Unemployment at a 44 month low

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

    Re: Unemployment at a 44 month low

    In response to Firewind's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Unemployment is at a 44 month low.  Down .5 percent.

    [/QUOTE]


    114,000 new jobs doesn't even keep up with new people looking for jobs.

     

     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from ThatWasMe. Show ThatWasMe's posts

    Re: Unemployment at a 44 month low

    Simply lower the amount of people looking.

     

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

    Re: Unemployment at a 44 month low

    Shell game.

    Unemployment is actually around 11 percent.

    114,000 new jobs, no evidence of any job creation.

    114,000 new jobs doesn't even keep pace with new job seekers yet the rate drops from 8.2 to 7.8.

    I remember the Reagan years and real job creation.

    You fools can believe it if you like.

     
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from ThatWasMe. Show ThatWasMe's posts

    Re: Unemployment at a 44 month low

    Here's the new jobs in the Obama economy.

    Part-timers surge to 8.6 million...

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

    Re: Unemployment at a 44 month low

    In response to jmel's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    We don`t want lies matty, that`s all.  And this is a blatant lie. 

    [/QUOTE]


    Prove it.

    I'm used to your wild conjecture and angry, unhinged proclamations and predictions, so your credibility is lacking, to say the least.  If you said it was 100% true, I'm not sure I would believe you, either.

    And not for nothing, but judging by the current campaign, all we're getting is lies from both sides, and we drink it up and ask for more.  The pseudo-"debate" of the other night is just one example.  The tee partee frauds are another.  The birthers and foil-hatters and bibi-fellaters are there, too.

    But it's disingenuous to say that these numbers are suspect when the underlying methodology hasn't changed from last week or the scores of weeks before then. 

     

     

     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from MattyScornD. Show MattyScornD's posts

    Re: Unemployment at a 44 month low

    In response to ThatWasMe's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Shell game.

    Unemployment is actually around 11 percent.

    114,000 new jobs, no evidence of any job creation.

    114,000 new jobs doesn't even keep pace with new job seekers yet the rate drops from 8.2 to 7.8.

    I remember the Reagan years and real job creation.

    You fools can believe it if you like.

    [/QUOTE]

    The methodology for reporting the numbers hasn't changed...

    ...only your relative satisfaction with the results.  Would you be just as suspicious if the rate was 7.9 or 8.0...?  Somehow I doubt it.

    BTW, Reagan's unemployment rate in 1984 just prior to the election was about 7.6, I believe.

     

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

    Re: Unemployment at a 44 month low

    In response to ThatWasMe's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Shell game.

    Unemployment is actually around 11 percent.

    114,000 new jobs, no evidence of any job creation.

    114,000 new jobs doesn't even keep pace with new job seekers yet the rate drops from 8.2 to 7.8.

    I remember the Reagan years and real job creation.

    You fools can believe it if you like.

    [/QUOTE]

    If you gave Obama a blank check, a 20% federal funds rate, a responsible congress, and Reagan's public sector growth job growth, we'd all be wiping our butts with $100 dollar bills.

    But the reality is that when Obama took office, the federal funds rate was zero, Republicans in congress vowed from day one to stop him, and a bunch of morons dressed like Paul Revere were suddenly intensely concerned with deficit spending, protesting government spending at every level.

    Think about the federal funds rate and the Bush economy - in 2005, you couldn't throw a rock without hitting 3 realtors, two brokers and a banker.  Even real estate professionals today will tell you they were flooded with people with jobs who did not belong in the business.  Construction was booming, and bringing up other sectors along with it, tax rates were at historic lows, and the federal funds rate was below 2%.  But even with all of that - at the height of the bubble, with the pedal of the economy pushed to the metal, private sector job growth was just about what it is today.  You somehow see that as a failure of the Obama administration.  I think it's absolutely amazing.

     

     
  8. This post has been removed.

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

    Re: Unemployment at a 44 month low

    In response to slomag's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to ThatWasMe's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Shell game.

    Unemployment is actually around 11 percent.

    114,000 new jobs, no evidence of any job creation.

    114,000 new jobs doesn't even keep pace with new job seekers yet the rate drops from 8.2 to 7.8.

    I remember the Reagan years and real job creation.

    You fools can believe it if you like.

    [/QUOTE]

    If you gave Obama a blank check, a 20% federal funds rate, a responsible congress, and Reagan's public sector growth job growth, we'd all be wiping our butts with $100 dollar bills.

    But the reality is that when Obama took office, the federal funds rate was zero, Republicans in congress vowed from day one to stop him, and a bunch of morons dressed like Paul Revere were suddenly intensely concerned with deficit spending, protesting government spending at every level.

    Think about the federal funds rate and the Bush economy - in 2005, you couldn't throw a rock without hitting 3 realtors, two brokers and a banker.  Even real estate professionals today will tell you they were flooded with people with jobs who did not belong in the business.  Construction was booming, and bringing up other sectors along with it, tax rates were at historic lows, and the federal funds rate was below 2%.  But even with all of that - at the height of the bubble, with the pedal of the economy pushed to the metal, private sector job growth was just about what it is today.  You somehow see that as a failure of the Obama administration.  I think it's absolutely amazing.

     

    [/QUOTE]


    You fool.

    Obama had a super majority in congress his first 2 years in office, he still has a majority in the US Senate.

    This president can't even pass a budget when his party has control of both houses of congress.

    Reagan never had it so good.

     
  10. You have chosen to ignore posts from Firewind. Show Firewind's posts

    Re: Unemployment at a 44 month low

    Dear old Mr. Welch's secretary says he's the only one with access to his tweeter...

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/10/05/jack-welch-tweet-jobs-numbers_n_1942270.html

    Thing is, the method's the same as it's been all along.

     
  11. You have chosen to ignore posts from ThatWasMe. Show ThatWasMe's posts

    Re: Unemployment at a 44 month low

    Obama took a bad situation and thought it was an excuse to spend and what it did was make matters worst.

    Where the hell are all these jobs??

    The only jobs being created in this country are in energy no thanks to Obama.

     
  12. You have chosen to ignore posts from slomag. Show slomag's posts

    Re: Unemployment at a 44 month low

    In response to ThatWasMe's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to slomag's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to ThatWasMe's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Shell game.

    Unemployment is actually around 11 percent.

    114,000 new jobs, no evidence of any job creation.

    114,000 new jobs doesn't even keep pace with new job seekers yet the rate drops from 8.2 to 7.8.

    I remember the Reagan years and real job creation.

    You fools can believe it if you like.

    [/QUOTE]

    If you gave Obama a blank check, a 20% federal funds rate, a responsible congress, and Reagan's public sector growth job growth, we'd all be wiping our butts with $100 dollar bills.

    But the reality is that when Obama took office, the federal funds rate was zero, Republicans in congress vowed from day one to stop him, and a bunch of morons dressed like Paul Revere were suddenly intensely concerned with deficit spending, protesting government spending at every level.

    Think about the federal funds rate and the Bush economy - in 2005, you couldn't throw a rock without hitting 3 realtors, two brokers and a banker.  Even real estate professionals today will tell you they were flooded with people with jobs who did not belong in the business.  Construction was booming, and bringing up other sectors along with it, tax rates were at historic lows, and the federal funds rate was below 2%.  But even with all of that - at the height of the bubble, with the pedal of the economy pushed to the metal, private sector job growth was just about what it is today.  You somehow see that as a failure of the Obama administration.  I think it's absolutely amazing.

     

    [/QUOTE]


    You fool.

    Obama had a super majority in congress his first 2 years in office, he still has a majority in the US Senate.

    This president can't even pass a budget when his party has control of both houses of congress.

    Reagan never had it so good.

    [/QUOTE]


    Between Byrd & Kennedy's illnesses, and the contested election in Minnesota, there never really was a super-majority in Congress.  That's a myth - go ahead and look it up; the only bills that were passed had very small minority support, usually from moderate Republicans who have since been driven from the party.

    Lilly Ledbetter - Specter, Collins, Snowe, Hutchinson & Murkowski

    Stimulus - Collins, Specter & Snowe

    Dodd-Frank - Snowe, Collins & Scott Brown

    Jobs bills that have received majority support have been fillibustered - including the "Bring our Jobs Home Act" that eliminates the tax break givnen to corporations who move their operations overseas - the tax breaks Romney never heard of, despite the fact that this fillibuster occurred only four months ago!  There was another fillibuster just weeks ago for a bill that would help returning soldiers find jobs - what goes through the head of somebody who would vote to send a man to war, but not help him find a job when he returns?  Not only vote against it, but actually block the means by which a law is created, as set out by the constitution, with a pathetic gimmick like the fillibuster is today?

    This is the debate I really want to hear, because the only way Obama is really going to make a difference in his second term is if Americans wake up and start holding Republicans accountable for what they have been doing to this country.

     

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

    Re: Unemployment at a 44 month low

    In response to slomag's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to ThatWasMe's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to slomag's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to ThatWasMe's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Shell game.

    Unemployment is actually around 11 percent.

    114,000 new jobs, no evidence of any job creation.

    114,000 new jobs doesn't even keep pace with new job seekers yet the rate drops from 8.2 to 7.8.

    I remember the Reagan years and real job creation.

    You fools can believe it if you like.

    [/QUOTE]

    If you gave Obama a blank check, a 20% federal funds rate, a responsible congress, and Reagan's public sector growth job growth, we'd all be wiping our butts with $100 dollar bills.

    But the reality is that when Obama took office, the federal funds rate was zero, Republicans in congress vowed from day one to stop him, and a bunch of morons dressed like Paul Revere were suddenly intensely concerned with deficit spending, protesting government spending at every level.

    Think about the federal funds rate and the Bush economy - in 2005, you couldn't throw a rock without hitting 3 realtors, two brokers and a banker.  Even real estate professionals today will tell you they were flooded with people with jobs who did not belong in the business.  Construction was booming, and bringing up other sectors along with it, tax rates were at historic lows, and the federal funds rate was below 2%.  But even with all of that - at the height of the bubble, with the pedal of the economy pushed to the metal, private sector job growth was just about what it is today.  You somehow see that as a failure of the Obama administration.  I think it's absolutely amazing.

     

    [/QUOTE]


    You fool.

    Obama had a super majority in congress his first 2 years in office, he still has a majority in the US Senate.

    This president can't even pass a budget when his party has control of both houses of congress.

    Reagan never had it so good.

    [/QUOTE]


    Between Byrd & Kennedy's illnesses, and the contested election in Minnesota, there never really was a super-majority in Congress.  That's a myth - go ahead and look it up; the only bills that were passed had very small minority support, usually from moderate Republicans who have since been driven from the party.

    Lilly Ledbetter - Specter, Collins, Snowe, Hutchinson & Murkowski

    Stimulus - Collins, Specter & Snowe

    Dodd-Frank - Snowe, Collins & Scott Brown

    Jobs bills that have received majority support have been fillibustered - including the "Bring our Jobs Home Act" that eliminates the tax break givnen to corporations who move their operations overseas - the tax breaks Romney never heard of, despite the fact that this fillibuster occurred only four months ago!  There was another fillibuster just weeks ago for a bill that would help returning soldiers find jobs - what goes through the head of somebody who would vote to send a man to war, but not help him find a job when he returns?  Not only vote against it, but actually block the means by which a law is created, as set out by the constitution, with a pathetic gimmick like the fillibuster is today?

    This is the debate I really want to hear, because the only way Obama is really going to make a difference in his second term is if Americans wake up and start holding Republicans accountable for what they have been doing to this country.

     

    [/QUOTE]


    Do you think Reagan had an easy time with Tip O"Neil?

    Clinton with Gingrich?

    This President is a divider, he doesn't work with the other party, he had bullet proof majoriities his first two years so he shut off the minority party out of Obamacare and then shoved it down their throats now he blames them for an atmosphere of partisonhip.

    It's not his fault.

    Complaining that he can't get anything done. He ought to look in the mirror for the source of his problem.

     
  14. This post has been removed.

     
  15. You have chosen to ignore posts from ThatWasMe. Show ThatWasMe's posts

    Re: Unemployment at a 44 month low

    In response to ThatWasMe's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to slomag's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to ThatWasMe's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to slomag's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to ThatWasMe's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Shell game.

    Unemployment is actually around 11 percent.

    114,000 new jobs, no evidence of any job creation.

    114,000 new jobs doesn't even keep pace with new job seekers yet the rate drops from 8.2 to 7.8.

    I remember the Reagan years and real job creation.

    You fools can believe it if you like.

    [/QUOTE]

    If you gave Obama a blank check, a 20% federal funds rate, a responsible congress, and Reagan's public sector growth job growth, we'd all be wiping our butts with $100 dollar bills.

    But the reality is that when Obama took office, the federal funds rate was zero, Republicans in congress vowed from day one to stop him, and a bunch of morons dressed like Paul Revere were suddenly intensely concerned with deficit spending, protesting government spending at every level.

    Think about the federal funds rate and the Bush economy - in 2005, you couldn't throw a rock without hitting 3 realtors, two brokers and a banker.  Even real estate professionals today will tell you they were flooded with people with jobs who did not belong in the business.  Construction was booming, and bringing up other sectors along with it, tax rates were at historic lows, and the federal funds rate was below 2%.  But even with all of that - at the height of the bubble, with the pedal of the economy pushed to the metal, private sector job growth was just about what it is today.  You somehow see that as a failure of the Obama administration.  I think it's absolutely amazing.

     

    [/QUOTE]


    You fool.

    Obama had a super majority in congress his first 2 years in office, he still has a majority in the US Senate.

    This president can't even pass a budget when his party has control of both houses of congress.

    Reagan never had it so good.

    [/QUOTE]


    Between Byrd & Kennedy's illnesses, and the contested election in Minnesota, there never really was a super-majority in Congress.  That's a myth - go ahead and look it up; the only bills that were passed had very small minority support, usually from moderate Republicans who have since been driven from the party.

    Lilly Ledbetter - Specter, Collins, Snowe, Hutchinson & Murkowski

    Stimulus - Collins, Specter & Snowe

    Dodd-Frank - Snowe, Collins & Scott Brown

    Jobs bills that have received majority support have been fillibustered - including the "Bring our Jobs Home Act" that eliminates the tax break givnen to corporations who move their operations overseas - the tax breaks Romney never heard of, despite the fact that this fillibuster occurred only four months ago!  There was another fillibuster just weeks ago for a bill that would help returning soldiers find jobs - what goes through the head of somebody who would vote to send a man to war, but not help him find a job when he returns?  Not only vote against it, but actually block the means by which a law is created, as set out by the constitution, with a pathetic gimmick like the fillibuster is today?

    This is the debate I really want to hear, because the only way Obama is really going to make a difference in his second term is if Americans wake up and start holding Republicans accountable for what they have been doing to this country.

     

    [/QUOTE]


    Do you think Reagan had an easy time with Tip O"Neil?

    Clinton with Gingrich?

    This President is a divider, he doesn't work with the other party, he had bullet proof majoriities his first two years so he shut off the minority party out of Obamacare and then shoved it down their throats now he blames them for an atmosphere of partisonhip.

    It's not his fault.

    Complaining that he can't get anything done. He ought to look in the mirror for the source of his problem.

    [/QUOTE]

    Moderate republicans.

    I love that term.

    And who are the "moderate democrats"?

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

    Re: Unemployment at a 44 month low

    In response to ThatWasMe's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    IThis President is a divider, he doesn't work with the other party, he had bullet proof majoriities his first two years so he shut off the minority party out of Obamacare and then shoved it down their throats now he blames them for an atmosphere of partisonhip.

    [/QUOTE]


    You're lying.  The "majority" was anything but bullet-proof, much less filibuster-proof for most of those two years.

    Congerssional Repubs had absolutely no interest in improving the economy and even remotely allowing any credit to POTUS, because their constituencies refused (and still do) to accept the legitimacy of america's first black president.

    The partisan gridlock started from Day One, before any recessionary measures, and it started from the right-wing.  Obamacare is mostly GOP ideas...don't you know that??

     

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

    Re: Unemployment at a 44 month low

    Maybe if Obama was a 'moderate democrat" the republicans would work with him.

    Obama has poisoned the waters by not being inclusive during Obamacare and all his vitriolic speech to the American media.

    Reagan didn't go out to the media and rip the oppostion party because he knew it would be detrimental, neither did Clinton. They were too smart. On a few small things yes, but to brand the entire party, the party of no and to blame Bush for his misfortunes for 4 years?

    This guy is incompetent, he has deemed himself and ineffectual leader. He's stupid.

    All his class warfare has the american citizens at each others throats.

     

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

    Re: Unemployment at a 44 month low

    [/QUOTE]


    Do you think Reagan had an easy time with Tip O"Neil?

    Clinton with Gingrich?

    This President is a divider, he doesn't work with the other party, he had bullet proof majoriities his first two years so he shut off the minority party out of Obamacare and then shoved it down their throats now he blames them for an atmosphere of partisonhip.

    It's not his fault.

    Complaining that he can't get anything done. He ought to look in the mirror for the source of his problem.

    [/QUOTE]

    Lets have a look at the timeline of that 'bulletproof 2 year majority':

    Remember:   the president needed a supermajority because of the Republicans' unprecedented use of the filibuster as an obstruction tactic....over 400 times they've used it.

    President Obama was sworn in on January 20, 2009 with just 58 Senators to support his agenda.

    He should have had 59, but Republicans contested Al Franken's election in Minnesota and he didn't get seated for seven months.

    The President's cause was helped in April when Pennsylvania's Republican Senator Arlen Specter switched parties.

    That gave the President 59 votes -- still a vote shy of the super majority.

    But one month later, Democratic Senator Byrd of West Virginia was hospitalized and was basically out of commission.

    So while the President's number on paper was 59 Senators -- he was really working with just 58 Senators.

    Then in July, Minnesota Senator Al Franken was finally sworn in, giving President Obama the magic 60 -- but only in theory, because Senator Byrd was still out.

    In August, Senator Ted Kennedy of Massachusetts died and the number went back down to 59 again until Paul Kirk temporarily filled Kennedy's seat in September.

    Any pretense of a supermajority ended on February 4, 2010 when Republican Scott Brown was sworn into the seat Senator Kennedy once held.  Do you see a two-year supermajority?

    I didn't think so.

     
  19. You have chosen to ignore posts from ThatWasMe. Show ThatWasMe's posts

    Re: Unemployment at a 44 month low

    In response to MattyScornD's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to ThatWasMe's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    IThis President is a divider, he doesn't work with the other party, he had bullet proof majoriities his first two years so he shut off the minority party out of Obamacare and then shoved it down their throats now he blames them for an atmosphere of partisonhip.

    [/QUOTE]


    You're lying.  The "majority" was anything but bullet-proof, much less filibuster-proof for most of those two years.

    Congerssional Repubs had absolutely no interest in improving the economy and even remotely allowing any credit to POTUS, because their constituencies refused (and still do) to accept the legitimacy of america's first black president.

    The partisan gridlock started from Day One, before any recessionary measures, and it started from the right-wing.  Obamacare is mostly GOP ideas...don't you know that??

     

    [/QUOTE]


    What President had anything close to what Obama had his first two years???

    Not even close. None I know of.

    I can't think of one in my life time with the favorable numbers like Obama had in Congress.

    All Presidents are forced to concede on points to get work done, that's the WAY THE SYSTEM IS DESIGNED. For the good of the American people.

    But not this guy.

    It's Bush, it's the rich people, its corporations, its the republicans.

    All this guy does is blame and complain.

     
  20. You have chosen to ignore posts from ThatWasMe. Show ThatWasMe's posts

    Re: Unemployment at a 44 month low

    In response to UserName99's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    [/QUOTE]


    Do you think Reagan had an easy time with Tip O"Neil?

    Clinton with Gingrich?

    This President is a divider, he doesn't work with the other party, he had bullet proof majoriities his first two years so he shut off the minority party out of Obamacare and then shoved it down their throats now he blames them for an atmosphere of partisonhip.

    It's not his fault.

    Complaining that he can't get anything done. He ought to look in the mirror for the source of his problem.

    [/QUOTE]

    Lets have a look at the timeline of that 'bulletproof 2 year majority':

    Remember:   the president needed a supermajority because of the Republicans' unprecedented use of the filibuster as an obstruction tactic....over 400 times they've used it.

    President Obama was sworn in on January 20, 2009 with just 58 Senators to support his agenda.

    He should have had 59, but Republicans contested Al Franken's election in Minnesota and he didn't get seated for seven months.

    The President's cause was helped in April when Pennsylvania's Republican Senator Arlen Specter switched parties.

    That gave the President 59 votes -- still a vote shy of the super majority.

    But one month later, Democratic Senator Byrd of West Virginia was hospitalized and was basically out of commission.

    So while the President's number on paper was 59 Senators -- he was really working with just 58 Senators.

    Then in July, Minnesota Senator Al Franken was finally sworn in, giving President Obama the magic 60 -- but only in theory, because Senator Byrd was still out.

    In August, Senator Ted Kennedy of Massachusetts died and the number went back down to 59 again until Paul Kirk temporarily filled Kennedy's seat in September.

    Any pretense of a supermajority ended on February 4, 2010 when Republican Scott Brown was sworn into the seat Senator Kennedy once held.  Do you see a two-year supermajority?

    I didn't think so.

    [/QUOTE]


     

    HE'S HAD IT BETTER THAN ANYONE ELSE!!!!!!

    You bunch of whiners.

     
  21. You have chosen to ignore posts from Firewind. Show Firewind's posts

    Re: Unemployment at a 44 month low

    Thank you, slomag.  You didn't mention Sen. Lieberman (D-GE) and Sen. Landrieu (D-LA).

     
  22. You have chosen to ignore posts from ThatWasMe. Show ThatWasMe's posts

    Re: Unemployment at a 44 month low

    In response to Firewind's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Thank you, slomag.  You didn't mention Sen. Lieberman and Sen. Landrieu.

    [/QUOTE]


     

    Poor Obama.

    He didn't get majority votes on everything he wanted.

    Everybody was against him.

    Inviting paul Ryan to his breakfast meeting on the budget discussions and then ripping Ryan seated next to him to the national media.

    Ripping the supreme court at the state of union speech.

    Branding the Republicans the party of no during the healthcare discussions and then locking them out of the process.

    And then he  expects cooperation from these same people.

    That isn't leadership

     
  23. This post has been removed.

     
  24. You have chosen to ignore posts from ThatWasMe. Show ThatWasMe's posts

    Re: Unemployment at a 44 month low

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

    In response to ThatWasMe's comment:

    HE'S HAD IT BETTER THAN ANYONE ELSE!!!!!! You bunch of whiners.




    Gawd these idiots get testy when slapped around with facts.

     

     

    Much better to let them wail and nash their teeth, fact free, than introduce reality into their cocoons.

     

    Unfvckingbelievable.

    [/QUOTE]


    And knock off the foul language you're not at the dinner table with your family.

    Which president had better numbers then Obama with his congress there brainiac.

     
  25. You have chosen to ignore posts from Firewind. Show Firewind's posts

    Re: Unemployment at a 44 month low

    Unemployment is the lowest it's been in 44 months.  Down .5%.

     
Sections
Shortcuts

Share