RE: 8.3%

RE: 8.3% (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

Yachtie -> RE: 8.3% (8/4/2012 4:54:19 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Musicmystery quote: Because it's near textbook in its contrast. It's cherry picking while ignoring additional important factors. Says you. Anyway, this was worth the read.[:D]

Musicmystery -> RE: 8.3% (8/4/2012 5:13:04 PM)
quote: Says you. Says the completely different economic conditions.

dcnovice -> RE: 8.3% (8/4/2012 8:51:17 PM)
quote: Nor did Coolidge in the runup to this. Coolidge, I remember reading (not sure where, alas), suffered a bit of "senioritis" during his final months in office. He'd lay thorny problems aside, saying 'I'll leave this for the engineer."

thompsonx -> RE: 8.3% (8/6/2012 7:23:57 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Yachtie 1921 is an excellent comparison. Was 1921 a world wide depression like in 29?...if not then how can it be an "excellent" comparison? quote: There have been numerous recession/depression why do you pick only this one to try to bolster your point? quote: Because it's near textbook in its contrast. Perhaps it is "text book" in your mind but not in reality. quote: Anyway, this was worth the read. Your link list some of the laws against unethical behavior but it list very few who were punished to the fullest extent of the law. Perhaps that is why the laws were not effective in stoping this sort of behaviour? We find it most instructve that you quote rupert murdoch as a source concerning ethical behaviour.

LookieNoNookie -> RE: 8.3% (8/6/2012 4:25:00 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Sanity I disagree. Obama says this is what a plan that is "working" looks like while Romney on the other hand, says that we can do better... In my humble opinion, most reasonable people will vote for the sane candidate [;)] quote: ORIGINAL: Owner59 Obama is still going to win....lol....no matter what the numbers are......cuz folks know Mittens would be worse...... Nicely put.

LookieNoNookie -> RE: 8.3% (8/6/2012 4:29:12 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Lucylastic how many states have cut their public sector workers? republican "cutting" their "bloated" govmnt? do we have numbers? The expected growth was at 100,000 by some accounts.. 163 is bigger than projected. "sane" is obviously in the eye of the beholder.[8\|] Actually, we do...most states.....Republicans haven't cut any employees...the feds have (both parties....uhhh last I checked, the Dems were in charge), the "employable population" grew by 199,000 in that same period so....we kinda lost (a smidge)...hence, why the unemployment rate rose. Indeed..."sane" is in fact, in the eye of the beholder. But, probably more importantly....in the eye('s) of those who care to deem stats as fact.

SadistDave -> RE: 8.3% (9/7/2012 6:39:43 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: SadistDave quote: ORIGINAL: Owner59 [:D] "Payroll Gains Exceeding Forecasts Signal Sustained U.S. Growth" Employers in the U.S. added more workers than forecast in July, easing concern the three-year expansion is faltering. Bigger payroll gains may be necessary to reduce an unemployment rate that climbed to a five-month high. Employment increased by 163,000 last month, helped by a pickup at automakers and health-care providers, after a revised 64,000 June advance, Labor Department data showed yesterday in Washington. The median estimate of 89 economists surveyed by Bloomberg called for a rise of 100,000. The jobless rate, based on a separate survey of households, climbed to 8.3 percent. http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-08-04/payroll-gains-exceeding-forecasts-signal-sustained-u-s-growth.html Every month these numbers come out, and every month they revise the previous months numbers. There's nothing to be excited about here because in a month the numbers will be revised downward. The only question every month is "How wrong are they this month?" The revision of Junes numbers lowered last months employment figures by 20%. That means that all the unemployment figures from last month are wrong by a significant amount... This is not good news for Obummer, which is why the drive-by media tends to ignore it instead of report it with the attention it deserves. 163,000 jobs was not enough to compensate for the growing work force. If it was, then the unemployment rate would not have increased. Since the 163,000 employment figure will be revised downward next month, as it always is, that also means that the unemployment figure for the month of July will rise. This will not be reported on. It never is. The idea thats getting a lot of spin is that this is a positive for Obummer and the Dumb-o-crats and that somehow increased unemployment is the measure of economic success. That dog won't hunt come November. -SD- Like I said last month, these numbers always get revised downward. Looks like there was some serious pie-in-the-sky stuff going on last month! July has been revised downward from 163,000 to 122,000. Even less jobs were added for August and there was no gain in the average wage. A meager 96,000 jobs... not even enough to cover the population growth. These numbers will, of course, be revised down something like 15-25% in October. Democrats should change their campaign slogan from "Forward" to the phrase "One step forward, two steps back". -SD-

FMRFGOPGAL -> RE: 8.3% (9/7/2012 8:14:11 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Owner59 [:D] [image]http://farm6.staticflickr.com/5239/7116433063_786aaa135e.jpg[/image] What this gentleman said. Plus - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y8a_msdw9VQ

SadistDave -> RE: 8.3% (9/7/2012 8:44:38 PM)
Nothing new there. Just more excuses for your Failure-in-Chief. How about listening to your own Dear Leader talk about how terrible the Bush years were when there were more jobs being created in a single month than in any 2 months under Obama combined. If adding only 300,000 jobs a month is bad because it was more than the previous months, then by his own measure Obama is an economic disaster. -SD-

joether -> RE: 8.3% (9/7/2012 11:55:05 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: SadistDave Nothing new there. Just more excuses for your Failure-in-Chief. How about listening to your own Dear Leader talk about how terrible the Bush years were when there were more jobs being created in a single month than in any 2 months under Obama combined. If adding only 300,000 jobs a month is bad because it was more than the previous months, then by his own measure Obama is an economic disaster. I dont have to listen to it. I lived through it. Unlike the selective memory losing conservatives, I've watched, studied, examined recent US historical events. The failure of much of the plans, ideas, and bills put into play to help the economy recover were killed by those of the elephant party. When I hear conservative morons tell me that the stimulus bill didnt do anything good. I ask them the following questions: A) What was the name of that 'stimulus bill'? B) What was that bill set up to do, exactly? C) How much did it cost and how long did it run for? D) How many Republicans voted against it, but secretly took from it in their state/district? E) If the bill was not put into play, what would have happened to the economy given conditions? And I just watch the conservative's eyes glaze over as their brain has a meltdown and they drool. Not one of them to date can answer these questions truthfully, honestly, and without bias. Yet, I've had to explain this material, with just the facts. Not to push for the President's favor or Democrats. But to honestly try to help fellow Americans understand the events, conditions, and timing that surrounded the whole bill. I even tell 'em to look this stuff up if they dont believe me. Many of them seem to take my word for it, that things were....bad....and if nothing was done they would have gotten plenty worst. I do get a few that ask if it would be worst than the Great Depression. And that question was/is hard to give an accurate answer on. Fortunately, we'll never know the true answer, but the speculation given the facts and evidents to date, that it could have well been worst. How much worst? Consider the Great Depression only affected much of the USA. this economy was heavily tied into the world economy. As we saw the recession in our country had a ripple effect into the Japan, China, India, Russia, and much of the European financial/economic markets. When I listen to people like you, its annoying, since your much like someone that denies the mountain of science regarding the Theory of Evolution. Since your anger clouds your ability to step back, look at the historical events and ask the objective questions of 'who is REALLY at fault for things?' The President didn't lay off all those people himself (Bush or Obama), so why is he being blamed for it? And when the figures come in...OVER...the speculated figure, do you give 'congrats' to the President? For many previous months, this nation made job gains. An effort that takes more than just one person to create and maintain. yet, I did not observe very many Republicans nor conservatives, say out loud "Good Job Mr. President! Thats the direction this nation needs to climb"? Course not..... So I'll leave giving you this to think on. One of the things that has been notice to upset the economy is the stability of Congress. When Congress was working with minimal arguements on either side, the economy generally recovered faster. When it was a lameduck, it was a bit slower. But Congress now, is in total gridlock. What do you think the effect would be on the economy? From what I've observed, the Democrats are willing to business, while the Republicans have placed their head up their butts for the last few years.

Politesub53 -> RE: 8.3% (9/8/2012 4:19:50 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: TheHeretic quote: ORIGINAL: mnottertail And dont forget the u6 rate is about where W left it. So? The mess President Obama was hired to deal with is still a fucking mess, and the clean-up job ain't going real well. Yes. President Obama inherited it. And he's spent close to four years stumped by the problem. Time for somebody who can get things organized to take over. You think reinstalling the crowd tht caused it can fix it with those same policies ?

Hillwilliam -> RE: 8.3% (9/8/2012 5:43:47 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: SadistDave Nothing new there. Just more excuses for your Failure-in-Chief. How about listening to your own Dear Leader talk about how terrible the Bush years were when there were more jobs being created in a single month than in any 2 months under Obama combined. If adding only 300,000 jobs a month is bad because it was more than the previous months, then by his own measure Obama is an economic disaster. -SD- 2009 154,142,000 139,877,000 14,265,000 9.3% 2008 154,287,000 145,362,000 8,924,000 5.8% 2007 153,124,000 146,047,000 7,078,000 4.6% 2006 151,428,000 144,427,000 7,001,000 4.6% 2005 149,320,000 141,730,000 7,591,000 5.1% 2004 147,401,000 139,252,000 8,149,000 5.5% 2003 146,510,000 137,736,000 8,774,000 6.0% 2002 144,863,000 136,485,000 8,378,000 5.8% 2001 143,734,000 136,933,000 6,801,000 4.7% Bush took office with unemployment at 4.7% Bush left office with unemployment at 9.3% On the average, almost a million people became unemployed every year. Where's that job growth you were talking about? Who was the true Failure-in-chief and what flavor is that Koolaid you're drinking? It's a damn deep hole we dug. It's going to take a while to get out of it.

Page: << < prev 3 4 5 6 [7]

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875