Dems Lower Unemployment; GOP Increases Unemployment

[CdnFox]

1 hour ago, Rebound said:

That fat orange tub of lard is going to keel over from a heart attack long before we lose Joe Biden. Biden’s health is clearly better than FatMan’s.

The man is entirely powered by spite - his heart could stop beating tomorrow and it wouldn't slow him down a milometer after what the dems have done to wind him up  

Whereas biden flatlines an average of 3 times during most speeches. . He wears a portable defibrillator  and they just give him a zap or two when they see him nodding off  

[Rebound]

On 4/6/2024 at 1:57 PM, CdnFox said:

Those stats only account for direct employees. For example they wouldn't account for independent branches such as the military, who employs about the same number of 'federal' employees listed in your link by itself.  There are dozens of departments and such that would not be calculated in that number at all. Yet their pay does come from the gov't - the army isn't privately funded

So if you thought you were accurately showing the number of people paid by the gov't, you were wrong.

Once more, you complete fool… government spending decreased substantially under Biden, so how did he hire MORE people while spending far LESS money?  

[Nationalist]

 

Giggle...

[CdnFox]

21 minutes ago, Rebound said:

Once more, you complete fool… government spending decreased substantially under Biden, so how did he hire MORE people while spending far LESS money?  

Goverment spending was up to address the covid crisis.  It fell slightly when the crisis was over - but post covid it's still RADICALLY higher than precovid.  MUCH higher.

Have a look -

https://www.statista.com/statistics/222196/receipts-and-outlays-of-the-us-government-since-fiscal-year-2000/   here's the total receipts and outlays per year.  There's a blip for covid, then it settles down - but it's still massively higher than it was pre covid and it's projected to stay on that path going forward.

The chart looks the same for the 'per capita' spending too.

Rebound - nobody is going to expect you to be a genius or anything. But you should know me well enough by this point to know that if i speak on a subject there's an excellent chance i've dug into it already and while it's always possible i've made a mistake that's not likely.  So you should be triple checking your facts and numbers if you want to avoid looking like a complete dolt.

Biden has radically increased spending especaily on the public services since covid. And his current budgeting suggests that may be accelerating, not slowing down. Of course that might not be true AFTER an election, he's spending a lot right now to 'stimulate' the economy in key areas.

[Nationalist]

4 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

Goverment spending was up to address the covid crisis.  It fell slightly when the crisis was over - but post covid it's still RADICALLY higher than precovid.  MUCH higher.

Have a look -

https://www.statista.com/statistics/222196/receipts-and-outlays-of-the-us-government-since-fiscal-year-2000/   here's the total receipts and outlays per year.  There's a blip for covid, then it settles down - but it's still massively higher than it was pre covid and it's projected to stay on that path going forward.

The chart looks the same for the 'per capita' spending too.

Rebound - nobody is going to expect you to be a genius or anything. But you should know me well enough by this point to know that if i speak on a subject there's an excellent chance i've dug into it already and while it's always possible i've made a mistake that's not likely.  So you should be triple checking your facts and numbers if you want to avoid looking like a complete dolt.

Biden has radically increased spending especaily on the public services since covid. And his current budgeting suggests that may be accelerating, not slowing down. Of course that might not be true AFTER an election, he's spending a lot right now to 'stimulate' the economy in key areas.

and now he wants to try this one again...

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/education/2024/04/08/biden-new-student-loan-forgiveness-proposal/73218916007/

[CdnFox]

8 minutes ago, Nationalist said:

and now he wants to try this one again...

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/education/2024/04/08/biden-new-student-loan-forgiveness-proposal/73218916007/

It's about the only thing he's put forward that gets much positive reaction.  About half of the us voters like the idea.  The other half don't or don't care - but he's hoping he can motivate that half that do to get out and vote.

I mean - what did you expect him to run on? His track record? bwaaaahahahaah!!!

[impartialobserver]

The rise in unemployment during Trump's time was due to covid. It is purely bad luck that the covid pandemic occurred during the end of his term. If Covid hits in November 2020 and not Feburary/March 2020... the numbers and therefore the narrative change. It is a simple matter of reading the writing on the wall.. not any allegiance to Trump. Personally.. I think that Trump is an id10t but folks like him so that's how it goes. 

[robosmith]

16 hours ago, impartialobserver said:

The rise in unemployment during Trump's time was due to covid. It is purely bad luck that the covid pandemic occurred during the end of his term. If Covid hits in November 2020 and not Feburary/March 2020... the numbers and therefore the narrative change. It is a simple matter of reading the writing on the wall.. not any allegiance to Trump. Personally.. I think that Trump is an id10t but folks like him so that's how it goes. 

You're showing allegiance to Trump by giving him a pass on his completely incompetent and self-serving handling of pandemic.

Have you listened to the Woodward tapes in which he admitted LYING to the American people about the virus?

No, he didn't state that he LIED, but he did tell Woodward he knew the virus was much more dangerous than the flu after STATING IN PUBLIC is was not.

Maybe you've not heard about the dozens of super-spreader events sponsored by Trump or caused by HIS POLICIES.

Of course, like usual when you have no rebuttal, you'll probably just push the laugh button. Go ahead, it won't change the FACTS.

[impartialobserver]

20 minutes ago, robosmith said:

You're showing allegiance to Trump by giving him a pass on his completely incompetent and self-serving handling of pandemic.

Have you listened to the Woodward tapes in which he admitted LYING to the American people about the virus?

No, he didn't state that he LIED, but he did tell Woodward he knew the virus was much more dangerous than the flu after STATING IN PUBLIC is was not.

Maybe you've not heard about the dozens of super-spreader events sponsored by Trump or caused by HIS POLICIES.

Of course, like usual when you have no rebuttal, you'll probably just push the laugh button. Go ahead, it won't change the FACTS.

No matter who would have been in office.. the outcome is the same. Yes, he did not handle it perfectly but even if he had.. the unemployment rates would have been skyhigh for quite some time. Besides... it was state policies that led to the shutdowns hence the high unemployment rates.. 

Now.. I know exactly what you will do. You will veer off into the weeds with your usual biased, partisan, subjective rants.. To prove me wrong.. stay on the topic of the unemployment rate in individual states. 

[robosmith]

4 minutes ago, impartialobserver said:

No matter who would have been in office.. the outcome is the same. Yes, he did not handle it perfectly but even if he had.. the unemployment rates would have been skyhigh for quite some time. Besides... it was state policies that led to the shutdowns hence the high unemployment rates.. 

Now.. I know exactly what you will do. You will veer off into the weeds with your usual biased, partisan, subjective rants.. To prove me wrong.. stay on the topic of the unemployment rate in individual states. 

State policies based on the prevalence of the virus cases. Super-spreaders greatly increased virus prevalence.

In California, state policies were CONDITIONED on virus prevalence. Case numbers CONTROLLED closures.

Thus the state policies were the direct result of incompetent management of the pandemic.

Your bolded statement (without evidence) is unjustified resignation to futility.

Do you need a refresher on ALL of incompetent policies implemented, or ignored, by Trump?

He wasn't even CLOSE to "perfectly."

BTW, does science mean "weeds" to you? Maybe paying attention to "weeds" would help you understand what happened.

[impartialobserver]

4 minutes ago, robosmith said:

State policies based on the prevalence of the virus cases. Super-spreaders greatly increased virus prevalence.

In California, state policies were CONDITIONED on virus prevalence. Case numbers CONTROLLED closures.

Thus the state policies were the direct result of incompetent management of the pandemic.

Your bolded statement (without evidence) is unjustified resignation to futility.

Do you need a refresher on ALL of incompetent policies implemented, or ignored, by Trump?

He wasn't even CLOSE to "perfectly."

BTW, does science mean "weeds" to you? Maybe paying attention to "weeds" would help you understand what happened.

"Science"... this is par for the course for your types. So tell me what you would have done if you were the governor of a given state during the pandemic and NOT have a rising unemployment rate? Repeat.. your policy can not result in a rise in the unemployment rate in any way. Now, I do know that you really have no idea how the unemployment rate is calculated.. Yes, you can go to Google and get a simplistic view of it. However, the real nuts and bolts of it are beyond your biased, partisan mind. 

[Rebound]

On 4/8/2024 at 12:33 PM, CdnFox said:

Goverment spending was up to address the covid crisis.  It fell slightly when the crisis was over - but post covid it's still RADICALLY higher than precovid.  MUCH higher.

Have a look -

https://www.statista.com/statistics/222196/receipts-and-outlays-of-the-us-government-since-fiscal-year-2000/   here's the total receipts and outlays per year.  There's a blip for covid, then it settles down - but it's still massively higher than it was pre covid and it's projected to stay on that path going forward.

The chart looks the same for the 'per capita' spending too.

Rebound - nobody is going to expect you to be a genius or anything. But you should know me well enough by this point to know that if i speak on a subject there's an excellent chance i've dug into it already and while it's always possible i've made a mistake that's not likely.  So you should be triple checking your facts and numbers if you want to avoid looking like a complete dolt.

Biden has radically increased spending especaily on the public services since covid. And his current budgeting suggests that may be accelerating, not slowing down. Of course that might not be true AFTER an election, he's spending a lot right now to 'stimulate' the economy in key areas.

So you’re arguing that Biden hired 300,000 people in March and maintained a sub-4% unemployment rate by spending less money to hire government workers?   That’s not believable.  

[robosmith]

2 minutes ago, impartialobserver said:

"Science"... this is par for the course for your types.

Science is CRITICAL for properly managing a pandemic. Otherwise you might waste time on foolish solutions like medications which do NOTHING to fight the VIRUS.

2 minutes ago, impartialobserver said:

So tell me what you would have done if you were the governor of a given state during the pandemic and NOT have a rising unemployment rate? Repeat.. your policy can not result in a rise in the unemployment rate in any way. Now, I do know that you really have no idea how the unemployment rate is calculated.. Yes, you can go to Google and get a simplistic view of it. However, the real nuts and bolts of it are beyond your biased, partisan mind. 

I know a lot more about the UR than you imagine. I know there are SEVERAL different UR's and the main one is computed  on a COMBINATION of survey results and payroll statistics.

However, MY point is what Trump did to RAISE the number of cases of COVID to which the governors were forced to respond. It's likely not all states had as enlightened approaches as CA did.

[impartialobserver]

1 minute ago, robosmith said:

Science is CRITICAL for properly managing a pandemic. Otherwise you might waste time on foolish solutions like medications which do NOTHING to fight the VIRUS.

I know a lot more about the UR than you imagine. I know there are SEVERAL different UR's and the main one is computed  on a COMBINATION of survey results and payroll statistics.

However, MY point is what Trump did to RAISE the number of cases of COVID to which the governors were forced to respond. It's likely not all states had as enlightened approaches as CA did.

And like always.. you can't stay on topic. Your zealousness precludes you from doing so. As someone who deals intimately with the unemployment rate (LAUS)... your lack of knowledge is on display. Well.. I gave you a chance but you showed that you can't be objective. 

[CdnFox]

7 minutes ago, robosmith said:

Science is CRITICAL for properly managing a pandemic. Otherwise you might waste time on foolish solutions like medications which do NOTHING to fight the VIRUS.

There was no science at the start of the pandemic.  THey didn't know what they were dealing with  or how bad it would be or even how it spread (arguments raged about how persistent it was on physical items for example).

What trump did was launch project lightspeed to guarantee the chances of a vaccine would be as high as possible. And that was the right move.

 

[robosmith]

1 minute ago, impartialobserver said:

And like always.. you can't stay on topic.

You mean YOUR NARROW MINDED topic.

Governors NEVER dealt with the pandemic in a vacuum and the POTUS had a lot more control over the environment, esp the foreign BORDERS.

But I understand why you want to limit the horizons addressed to those you know something about.

1 minute ago, impartialobserver said:

Your zealousness precludes you from doing so.

No, it is my knowledge of the forest, which is greater than your knowledge of the trees.

1 minute ago, impartialobserver said:

As someone who deals intimately with the unemployment rate (LAUS)... your lack of knowledge is on display. Well.. I gave you a chance but you showed that you can't be objective. 

You have stated no objective reason why the UR is relevant to anything but your short sighted understanding of the pandemic. 

No reason to ignore NATIONAL POLICIES just cause you imagine they have NO EFFECT.

[CdnFox]

29 minutes ago, Rebound said:

So you’re arguing that Biden hired 300,000 people in March and maintained a sub-4% unemployment rate by spending less money to hire government workers?   That’s not believable.  

So you're arguing that spending more money is spending less money.

That's not only not believable - it's assinine.

And it's obvious you KNOW you're being an 1diot becuase you feel the need to make up things i've never claimed at all. Can't argue with the truth i said - so you need to pretend i said something else you can argue with.

That right there should tell you you're in the wrong here. I don't need to pretend you said anything you didn't to refute your points , why isn't that true for you,

Bottom line is biden did hire on lots of additional people, stated he would and it was reported on, and spent more money rather than less which was your claim. And i've demonstrated all of that.

Sorry if that doesn't mesh with your desire for conformation  bias.