Unemployment at a 44 month low

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

    Re: Unemployment at a 44 month low

    In response to skeeter20's comment:

    In response to 12-Angry-Men's comment:

    In response to ThatWasMe's comment:

     

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




    Hey numbnuts... are you that ignorant?

     

    Ever hear of the filibuster? Or how the wingnuts used it at record levels since they lost the senate majority?

     

    112 2011-2012 109

    111 2009-2010 137

    110 2007-2008 139

    Wingnuts lose Senate

    109 2005-2006 68

    108 2003-2004 62

    107 2001-2002 71

    106 1999-2000 71

     

     

    Gawd you idiots are ridiculous.



    two years with complete control of the house and a fillibuster proof majority in the senate.  What did they do?  go to their pet project, socialized medicine, and said job seekers be d@mned.




    The fillibuster-proof majority myth has already been debunked on this thread.  If you don't believe it, find a bill that passed without a single Republican vote.

     

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

    Re: Unemployment at a 44 month low

    Was this stuff already loaded in the magazine for just such an occasion?

    Polls favor the president -- bluster, bluster, bluster, it can't be true.

    Jobs numbers show improvement -- bluster, bluster, bluster how it can't be true, even though it was delivering the numbers the loyal opposition relied on for 43 months.

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

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

    Re: Unemployment at a 44 month low

    In response to UserName99's comment:

    In response to 12-Angry-Men's comment:

    In response to ThatWasMe's comment:

    Who does Obama blame that he has not passed one annual budget in 4 years? Anyone of you lemmings can answer.




    And yet you morons keep saying he's responsible for out of control spending.

     

    How does that work?

    Give us all some insight into the twisted, conspiracy-fevered mind of a whacko wingnut.



    I'm starting to understand the frustration that Obama felt the other night.  Its tough to argue with facts when your opponent just makes up whatever they want.  Its like punching a paper bag.

     

     




    Read what Samuleson had to say today in the WSJ (or was it (IBD?) about Obama's "facts" in the debate.  He says Obama is full of bull on this tax stuff and Romney is largely right, with some small  issues that need to be sorted out.  Lest we forget, Samuleson is a liberal, a democrat, an Obama supporter, and an economist, but an honest one.  I have spent some time talking with him in the past, and I trust his opinion in these matters, as he has always been able to substantiate his point of view, and does so factually.

     

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

    Re: Unemployment at a 44 month low

    In response to skeeter20's comment:

    In response to UserName99's comment:

    In response to 12-Angry-Men's comment:

    In response to ThatWasMe's comment:

    Who does Obama blame that he has not passed one annual budget in 4 years? Anyone of you lemmings can answer.




    And yet you morons keep saying he's responsible for out of control spending.

     

    How does that work?

    Give us all some insight into the twisted, conspiracy-fevered mind of a whacko wingnut.



    I'm starting to understand the frustration that Obama felt the other night.  Its tough to argue with facts when your opponent just makes up whatever they want.  Its like punching a paper bag.

     

     




    Read what Samuleson had to say today in the WSJ (or was it (IBD?) about Obama's "facts" in the debate.  He says Obama is full of bull on this tax stuff and Romney is largely right, with some small  issues that need to be sorted out.  Lest we forget, Samuleson is a liberal, a democrat, an Obama supporter, and an economist, but an honest one.  I have spent some time talking with him in the past, and I trust his opinion in these matters, as he has always been able to substantiate his point of view, and does so factually.

     




    I read the article (http://www.ocregister.com/opinion/tax-373637-percent-romney.html) and fact-checkers have called Obama out on this one as well, but Samuelson and the fact-checkers essentially argue that yes, Romney's tax cuts would result in $450 - $500 billion / year (or 4.5 - 5 trillion over ten years) but Romney has promised to offset the cuts by closing loop-holes in the tax code that benefit the wealthy.  Everybody essentially agrees on the $5 trillion number, it's the off-sets that are unknown.  IMO, until Romney gets specific on these loop-holes, this is a fair attack from Obama.  

     
  5. This post has been removed.

     
  6. 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:

    From the Samuelson article;

    The trouble is that there's a major snag (in Mittens tax plan), argued the TPC in an August report. In practice, the tax breaks affecting the rich (generally, those with incomes exceeding $200,000) aren't sufficient to offset all their tax savings from lower rates. Achieving revenue neutrality would compel Romney to raise taxes on the middle class – something he has also vowed not to do.




    Yeah the democrat template after obama got his butt handed to him is that Romney is a liar.

    All they have.

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

    Re: Unemployment at a 44 month low

    It took a few days for them to formulate the plan.

    Romney is dishonest is the new theme.

    He did kick Obama's butt but he lied.

    Whatever station on MSNBC this is the new dem template.

     
  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 12-Angry-Men's comment:

    In response to ThatWasMe's comment:

    It took a few days for them to formulate the plan. Romney is dishonest is the new theme. He did kick Obama's butt but he lied. Whatever station on MSNBC this is the new dem template.




    Well then why don't you post EXACTLY which loopholes Mittens would close to make his tax plan revenue neutral?

     

     

    C'mon numbnuts, should be a piece of cake.

    You keep spouting all this bullshiat about Dems being dishonest. It's time to put up or shut up.

    Show everyone the specific numbers of the lost revenue and the loopholes that Mittens will close to balance it out.

     

    C'mon spanky, put up or shut-the-fvck-up.




    No one can pull anything over on you.

    Just too bright for that to happen

    The spontaneous attack in Benghazi.

    The fudged job numbers.

    Takes 150,000 jobs created a month to keep up with new people in the market keep the number at status quo, empty chair creates 114,000 last month and the unemployment number goes down three points.

    Maybe math isn't your forte.

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

    Re: Unemployment at a 44 month low

    You just can't name the President who had more friendly numbers in congress than empty chair has had the past 4 years.

    You seem to know everything else.

     

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

    Re: Unemployment at a 44 month low

    idiot thinks he's damon runyon with the tough guy vocab.

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

    Re: Unemployment at a 44 month low

    Go onto the library of congress site to see if you can find the answer to that question I'll be back tomorrow.

     

     
  13. This post has been removed.

     
  14. 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:

    What's the matter numbnuts, can't do simple math?

     

    Ya, That's what I figured from a fvcking chickenhawk coward like you.

     

    Even the simplest of questions is beyond your pitifully limited intelect.

     

    Keep up that wilful ignorance.

     

    There's no law against a fvcking coward like you wanting to send other people to fight your wars.

     

    Carry on chickenhawk.

    I hope your wounded warrior contributions is enough to buy off the guilt you have for being uch a coward.





    ohhh all the tough guy talk is scary.

    From a stubby malignant dwarf like you.

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

    Re: Unemployment at a 44 month low

    Nothing scares me more than an internet tough guy cursing.

    Won't be able to sleep tonight.

     
  16. This post has been removed.

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

    Re: Unemployment at a 44 month low

    Night rambo.

     
  18. This post has been removed.

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

    Re: Unemployment at a 44 month low

    In response to jmel's comment:

    In response to UserName99's comment:

    In response to jmel's comment:

    In response to UserName99's comment:

    Poor jmel..Can't accept reality, and now has become a BLS truther who sees malfeasance everywhere without proof.




    Dumb as a post you are!  You could see live footage of your messiah in bed with a teen-age girl, smoking a bone, watching Iran test nuclear missiles, and you would still blindly and stupidly support this fool.

    Do yourself a favor............read some news today.  Watch a news show.  Learn for yourself with an open mind that it is impossible for the US to add 114,000 jobs and unemployment to come down.

    Stop lying for one day.




    The July number was revised from 140,000 to 180, 000.
    August, from 96,000 to 140,000.

    That's 85,000 previously unrecorded jobs, plus the new number, so we're up by around 200,000.

    I know that because I read the news.




    And you believe that 85,000 jobs were MIRACULOUSLY missed?  You believe that for the first time ever 3 months of job data was MIRACULOUSLY revised at the same time?

    You should have to take a civics test before you`re allowed to vote.




    Actually..as someone who has a decent professional background in finance..I have no trouble believing that numbers get revised. Companies do this with their financials more often than one would think.

    In addition..revisions to the numbers retroactively by the division of labor and statistics is something that has taken place fairly regularly over the past few decades. It is not new behavior.and therefore no politically motivated. I think most of the general public lacks an understanding of just how hard it is to put this enormous amount of information together in just 30 days.

    Beyond that..it is somewhat disheartening to read some of the comments on this thread. It seems the well being of people and the economy takes a back seat to poltics and the hatred of Obama. People on the right should keep in mind that these numbers are a positive reflection of goverment in general..including republicans.

     

     
  20. This post has been removed.

     
  21. This post has been removed.

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

    Re: Unemployment at a 44 month low

    In response to miscricket's comment:

    In response to jmel's comment:

    In response to UserName99's comment:

    In response to jmel's comment:

    In response to UserName99's comment:

    Poor jmel..Can't accept reality, and now has become a BLS truther who sees malfeasance everywhere without proof.




    Dumb as a post you are!  You could see live footage of your messiah in bed with a teen-age girl, smoking a bone, watching Iran test nuclear missiles, and you would still blindly and stupidly support this fool.

    Do yourself a favor............read some news today.  Watch a news show.  Learn for yourself with an open mind that it is impossible for the US to add 114,000 jobs and unemployment to come down.

    Stop lying for one day.




    The July number was revised from 140,000 to 180, 000.
    August, from 96,000 to 140,000.

    That's 85,000 previously unrecorded jobs, plus the new number, so we're up by around 200,000.

    I know that because I read the news.




    And you believe that 85,000 jobs were MIRACULOUSLY missed?  You believe that for the first time ever 3 months of job data was MIRACULOUSLY revised at the same time?

    You should have to take a civics test before you`re allowed to vote.




    Actually..as someone who has a decent professional background in finance..I have no trouble believing that numbers get revised. Companies do this with their financials more often than one would think.

    In addition..revisions to the numbers retroactively by the division of labor and statistics is something that has taken place fairly regularly over the past few decades. It is not new behavior.and therefore no politically motivated. I think most of the general public lacks an understanding of just how hard it is to put this enormous amount of information together in just 30 days.

    Beyond that..it is somewhat disheartening to read some of the comments on this thread. It seems the well being of people and the economy takes a back seat to poltics and the hatred of Obama. People on the right should keep in mind that these numbers are a positive reflection of goverment in general..including republicans.

     




    Hatred of him for what he has done to the country and where we're headed if he is relelected.

    He doesn't have a clue.

     
  23. 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:

    Where are the numbers, loser?

     

    C'mon, ya'll are calling eveyone a liar.

    Where's the math?

     

     

    Oh ya, that's right, a fvcking chickenhawk like you is better at slinging the bullshiat than actually showing facts.

     

    Your problem is that you're so much of a coward that when people confront you with your own bullshiat you fold like a card table.

     

    Not worth my time.

    Go buy off some more of your guilt. 




    And let me know what president has had more favorable numbers in congress than Obama has.

    You can go ahead and admit that there have been none, could be a big first step for you.

    Don't watch Ed Schultz for answers you won't get them there.

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

    Re: Unemployment at a 44 month low

    Happy Days Are Not Here Again You don't need a conspiracy to know the job market is still lousy.

     

    Democrats are celebrating the decline in the jobless rate, which only shows how their standards have changed since President Obama entered the White House. In 2004, they were lambasting George W. Bush for a September jobless rate that was 5.4%.

    http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10000872396390444223104578038623709703516.html

     
  25. This post has been removed.

     
Sections
Shortcuts

Share