(D)

NA-CJ303_STREAK_J_20160304111536.jpg
 
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 ?
 
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?
 
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
 
chop2chip said:
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?
Click to expand...

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

Private sector jobs

Reagan, Bush & Bush: 15,831,000

Carter, Clinton & Obama: 39,631,000

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

Sometimes it is just as simple as that.
Click to expand...

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?
Click to expand...

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
Click to expand...

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 ?
Click to expand...

World War II? What's your point here? Stop being so cryptic.
 
chop2chip said:
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.
Click to expand...

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
 
chop2chip said:
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.
Click to expand...

oh, not another "Libertarian"
:)

.....

the title of the thread please ...
 
57Brave said:
oh, not another "Libertarian"
:)

.....

the title of the thread please ...
Click to expand...
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.
 
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.
 
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.
Click to expand...

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.
Click to expand...

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
Click to expand...

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
Click to expand...

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
Click to expand...

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

Democratic administration enact policies that create jobs.
Click to expand...

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
Click to expand...

No way you believe this because no one believes this.

Still think it odd that the 40-43 job boom ended when it did
Click to expand...

:FrediPuzzled:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top