December jobs lackluster, unemployment 7.8%

  1. You have chosen to ignore posts from ComingLiberalCrackup. Show ComingLiberalCrackup's posts

    December jobs lackluster, unemployment 7.8%

    Now that President Obama and the Dems "won" the fiscal cliff fight, when, pray tell, do they own the economy?

    Their holy grail of raising income tax rates on the 'rich' is a reality. Besides the orgasmic joy class warfaring liberals take from punishing the self reliant, when will we see the wonderful results in the economy?

    Progressive policies and Nanny State Government  have been implemented for 4 years and counting.

    One goal of liberal policies has been a smashing success, as seen in the 2012 election: making as many voters  as possible dependent upon, and subservient to,  the Almighty Government.

     
  2. This post has been removed.

     
  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from DirtyWaterLover. Show DirtyWaterLover's posts

    Re: December jobs lackluster, unemployment 7.8%

    Lackluster?  It wasn't a great job growth figure, but it was certainly a good one.

    I bet it would have better if Congress hadn't waited until after we went over the fiscal cliff to do comething they could have done a month ago.

     
  4. This post has been removed.

     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from DirtyWaterLover. Show DirtyWaterLover's posts

    Re: December jobs lackluster, unemployment 7.8%

    In response to msobstinate99's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Duh. There is always job growth during the previous month. The end of this month will tell a bigger story. All that seasonal help will be dumped.

    [/QUOTE]


    Duh.  The figures are seasonally adjusted.

     
  6. This post has been removed.

     
  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from UserName99. Show UserName99's posts

    Re: December jobs lackluster, unemployment 7.8%

    In response to msobstinate99's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to DirtyWaterLover's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to msobstinate99's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Duh. There is always job growth during the previous month. The end of this month will tell a bigger story. All that seasonal help will be dumped.

    [/QUOTE]


    Duh.  The figures are seasonally adjusted.

    [/QUOTE]

    Not in all the reports. 

    [/QUOTE]

    When you get hit that hard, you should just stay down.

     
  8. This post has been removed.

     
  9. You have chosen to ignore posts from ComingLiberalCrackup. Show ComingLiberalCrackup's posts

    Re: December jobs lackluster, unemployment 7.8%

    In response to DirtyWaterLover's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Lackluster?  It wasn't a great job growth figure, but it was certainly a good one.

    I bet it would have better if Congress hadn't waited until after we went over the fiscal cliff to do comething they could have done a month ago.

    [/QUOTE]

    "Good one" ?The horrible unemployment numbers are "adjusted" alright, by the poodle media who give the current President a pass.

    When President Bush took office in January, 2001 the unemployment rate was 4.2%. After the jolt of the September 11, 2001 attacks, the highest the unemployment rate rose was 6.3% in June, 2003. This rate seems remarkably low by today‚Äôs economic standards.

    Then the economy calmed down and actually grew, dropping the unemployment rate to the mid 5% range, where it stayed for the next two years. In fact, the rate was 5.4% in November, 2004 when Bush was reelected.

    Really good news came in December, 2005 when the unemployment rate dipped to 4.9% and stayed in the 4% range straight through to November, 2007.

    Then in December, 2007 it went to 5.0%, rose slowly and really shot up in August, 2008 to 6.1%. When the economy tanked, the rate blew right through the 6% range ending December, 2008 at 7.3%.

    Rising still in January, 2009 when President Obama took office, the rate was 7.8%.

    Since then it has been "good"?

     

     
  10. This post has been removed.

     
  11. This post has been removed.

     
  12. This post has been removed.

     
  13. You have chosen to ignore posts from skeeter20. Show skeeter20's posts

    Re: December jobs lackluster, unemployment 7.8%

    U-3 7.8%

    U-6, the real number one should use in such a long resession, @14.5%

    The new normal is not giving in to reality that their economic policies have failed.  The Democrats are instead trying to adjust us to the new normal, high unemployment and no growth.  We tried this before during the Carrter administration.  How did that work out for yah?

     
  14. You have chosen to ignore posts from UserName99. Show UserName99's posts

    Re: December jobs lackluster, unemployment 7.8%

    In response to skeeter20's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    U-3 7.8%

    U-6, the real number one should use in such a long resession, @14.5%

    The new normal is not giving in to reality that their economic policies have failed.  The Democrats are instead trying to adjust us to the new normal, high unemployment and no growth.  We tried this before during the Carrter administration.  How did that work out for yah?

    [/QUOTE]

    Austerity means less spending. Less spending means less economic activity. Less economic activity means economic slowdown. Economic slowdown means less employment.

    So you are getting what you advocate, but yet you complain about it. What gives?

     

     
  15. This post has been removed.

     
  16. You have chosen to ignore posts from skeeter20. Show skeeter20's posts

    Re: December jobs lackluster, unemployment 7.8%

    In response to UserName99's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to skeeter20's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    U-3 7.8%

    U-6, the real number one should use in such a long resession, @14.5%

    The new normal is not giving in to reality that their economic policies have failed.  The Democrats are instead trying to adjust us to the new normal, high unemployment and no growth.  We tried this before during the Carrter administration.  How did that work out for yah?

    [/QUOTE]

    Austerity means less spending. Less spending means less economic activity. Less economic activity means economic slowdown. Economic slowdown means less employment.

    So you are getting what you advocate, but yet you complain about it. What gives?

     

    [/QUOTE]

    Wrong.  You can't borrow your way to spending indefinititely.  Your view point is broken because you are assuming the government is the big engine of the economy.  It isn't, and it shouldn't be.  When government takes money our of the private sector to spend on things like car companies, etc.  The net effect is always negative.  That's the GM story, that's the Solyndra story, and so on.    I know you and your liberal friends want to beleive it ain't so, but it ain't so.  Government spending on things that should be in the private sector stifles economies, it doesn't magically improve them. 

    Look, no matter how many times I point this out, you don't seem to get it. Keynes was not in favor of long term borrowing, only short term government borrowing i.e. within a single budget cycle to stimulate growth.  What the Democrats are doing is permanent long term borrowing in order to fund things we can't afford.  There is not a honest economist on this planet that would advocate this strategy, even Keynsians.


    So, sensing you stil don't get  it, try this on for size:  If the government borrows four trillion next year, funding the entire (non) budget through borrowing, unemployment will be 0%, right?

     

     

     
  17. You have chosen to ignore posts from skeeter20. Show skeeter20's posts

    Re: December jobs lackluster, unemployment 7.8%

    In response to 12-Angry-Men's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Logic is the "Bain" of the whack wingnut self-delusion.

    [/QUOTE]


    snap.

    The delusion is all on the left, baby.  You guys are doing you know what down our backs and trying to tell us it's raining.

     
Sections
Shortcuts

Share