(D)

[57Brave]

Private sector jobs

Reagan, Bush & Bush: 15,831,000

Carter, Clinton & Obama: 39,631,000

[chop2chip]

Private sector jobs

Reagan, Bush & Bush: 15,831,000

Carter, Clinton & Obama: 39,631,000

what's your point?

[chop2chip]

http://si.wsj.net/public/resources/images/NA-CJ303_STREAK_J_20160304111536.jpg

[chop2chip]

Solid streak, but not as strong as the Bush/Reagan/Clinton years

Thoughts 57?

[57Brave]

To answer your first question, thinking my point was to show in the generalist of ways that the economy is not in as bad a shape as the picture many of the POTUS candidates are painting.
And most all of the recovered job periods occurred during (D) administrations. Leading me to conclude the obvious.
As Harry Truman said, "if you wanna live like a Republican, vote for a Democrat"
Plead guilty to posting a bumper sticker.

Your second question, the number that jumps out at me is 65 months and the slow steady climb out of 2008.
The only comparison would be the 1940-43 years in the recovery from the Great Depression. Surprised that growth peaked in 43.
Any idea why ?

[Hawk]

Plead guilty to posting a bumper sticker.

Y'all, I finally figured out which car is 57's.

https://poietes.files.wordpress.com/2009/02/bumper-stickers-mania.jpg

The old one was impounded:

http://entrepreneur.typepad.com/photos/uncategorized/kerrycar.gif

[57Brave]

https://scontent.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xtp1/v/t1.0-0/p480x480/12472531_1083282838431436_1931569205197484734_n.jp g?oh=315dace072c8e59c9eeba2e8de277e51&oe=578ED5F4


you were saying ...

[sturg33]

The left love them some out of context stats...

[57Brave]

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CdDWPsDW4AEiBC5.jpg:large

[chop2chip]

This is the problem 57. You post statistics without trying to interpret them. Others come along to bring context and then you shift into partisan meme mode.

Seriously, what purpose does the above picture serve?

[57Brave]

problem ?

...................

Private sector jobs

Reagan, Bush & Bush: 15,831,000

Carter, Clinton & Obama: 39,631,000
...................

Sometimes it is just as simple as that.

(R) campaigns as job creaters.
How much context is needed?
.....

Now, why do you think the job recovery period of 1940-43 peaked in '43 ?
That was an odd statistic -- you posted

[57Brave]

This is the problem 57. You post statistics without trying to interpret them. Others come along to bring context and then you shift into partisan meme mode.

Seriously, what purpose does the above picture serve?

you really don't know who she is, do you ?

[BedellBrave]

Y'all, I finally figured out which car is 57's.

https://poietes.files.wordpress.com/2009/02/bumper-stickers-mania.jpg

The old one was impounded:

http://entrepreneur.typepad.com/photos/uncategorized/kerrycar.gif


There was a study done recently on road-rage. Know what the single biggest indicator of one given to it was? Bumper stickers. 57, please stay in FL.

[chop2chip]

you really don't know who she is, do you ?

I don't. What does she have to do with job growth? I'm not interested in debating the merits of the Republican party. I don't identify myself as a Republican.

[chop2chip]

...................

Private sector jobs

Reagan, Bush & Bush: 15,831,000

Carter, Clinton & Obama: 39,631,000
...................

Sometimes it is just as simple as that.

Are you correcting for population? Is that new private sector jobs? Total? There's no context which is why I originally asked what the purpose of the original post was before I ran across a similar statistic in my daily perusal of the WSJ.


How much context is needed?

Is this a question? Of course context is needed. But I shouldn't hold it against you, since you aren't likely getting much context when you copy and paste these graphs from Twitter.


That was an odd statistic -- you posted

What is odd about it? All it did was provide context to the point you have been bludgeoning to death in recent weeks. It's like a hitting streak. You can go 1-4 with a single for 30 games, or you can hit .500 with a bunch of homeruns over a 15 games. What's more impressive?


Now, why do you think the job recovery period of 1940-43 peaked in '43 ?
World War II? What's your point here? Stop being so cryptic.

[57Brave]

Are you correcting for population? Is that new private sector jobs? Total? There's no context which is why I originally asked what the purpose of the original post was before I ran across a similar statistic in my daily perusal of the WSJ.



Is this a question? Of course context is needed. But I shouldn't hold it against you, since you aren't likely getting much context when you copy and paste these graphs from Twitter.



What is odd about it? All it did was provide context to the point you have been bludgeoning to death in recent weeks. It's like a hitting streak. You can go 1-4 with a single for 30 games, or you can hit .500 with a bunch of homeruns over a 15 games. What's more impressive?


World War II? What's your point here? Stop being so cryptic.

a bit spikey today are we?

WWII went on for another 2 years plus the subsequent draw down.
That was a straight up question, not meant to be cryptic in the least.

The cut and paste stat covers close to 40 years. Which more than covers for the conditions you brought up. For both parties
Discount the stat vote for a Republican and get more of what Republican administrations have brought.
And of course it shoots a great big hole in the notion that the Obama Economy is a mess
Really thought these points ere obvious. Guess I overestimated the ability of board Republicans to comprehend basic between the lines reading
My bad

Context?
I thought the number variance was staggering. 39 M vs 15M
Thinking here more context would be in order even if it was a 25% increase ( 20M vs 15M ) but we are looking at a well over 250% increase.
and you want context - you make me laugh

Bottom line?
Democratic administration enact policies that create jobs.
Republican administration create vaacums where not only jobs are lost but a business climate not conducive to job creation
...............

Still think it odd that the 40-43 job boom ended when it did

[57Brave]

I don't. What does she have to do with job growth? I'm not interested in debating the merits of the Republican party. I don't identify myself as a Republican.

oh, not another "Libertarian"
:)

.....

the title of the thread please ...

[chop2chip]

oh, not another "Libertarian"
:)

.....

the title of the thread please ...
I'm not libertarian. If I had to define myself, it would be centrist. I certainly don't believe that markets are perfect (they do a horrible job protecting single mothers, children, elderly, etc.), hence the need for an active government. But I don't believe markets/capitalism are evil either.

[57Brave]

Do we have a HRC voter here ?
:)

we agree on both counts. I thought the graph was odd - not a negative odd - just, odd

...................

Tammy Duckworth is a Senator from Illinois that lost both of her legs in Iraq War combat.

[chop2chip]

WWII went on for another 2 years plus the subsequent draw down.
That was a straight up question, not meant to be cryptic in the least.

From 1943-1945 (the end of the war) the unemployment rate dropped from 2.4% to 1.0%. You can't continue job growth when your country is at absolute maximum employment. As they say, trees don't grow to the sky.


The cut and paste stat covers close to 40 years. Which more than covers for the conditions you brought up.

You are trying to prove a point (Democrats create jobs, while naughty Republicans don't) by citing an empty statistics that (1) doesn't correct for population, (2) you don't define what the number even is, (3) what was the state of the economy before they took office? Of course Obama's tenure was going to see large growth, he stepped in when the economy was at an unsustainable low level. He deserves some credit (I sincerely mean that), but he in no ways deserves full credit for something that was going to happen no matter who was president.


And of course it shoots a great big hole in the notion that the Obama Economy is a mess

Why do you choose to live and die at the extremes? Isn't it far more interesting to think about what Obama could have done differently that would have helped the economy even more?


Really thought these points ere obvious. Guess I overestimated the ability of board Republicans to comprehend basic between the lines reading
My bad

I don't doubt that these points are "obvious" in your mind. The problem is that you have the communication skills of a middleschooler and you don't articulate anything well at all.


Context?
I thought the number variance was staggering. 39 M vs 15M
Thinking here more context would be in order even if it was a 25% increase ( 20M vs 15M ) but we are looking at a well over 250% increase.
and you want context - you make me laugh

I'm convinced that you don't understand what context is.


Democratic administration enact policies that create jobs.

Absolutely. There have been some exceptional Democrats in office.


Republican administration create vaacums where not only jobs are lost but a business climate not conducive to job creation

No way you believe this because no one believes this.


Still think it odd that the 40-43 job boom ended when it did

:FrediPuzzled:

[chop2chip]

Do we have a HRC voter here ?
:)

we agree on both counts. I thought the graph was odd - not a negative odd - just, odd

...................

Tammy Duckworth is a Senator from Illinois that lost both of her legs in Iraq War combat.
I like Kasich.

If Trump or Cruz is the Republican nominee, then I will probably vote HRC (or abstain). If Bernie is the (D), then I'll vote Cruz. There isn't a scenario where I would vote for Trump.

And I don't give one flying **** about Tammy Ducksworth. Honestly, you wouldn't either if this didn't fuel your anti-(R) fodder.

[57Brave]

she is quite a story
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tammy_Duckworth

Former Republican Presidential candidate and Senator Bob Dole dedicated his biography One Soldier's Story in part to Duckworth.[27] Duckworth credits Dole for inspiring her to pursue public service while she recuperated at Walter Reed Army Medical Center although, in 2006, Dole endorsed Duckworth's Republican opponent, Peter Roskam.[28]

Duckworth won the 2007 Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America Veterans Leadership Award.[29][better source needed] In May 2010, Duckworth was awarded an honorary doctorate by Northern Illinois University.[30]

Duckworth was a speaker on the third night of the 2008 Democratic National Convention,[31][not in citation given] and on the first night of the 2012 Democratic National Convention.[32][33]

On June 26, 2013, during a hearing of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, Duckworth received national media attention after questioning Strong Castle CEO Braulio Castillo on a $500 million government contract the company had been awarded based on Castillo's disabled veteran status.[34][35][36][37]

[57Brave]

https://scontent.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xft1/v/t1.0-0/s480x480/12791053_1083843171708736_1054718625068490444_n.jp g?oh=9f7bac86385b4cf0fd5655e52c3b978c&oe=5795F12E

[57Brave]

http://media1.s-nbcnews.com/j/MSNBC/Components/Video/__NEW/2016-03-10T12-35-24-866Z--1280x720.nbcnews-video-reststate-640.jpg




Florida Gov. Rick Scott (R) just gave one of the more painful television interviews in recent memory -- and, in the process, offered a case study in why Donald Trump’s rhetoric about Muslims is so dangerous.

The interview took place on MSNBC’s “Morning Joe” and it began innocuously enough, with hosts Mika Brzezinski and Joe Scarborough asking Scott whether he planned to endorse a candidate for next Tuesday’s Republican primary in the state.

Then Scarborough asked Scott about a major news item: Donald Trump’s statement during an interview with CNN Wednesday night that “I think Islam hates us.”

Scarborough wanted to know whether Scott agreed with that sentiment. Scott dodged the question, saying that Florida is “the best melting pot in the world” but noting that he wanted to stop allowing Syrian refugees in Florida until they could get better security vetting.

Scarborough pressed him. Fine, he said, the vetting of refugees is a fair subject for debate. But what about Trump’s statement?

“I’m just asking generally, do you think that Muslims hate Americans? That Islam hates America, as Donald Trump said last night?” Scarborough asked.

Scott, who has a reputation for evasiveness, once again refused to give a yes or no answer, instead talking about his home state. “I can tell you what’s going on in Florida, we…”

Scarborough tried one more time, again, to no avail:

Scarborough: “No, no, no, I don’t want to know what’s going on in Florida. I want to know what’s going on in your head, Governor. We’re friends. I want you to answer the question. Do you think personally think that Islam is a religion that hates America?”

Scott: “So Joe, what I can tell you, in our state we have a lot of Muslims that live in our state, we have a lot of Latin Americans who live in our state, we all get along … we love people coming to our state.”

At this point, Brzezinski interrupted, and gave it her best shot:

Brzezinski: “Rick, Rick, I know you and Joe are friends and this is a little awkward. Can you answer the question or should we scoot?”

Scott: “I can tell you that I’m glad everybody is in Florida. We’re doing well here. The debate is going to be fun tonight. I hope they talk about jobs. It’s the most important issue.”

Scott either agrees with Trump's characterization of Islam and its 1.6 billion adherents, or he's refusing to condemn Trump for political reasons. Either way, it says a lot about Scott’s character -- or lack thereof.

But the more important story here is about Trump, and why his statements about Muslims matter so much. By saying the things he has -- calling for a total ban on letting Muslims into the country, and now declaring that Islam itself is at war with the U.S. -- he’s made it more acceptable and less scandalous for other politicians to say such things.

Want proof? About an hour after Scott’s appearance, former CEO and Republican presidential candidate Carly Fiorina was on the show -- and dodged the same question, albeit more artfully.

Welcome to Donald Trump’s America.

Editor's note: Donald Trump is a serial liar, rampant xenophobe, racist, misogynist, birther and bully who has repeatedly pledged to ban all Muslims -- 1.6 billion members of an entire religion -- from entering the U.S.

[chop2chip]

Scott either agrees with Trump's characterization of Islam and its 1.6 billion adherents, or he's refusing to condemn Trump for political reasons. Either way, it says a lot about Scott’s character -- or lack thereof.

That's such a load of horse ****.

It's obvious that Scott doesn't feel that way, but he can't shoot himself in the foot with lower income Republicans.

If you want to know why Donald Trump is relevant, it's situations like this where he doesn't mind answering this question in a way that appeals to the most voters.

[57Brave]

you know little about Rick Scott.
Let me fix that, you know very little about Rick Scott

His name is being floated as a Trump VP.
Which I find it hard to believe Scott would accept a VP role.
To anyone

Perhaps Surgeon General
?

[57Brave]

I have to laugh out loud when people of the other political persuasion lay blame on Progressives and Obama for the rise of Trump.
Listen to yourselves.
............

"I don't think that I was the one to prompt questions about my birth certificate, for example," the president added. "I don't remember saying, 'Hey, why don't you ask me about that?' or 'Why don't you question whether I'm American, or whether I'm loyal or whether I have America's best interests at heart?' ... So what you're seeing within the Republican Party is, to some degree, all of those efforts over a course of time creating an environment where somebody like a Donald Trump can thrive."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/obama-donald-trump_us_56e1a585e4b0b25c91810114

[chop2chip]

you know little about Rick Scott.
Let me fix that, you know very little about Rick Scott

His name is being floated as a Trump VP.
Which I find it hard to believe Scott would accept a VP role.
To anyone

Perhaps Surgeon General
?

I'm taking issue more with the article (and to a degree the interviewer). What answer were you expecting out of him? Scott wasn't going to alienate his base just so MSNBC could have a soundbyte.

[57Brave]

https://40.media.tumblr.com/b56418998686f97e60d74d26950e776e/tumblr_o5a09uH6ZM1qkvbwso1_500.png