UNEMPLOYMENT DOWN!!!

I don't care who is in the white house....there's no way those stats can be accurate. If you don't think they are politically motivated, then I have some ocean front property in arizona for sale. And no, my name is not George Strait.

 

Ok, thanks Not George Strait.

 

OK, let's see if I've got this straight.

Reading Talking Points Memo, and sharing graphics from there, makes me a "commie." Fox News is fair and balanced, and O'Reilly is a moderate.

If the economy does well during or after a Republican administration, it's because of that administration's policies, but if the economy does poorly during a Republican administration, it's because of the previous Democratic administration or because the market is cyclical.

If the economy does well during a Democratic administration - or appears to be improving somewhat - it's because of the cyclical nature of the markets, or because of some previous Republican administration. If the economy does poorly during or after a Democratic administration, it's because of the Democratic administration's policies.

Does that about sum it up?

 

I hope that's not intended as a summary of what I said. It's kind of discouraging to try to have a discussion and have your own words so thoroughly twisted.

 

Do you even know what those stats represent? It's the figures from the monthly job growth report, showing negative growth - i.e., net jobs lost from the economy - for every month but 3 since December of 2007. The trend now is toward positive growth, but we have a long way to go before the economy is really healthy again.

 

No ****...now what is your point?

 

Look ....I'm simply commenting on the Congresses being more influential than the POTUS. Democrats have been in control since '06 which is when the crap hit the fan. Despite this fact, this idiot administration continues to spread false propaganda about Bush's policies creating the problems we have today. Bush played ball with the Dems after '06 and the big spending Republicans that controlled the congress during his first term. He couldn't have been a better friend to big spending liberals which is no different that what we have today.

If he proved anything....Bush proved to be Obama Lite. Despite all of this...markets are generally cyclical but the deficit continues to grow at now light speed thanks to O.

 

Which side of your mouth said the first comment, and which side of your mouth said the second comment???????

 

Do you understand the difference in the terms ......markets and deficits?

 

Seriously, you don't think job growth - positive or negative - has anything to do with unemployment or with the health of the economy? It has been a tough decade, job-wise, for a lot of reasons. We lose jobs because they get moved overseas, or because businesses cut back or shut down altogether. We gain jobs when new business start up and when existing businesses increase production. We always hope the end result will be a net gain in jobs, and when it isn't, then that contributes to the unemployment problem. The information that is summarized in that chart is not new, it has been coming out month by month. The only thing new is that somebody has put the last couple of year's of data into the form of a graph, which shows graphically how the trend has reversed over the last year. I think we have a long way to go, but we are headed in the right direction, and the data represented in that chart is only one piece of evidence for that.

 

http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.nr0.htm

 

Right, that's what I was talking about in my first post in this thread, and it bears out my statement that the decrease in unemployment had to be caused by an increase in the number of discouraged workers. Since we lost 20,000 jobs, it can't be that more people are employed, but we lost fewer jobs last month than the month before, and far fewer than most months in the last couple of years. That small reduction in the unemployment rate really is not cause for celebration; we need to be adding more and more jobs each month instead of losing jobs. I'm not trying to say everything is wonderful, it's still bad for a lot of people. I don't think it would be possible to turn the economy on a dime, but I do think it is improving, gradually, as in not quite as awful this month as the month before.

 

Anyone can play with numbers. You could have been an engineer... laid off... ...and if you're now a part-time cashier at Petsmart, you're considered back to work.

As for the chart, I love how they used a # for the amount of jobs available, in order to say there are less unemployed. So if we have no jobs, then no one`s unemployed, because we don't have any jobs available? Right!! Brilliant!

 

Huh? I don't think that's what they said.

 

You can't lose jobs that don't exist.

 

The number of jobs that exist is not factored into the unemployment rate. The unemployment rate is the percent of persons in the work force who are not employed and are actively seeking employment. The job growth report is a completely separate report, based on an entirely different data set.

 

I realize that...but your pretty little chart shows jobs lost. Well ding ding....if there are no jobs to lose then fewer are lost! Praise Obama!

 

I agree. At some point we have to hit a point where all of the excess jobs have been lost and we are at what is actually necessary to sustain life as we know it.

 

OBAMA IS DOING A GREAT JOB THANKS TO HIS SPENDING DURING THIS RECESSION BUSH CREATED. MAKING THE RICH PAY THERE SHARE WILL HELP THE DEFICIT AND BRING EVERYONE BACK DOWN TO EQUALITY LIKE IT SHOULD BE. FOR YEARS THE RICH HAVE BEEN RUNNING THE COUNTRY AND NOW TAKING AWAY FROM THEM TO HELP THE LITTLE GUY WILL FINALY HAPPEN.

:hurray::hurray::hurray::hurray::hurray:

 

Well then I guess I will just quit my job and suck the government teet, since we are all going to be equal.:idea: