"Romney's Seven Biggest Debate Lies"

[punked]

So you're onboard with punked and bleeding heart? You're disputing the fact that there are more Americans out of work today than when Obama took office?

Are you disputing the fact that there are more Americans working today then when Obama took office?

Last time I checked when Bush left there was Less Americans working when he left and there were more Americans out of work. I know what you are doing and it is double speak. Obama created jobs Bush lost them, Romney wants us to go back to those Bush policies. That is all there is to it.

[kraychik]

Are you disputing the fact that there are more Americans working today then when Obama took office?

Last time I checked when Bush left there was Less Americans working when he left and there were more Americans out of work. I know what you are doing and it is double speak. Obama created jobs Bush lost them, Romney wants us to go back to those Bush policies. That is all there is to it.

You've already put your lie on the record, you don't need to do it again. I now want guyser to join you.

[punked]

Citation needed. Now you are going to lie about what was said in this thread you need help. Seriously you stopped living in reality and anyone can see that.

[kraychik]

I want to add one more fact, which is self-evident but it should be mentioned to see this from a different light. There are less Americans working today, both in terms of proportion of the population AND in terms of absolute numbers, than when Obama took office.

Once again, I invite you check Google's aggregation of BLS statistics:

http://www.google.com/publicdata/explore?ds=z1ebjpgk2654c1_#!ctype=l&strail=false&bcs=d&nselm=h&met_y=unemployed&fdim_y=seasonality:S&scale_y=lin&ind_y=false&rdim=country&idim=country:US&ifdim=country&hl=en_US&dl=en_US&ind=false

[kraychik]

Citation needed. Now you are going to lie about what was said in this thread you need help. Seriously you stopped living in reality and anyone can see that.

I cited it awhile ago. You just didn't bother to check.

[punked]

Yah quote my lie right now. Call me a liar then quote me like I did you.

[punked]

I want to add one more fact, which is self-evident but it should be mentioned to see this from a different light. There are less Americans working today, both in terms of proportion of the population AND in terms of absolute numbers, than when Obama took office.

Once again, I invite you check Google's aggregation of BLS statistics:

http://www.google.co...en_US&ind=false

I got a real question for you. Do you want to use the U6 number even though it COUNTS PEOPLE WHO ARE WORKING for the unemployment number? Is that really where you want to go with this? You can say their are more people underemployed but remember when you do that, that the NDP has been using that as the real measure of employment for 40 years. It is a number the Conservatives of this country say is a fake statistic. Just remember that when you use that number.

[guyser]

So you're onboard with punked and bleeding heart?

Insofar as what they are making fact yes, whether I agree with their viewpoint is moot.

You're disputing the fact that there are more Americans out of work today, both in terms of proportion of the population AND in terms of absolute numbers, than when Obama took office?

Nice try.

Obfuscate when all is lost.

Muddy the waters.

Stir the riverbank.

Move the goalposts.

Again, nice try.

[cybercoma]

Just out of curiosity? Why do we reply to kraychik? It's obvious he has nothing meaningful to add to the discussion, so why encourage his lies and trolling?

[bleeding heart]

It's been done. It's always the one who screams "liar!" the most that is invariably the most dishonest one in the room. You and bleeding heart and peas in a pod.

Excuse me, big guy, but you have called me a liar repeatedly....which I take now as an open concession of your own dishonesty. According to your own formulation, here.

I have called you a liar over only one point: your insistence that I hadn't proven, with citation, that little fact which got you so exercised elsewhere. (Shattering your worldview and all, I guess, about "left" and "right,").

Get it straight, bucko, or move on to lesser opponents.

Edited October 19, 2012 by bleeding heart

[dre]

Poor poor Kraychick

[CPCFTW]

Guys, this is a simple argument:

Currently 142,974,000 employed Americans.

http://www.bls.gov/news.release/archives/empsit_10052012.pdf

142,099,000 Americans were employed in January 2009.

http://www.bls.gov/news.release/archives/empsit_02062009.pdf

There are about 875,000 more Americans employed since 4 years ago.

Problem is there are 7,700,000 more people not in the labour force, and the labour force is also 1.4M larger. So there are 875,000 new jobs for 9.1M more people. Only reason unemployment rate is unchanged is because of the 7.7M people who left the labour force. AFAIK that was Romney's argument.

Also there are now 111.4M private non-farm employees vs 112.0M in Jan 2009. A net loss of private sector jobs.

Finally, the US needs to average over 100,000 jobs/mo just to break even on employment. Most the jobs that Obama supposedly created are just jobs created by natural growth. The US "civilian non-institutional population" (people over 15 and not in jail) has grown by 9M. We have 875,000 more jobs for those 9M people. That is not even close to enough job growth. Just ask PBS:

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/businessdesk/2012/04/mind-the-gap-why-adding-120000.html

[kraychik]

Guys, this is a simple argument:

Currently 142,974,000 employed Americans.

http://www.bls.gov/n...it_10052012.pdf

142,099,000 Americans were employed in January 2009.

http://www.bls.gov/n...it_02062009.pdf

There are about 875,000 more Americans employed since 4 years ago.

And in August it was 142.1 million, meaning that somehow the economy added over 800K jobs in one month (which no sensible people believe), which is a serious outlier. It also doesn't take into account the migration of full-time workers to part-time workers, which is also disastrous.

Unsurprisingly, the media has completely buried a recent revision that jobless claims rose to 386K from 339K. And that 339K was a false update from the BLS which mysteriously dropped from 369K the month before (because of the lack if information from California). The leftists in the media, of course, jumped all over the false good news touting "economic recovery".

Here is more confirmation of California not completely recording its labour statistics in order to provide dishonest talking points for the Obama reelection campaign, via CNBC.

http://www.mrctv.org/videos/labor-department-jobless-number-drop-was-due-reporting-delay

Problem is there are 7,700,000 more people not in the labour force, and the labour force is also 1.4M larger. So there are 875,000 new jobs for 9.1M more people. Only reason unemployment rate is unchanged is because of the 7.7M people who left the labour force. AFAIK that was Romney's argument.

Also there are now 111.4M private non-farm employees vs 112.0M in Jan 2009. A net loss of private sector jobs.

Finally, the US needs to average over 100,000 jobs/mo just to break even on employment. Most the jobs that Obama supposedly created are just jobs created by natural growth. The US "civilian non-institutional population" (people over 15 and not in jail) has grown by 9M. We have 875,000 more jobs for those 9M people. That is not even close to enough job growth. Just ask PBS:

http://www.pbs.org/n...ing-120000.html

Actually, the economy needs to add just over 200K new jobs per month just to maintain the current percentage of people employed in order to accommodate growth of the labour market.

Edited October 19, 2012 by kraychik

[kraychik]

Insofar as what they are making fact yes, whether I agree with their viewpoint is moot.

Nice try.

Obfuscate when all is lost.

Muddy the waters.

Stir the riverbank.

Move the goalposts.

Again, nice try.

I'm not changing anything. I asked you a straightforward question, and you refused to answer it. You and I both know why you won't answer it.