Liberal Forum

Blackvegetable » 21 minutes ago » wrote: ↑

21 minutes ago

This is just more ****.

The numbers are what they are...if you understand the methodologies, you can put the data in appropriate context.

For example, the politicized narrative is that Carter was a terrible POTUS....because "Infashun!", and people will point to the fact that U3 stood at over 7% when he left...

But under Carter, private payrolls grew more than 9%....on a nominal (headcount) basis, Carter generated more private sector jobs per year than Reagan.

Ah, now you're pivoting to a Carter vs. Reagan history lesson to avoid admitting that you missed the entire point of your critique. Classic Veghead: when cornered, change the subject and bury it in historical trivia like it somehow rescues your original failure. Beautiful, when in doubt, dodge the argument and drag Carter into the room like we were all debating presidential job-creation trivia night.

The issue wasn’t “Carter vs. Reagan” you **** moron or whether the BLS numbers exist. No one’s denying the numbers exist, Veghead. God man. You **** retard. The point, which you continue to bulldoze past like it's inconvenient truth, is that those net numbers, regardless of administration, are regularly used without context to prop up hollow narratives.

 Your own reply actually makes the case for me: you're trying to validate Carter using raw headcount growth, while conveniently ignoring inflation, job quality, and economic impact, exactly the shallow framing I’m critiquing. Net numbers are real, yes. But if you treat them like gospel without asking what kinds of jobs were lost, which sectors shrank, and who left the labor force entirely, you’re just dressing up a partial story and calling it the whole book.

 So congrats, you’ve now proven that both political parties abuse this shallow reading of job stats. And still, somehow, you think that rebuts my argument. Impressive. Truly.