your mind up without ALL the information available.

I rest my case.

boards of FL wrote:

nochain wrote:You are indeed a slow, slow child. Apparently you didn't read (more likely refused to understand) the entire article where you would have seen the author approached the issue from several different aspects, the negative month deletion merely being one approach. As usual you made your mind up without ALL the information available.

I rest my case.

I didn't read the entire article because you didn't post the entire article.  You posted a small sample with two graphics, so that is what I responded to.  Clearly you suck at 1) reading, 2)writing, and 3) communication in general.  I guess I could throw could throw economics in there as well being that you apparently equate "the big picture" with jobs numbers that "exclude negative months" of job growth; as opposed to simply looking at the raw numbers.

My honest advice to you at this point is to simply stop replying in this thread.  Each time you reply, your posts get dumber and dumber.  Why anyone would want to continue bumping a thread that makes an air tight case for them being an idiot is beyond me, and yet I suspect you will soon reply with a whopper than tops all posts thus far.

knothead wrote:Sal, if it were possible we could laugh together over how Boards hands nochain his butt . . . . . . so entertaining! Thanks Bds!

nochain wrote:

boards of FL wrote:

nochain wrote:You are indeed a slow, slow child. Apparently you didn't read (more likely refused to understand) the entire article where you would have seen the author approached the issue from several different aspects, the negative month deletion merely being one approach. As usual you made your mind up without ALL the information available.

I rest my case.

I didn't read the entire article because you didn't post the entire article.  You posted a small sample with two graphics, so that is what I responded to.  Clearly you suck at 1) reading, 2)writing, and 3) communication in general.  I guess I could throw could throw economics in there as well being that you apparently equate "the big picture" with jobs numbers that "exclude negative months" of job growth; as opposed to simply looking at the raw numbers.

My honest advice to you at this point is to simply stop replying in this thread.  Each time you reply, your posts get dumber and dumber.  Why anyone would want to continue bumping a thread that makes an air tight case for them being an idiot is beyond me, and yet I suspect you will soon reply with a whopper than tops all posts thus far.

Know how to click on the article link I POSTED IN THE ORIGINAL comment? Clearly you suck at honest discourse and lack awareness of how to access information even when it's provided. I suggest you simply stop replying since you obviously have no clue about a great many things.

In edit: I did see the link on the second article did not make the copy - here it is - http://www.forbes.com/sites/mikepatton/2012/11/02/the-real-story-of-job-creation/

knothead wrote:Sal, if it were possible we could laugh together over how Boards hands nochain his butt . . . . . . so entertaining! Thanks Bds!

boards of FL wrote:

nochain wrote:

boards of FL wrote:

nochain wrote:You are indeed a slow, slow child. Apparently you didn't read (more likely refused to understand) the entire article where you would have seen the author approached the issue from several different aspects, the negative month deletion merely being one approach. As usual you made your mind up without ALL the information available.

I rest my case.

I didn't read the entire article because you didn't post the entire article.  You posted a small sample with two graphics, so that is what I responded to.  Clearly you suck at 1) reading, 2)writing, and 3) communication in general.  I guess I could throw could throw economics in there as well being that you apparently equate "the big picture" with jobs numbers that "exclude negative months" of job growth; as opposed to simply looking at the raw numbers.

My honest advice to you at this point is to simply stop replying in this thread.  Each time you reply, your posts get dumber and dumber.  Why anyone would want to continue bumping a thread that makes an air tight case for them being an idiot is beyond me, and yet I suspect you will soon reply with a whopper than tops all posts thus far.

Know how to click on the article link I POSTED IN THE ORIGINAL comment? Clearly you suck at honest discourse and lack awareness of how to access information even when it's provided. I suggest you simply stop replying since you obviously have no clue about a great many things.

In edit: I did see the link on the second article did not make the copy - here it is - http://www.forbes.com/sites/mikepatton/2012/11/02/the-real-story-of-job-creation/

Dig up, stupid!  Dig up!

nochain wrote:

boards of FL wrote:

nochain wrote:

boards of FL wrote:

nochain wrote:You are indeed a slow, slow child. Apparently you didn't read (more likely refused to understand) the entire article where you would have seen the author approached the issue from several different aspects, the negative month deletion merely being one approach. As usual you made your mind up without ALL the information available.

I rest my case.

I didn't read the entire article because you didn't post the entire article.  You posted a small sample with two graphics, so that is what I responded to.  Clearly you suck at 1) reading, 2)writing, and 3) communication in general.  I guess I could throw could throw economics in there as well being that you apparently equate "the big picture" with jobs numbers that "exclude negative months" of job growth; as opposed to simply looking at the raw numbers.

My honest advice to you at this point is to simply stop replying in this thread.  Each time you reply, your posts get dumber and dumber.  Why anyone would want to continue bumping a thread that makes an air tight case for them being an idiot is beyond me, and yet I suspect you will soon reply with a whopper than tops all posts thus far.

Know how to click on the article link I POSTED IN THE ORIGINAL comment? Clearly you suck at honest discourse and lack awareness of how to access information even when it's provided. I suggest you simply stop replying since you obviously have no clue about a great many things.

In edit: I did see the link on the second article did not make the copy - here it is - http://www.forbes.com/sites/mikepatton/2012/11/02/the-real-story-of-job-creation/

Dig up, stupid!  Dig up!

Best you can do moron? Can't find the link this time? I can take a "mea culpa" for not realizing it was missing in the 2nd article - can you grow up and act like an adult for once? I do realize only those who have a disagreement with this administration are subject to the "you have to be perfect in all things standard" - that makes this forum a farce and you the bandleader of hypocrisy. What a joke you have become along with all your little minions. LMAO.