US JOB Growth Strong

US JOB Growth Strong (Full Version)

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

Message

cloudboy -> US JOB Growth Strong (3/29/2015 6:35:56 AM)
I thought ACA was supposed to kill off job growth? http://www.wsj.com/articles/jobs-report-u-s-adds-295-500-jobs-unemployment-falls-to-5-5-1425648924 The strongest stretch of job creation in two decades pushed the U.S. unemployment rate into the Federal Reserve’s target zone, keeping the central bank on track to raise interest rates as early as June and jolting investors worried about higher borrowing costs and slimmer corporate profits.

Lucylastic -> RE: US JOB Growth Strong (3/29/2015 10:42:24 AM)
Shhhhh Cloud, we aint sposed to mention anything positive going on wiv the presidents regime. You bad man!!!!!!!!

joether -> RE: US JOB Growth Strong (3/29/2015 11:22:25 AM)
Yeah, we were told by the Republicans if President Obama was elected again, the price for a gallon of gas would be $5.50 in January. And rise $0.05 to $0.10 each money there after. This was according to Sen. Mike Lee (R-UT) in March of 2012. Newt Gingrich, running for what would be his failed presidential bid in 2012, stated gas prices would be $10/gallon! Likewise, the Affordable Care Act has improved the health insurance market. 16.4 million people that didn't have healthcare before, now have access to it. Weren't we told by conservatives and libertarians on this very board that the ACA would never get 9 million people? That the website and exchanges would never work either? Unemployment was suppose to be over 8% according to Mitt Ronmey in 2012. In fact, we were suppose to have "...chronic unemployment..." for all the years President Obama was in power. Donald Trump, told us that if President Obama was reelected, both the stock market (AMEX, NASDAQ, NYSE, etc) and the US Dollar would all immediately take a nose dive. According to Marc Faber, the market would drop by at least 20% if not more. To anyone that follows ACTUAL investing information, the market is up 35% since Mr. Obama came to office. Everyone's favor drug abuser, Rush Limbaugh predicted that: “the country’s economy is going to collapse if Obama is re-elected." And..."There’s no if about this. And it’s gonna be ugly. It’s gonna be gut wrenching, but it will happen.” More silly bullshit from Rush Limbaugh on President Obama's 'failed' economy: " I know mathematics, and I know economics. I know history. I know socialism, statism, Marxism, I know where it goes. I know what happens at the end of it.” Apparently Rush Limgbaugh knows jack-shit! California was suppose to have gone bankrupt due to Democrats. President Obama was handed a failing economy that was already in a recession and headed for a depression that would have been worst than the Great Depression of the early 1930's. In seven years, his administration, and Democrats nation wide, have turned that all around. The leading and trailing indicators of the economy both show the nation not only rebound as early as 2010, but its been going strong since. While its not a perfect economy yet, it does have every confidence of achieving that in the next few years. An I'm still waiting on President Obama taking away all our guns, forcing use to obey Sharia Law, convert to Islam, put us in FEMA camps, remove the US Constitution, and become an evil dictator that rules America with an iron fist and terror! According to all the conservative wing nuts, all this was suppose to have happened by now. Since that would mean all the conservative radio talk show hosts are either total liars or completely insane idiots! I thought two of those 'Family Values' Republicans keep pushing were to be honest and 'take responsibility'? I guess they dont have to follow what they preach, eh? I thought the conservatives and libertarians on this forum and at large, didnt like liars and fear mongers? Oh forgot, if it helps support their 'values' then its 'OK' to behave like sacks of shit..... Why hold the people they support and elect to public office to the same level of accountability and responsibility with power as they slam the President and Democrats on an hourly basis? My question: Why would we want to vote in the failure know as the Republican/Tea Party into the White House or Congress? Seems where ever there is fear, financial ruin, or disaster; there's a Republican or Tea Partier trying to pin their actions that caused it, onto the President or Democrats?

joether -> RE: US JOB Growth Strong (3/29/2015 11:39:53 AM)
Also, five years later, Repbulican/Tea Partiers cant get their facts correct on the Affordable Care Act. Does help if they tried....READING THE LAW....rather than have someone else tell them how to think, right? Here are 10 failed predictions of the ACA: 1: Americans won’t enroll in the ACA 2: The ACA won’t meet its enrollment goals 3: Insurers will want no part of the ACA system 4: The economy will suffer terribly because of ‘Obamacare’ 5: Even if Americans enrolled, they won’t pay their premiums 6: Even if people pay their premiums, the flawed ACA structure will send premiums soaring 7: The ACA won’t reduce the uninsured rate because it will only help those who already have coverage 8: The ACA will lead to a “net loss” on overall coverage 9: The ACA will lead to higher deficits and a weaker fiscal footing for the nation 10: Americans will end up hating the coverage they receive through the ACA Then there is reality and facts.

DaNewAgeViking -> RE: US JOB Growth Strong (3/29/2015 11:40:53 AM)
Golly... Who'd-a-thunk it? [sm=afraid.gif]

DesideriScuri -> RE: US JOB Growth Strong (3/29/2015 11:57:11 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: cloudboy I thought ACA was supposed to kill off job growth? http://www.wsj.com/articles/jobs-report-u-s-adds-295-500-jobs-unemployment-falls-to-5-5-1425648924 The strongest stretch of job creation in two decades pushed the U.S. unemployment rate into the Federal Reserve’s target zone, keeping the central bank on track to raise interest rates as early as June and jolting investors worried about higher borrowing costs and slimmer corporate profits. What would the job numbers be without the ACA in place?

joether -> RE: US JOB Growth Strong (3/29/2015 12:00:07 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri quote: ORIGINAL: cloudboy I thought ACA was supposed to kill off job growth? http://www.wsj.com/articles/jobs-report-u-s-adds-295-500-jobs-unemployment-falls-to-5-5-1425648924 The strongest stretch of job creation in two decades pushed the U.S. unemployment rate into the Federal Reserve’s target zone, keeping the central bank on track to raise interest rates as early as June and jolting investors worried about higher borrowing costs and slimmer corporate profits. What would the job numbers be without the ACA in place? That would be a hard number to estimate. Since truthfully the only way to truly determine the ACA's impact would be to travel to a parallel dimension where the ACA failed to get voted in on March of 2010. Do you happen to have a 'time & space jumping device' handy?

Real0ne -> RE: US JOB Growth Strong (3/29/2015 12:08:43 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: cloudboy I thought ACA was supposed to kill off job growth? http://www.wsj.com/articles/jobs-report-u-s-adds-295-500-jobs-unemployment-falls-to-5-5-1425648924 The strongest stretch of job creation in two decades pushed the U.S. unemployment rate into the Federal Reserve’s target zone, keeping the central bank on track to raise interest rates as early as June and jolting investors worried about higher borrowing costs and slimmer corporate profits. and how exactly is that outside the "NORMAL" business cycle?

tj444 -> RE: US JOB Growth Strong (3/29/2015 12:19:20 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: cloudboy I thought ACA was supposed to kill off job growth? http://www.wsj.com/articles/jobs-report-u-s-adds-295-500-jobs-unemployment-falls-to-5-5-1425648924 The strongest stretch of job creation in two decades pushed the U.S. unemployment rate into the Federal Reserve’s target zone, keeping the central bank on track to raise interest rates as early as June and jolting investors worried about higher borrowing costs and slimmer corporate profits. how many of these jobs are real jobs and how many are part-time jobs, where 1 full-time (real) job has been split into 2 part-time jobs (so the businesses don't have to pay for healthcare & other benefits)?.. Imo, its not about how many jobs, but rather, how many people are getting ahead with real income, not just struggling and starving slower and getting further in debt.. where just one glich can cause them to become homeless.. I look at the stats of what number of people are paying unreasonable amounts for housing, those paying more than 30% of their income.. those numbers are growing.. I don't consider that a good economy.. the people paying 40%, 50%, or even more of their income for housing don't have that much to cheer about.. and rents are increasing as well..

DaddySatyr -> RE: US JOB Growth Strong (3/29/2015 1:07:06 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri quote: ORIGINAL: cloudboy I thought ACA was supposed to kill off job growth? http://www.wsj.com/articles/jobs-report-u-s-adds-295-500-jobs-unemployment-falls-to-5-5-1425648924 The strongest stretch of job creation in two decades pushed the U.S. unemployment rate into the Federal Reserve’s target zone, keeping the central bank on track to raise interest rates as early as June and jolting investors worried about higher borrowing costs and slimmer corporate profits. What would the job numbers be without the ACA in place? I wasn't able to read the full story, but I'd be interested in knowing how many of these "seasonally adjusted" jobs were semi-well paying ($10 per hour or more), *full time* jobs as opposed to minimum wage, part time jobs, which is what a lot of us nay sayers predicted. Michael

cloudboy -> RE: US JOB Growth Strong (3/29/2015 1:27:42 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Real0ne and how exactly is that outside the "NORMAL" business cycle? Two impossible things happened to the U.S. economy over the course of the past year — or at least they were supposed to be impossible, according to the ideology that dominates half our political spectrum. First, remember how Obamacare was supposed to be a gigantic job killer? Well, in the first year of the Affordable Care Act’s full implementation, the U.S. economy as a whole added 3.3 million jobs — the biggest gain since the 1990s. Second, half a million of those jobs were added in California, which has taken the lead in job creation away from Texas. Were President Obama’s policies the cause of national job growth? Did Jerry Brown — the tax-raising, Obamacare-embracing governor of California — engineer his state’s boom? No, and few liberals would claim otherwise. What we’ve been seeing at both the national and the state level is mainly a natural process of recovery as the economy finally starts to heal from the housing and debt bubbles of the Bush years. But recent job growth, nonetheless, has big political implications — implications so disturbing to many on the right that they are in frantic denial, claiming that the recovery is somehow bogus. Why can’t they handle the good news? The answer actually comes on three levels: Obama Derangement Syndrome, or O.D.S.; Reaganolatry; and the confidence con. http://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/27/opinion/paul-krugman-mornings-in-blue-america.html?_r=0

DesideriScuri -> RE: US JOB Growth Strong (3/29/2015 2:17:25 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: joether quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri quote: ORIGINAL: cloudboy I thought ACA was supposed to kill off job growth? http://www.wsj.com/articles/jobs-report-u-s-adds-295-500-jobs-unemployment-falls-to-5-5-1425648924 The strongest stretch of job creation in two decades pushed the U.S. unemployment rate into the Federal Reserve’s target zone, keeping the central bank on track to raise interest rates as early as June and jolting investors worried about higher borrowing costs and slimmer corporate profits. What would the job numbers be without the ACA in place? That would be a hard number to estimate. Since truthfully the only way to truly determine the ACA's impact would be to travel to a parallel dimension where the ACA failed to get voted in on March of 2010. Do you happen to have a 'time & space jumping device' handy? How can it be stated that the ACA isn't killing off job growth, if there is nothing to compare it to?

DesideriScuri -> RE: US JOB Growth Strong (3/29/2015 2:18:47 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tj444 quote: ORIGINAL: cloudboy I thought ACA was supposed to kill off job growth? http://www.wsj.com/articles/jobs-report-u-s-adds-295-500-jobs-unemployment-falls-to-5-5-1425648924 The strongest stretch of job creation in two decades pushed the U.S. unemployment rate into the Federal Reserve’s target zone, keeping the central bank on track to raise interest rates as early as June and jolting investors worried about higher borrowing costs and slimmer corporate profits. how many of these jobs are real jobs and how many are part-time jobs, where 1 full-time (real) job has been split into 2 part-time jobs (so the businesses don't have to pay for healthcare & other benefits)?.. Imo, its not about how many jobs, but rather, how many people are getting ahead with real income, not just struggling and starving slower and getting further in debt.. where just one glich can cause them to become homeless.. I look at the stats of what number of people are paying unreasonable amounts for housing, those paying more than 30% of their income.. those numbers are growing.. I don't consider that a good economy.. the people paying 40%, 50%, or even more of their income for housing don't have that much to cheer about.. and rents are increasing as well.. If you go to the BLS.gov site and look at the latest jobs report, the number of part time jobs didn't change much from last month.

bounty44 -> RE: US JOB Growth Strong (3/29/2015 2:20:05 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: joether quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri quote: ORIGINAL: cloudboy I thought ACA was supposed to kill off job growth? http://www.wsj.com/articles/jobs-report-u-s-adds-295-500-jobs-unemployment-falls-to-5-5-1425648924 The strongest stretch of job creation in two decades pushed the U.S. unemployment rate into the Federal Reserve’s target zone, keeping the central bank on track to raise interest rates as early as June and jolting investors worried about higher borrowing costs and slimmer corporate profits. What would the job numbers be without the ACA in place? That would be a hard number to estimate. Since truthfully the only way to truly determine the ACA's impact would be to travel to a parallel dimension where the ACA failed to get voted in on March of 2010. Do you happen to have a 'time & space jumping device' handy? then from a methodological perspective, you cannot rightly say that the aca didn't hurt job growth...there are other things you can say, but not that.

tj444 -> RE: US JOB Growth Strong (3/29/2015 3:03:40 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri quote: ORIGINAL: tj444 quote: ORIGINAL: cloudboy I thought ACA was supposed to kill off job growth? http://www.wsj.com/articles/jobs-report-u-s-adds-295-500-jobs-unemployment-falls-to-5-5-1425648924 The strongest stretch of job creation in two decades pushed the U.S. unemployment rate into the Federal Reserve’s target zone, keeping the central bank on track to raise interest rates as early as June and jolting investors worried about higher borrowing costs and slimmer corporate profits. how many of these jobs are real jobs and how many are part-time jobs, where 1 full-time (real) job has been split into 2 part-time jobs (so the businesses don't have to pay for healthcare & other benefits)?.. Imo, its not about how many jobs, but rather, how many people are getting ahead with real income, not just struggling and starving slower and getting further in debt.. where just one glich can cause them to become homeless.. I look at the stats of what number of people are paying unreasonable amounts for housing, those paying more than 30% of their income.. those numbers are growing.. I don't consider that a good economy.. the people paying 40%, 50%, or even more of their income for housing don't have that much to cheer about.. and rents are increasing as well.. If you go to the BLS.gov site and look at the latest jobs report, the number of part time jobs didn't change much from last month. that doesn't matter to those that are forced (by economics) to take part-time work when they need full-time work.. again, I look at the number of people that spend more than 30% of their income on housing.. since housing is pretty much a necessity for most people..

joether -> RE: US JOB Growth Strong (3/29/2015 3:32:54 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri quote: ORIGINAL: joether quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri quote: ORIGINAL: cloudboy I thought ACA was supposed to kill off job growth? http://www.wsj.com/articles/jobs-report-u-s-adds-295-500-jobs-unemployment-falls-to-5-5-1425648924 The strongest stretch of job creation in two decades pushed the U.S. unemployment rate into the Federal Reserve’s target zone, keeping the central bank on track to raise interest rates as early as June and jolting investors worried about higher borrowing costs and slimmer corporate profits. What would the job numbers be without the ACA in place? That would be a hard number to estimate. Since truthfully the only way to truly determine the ACA's impact would be to travel to a parallel dimension where the ACA failed to get voted in on March of 2010. Do you happen to have a 'time & space jumping device' handy? How can it be stated that the ACA isn't killing off job growth, if there is nothing to compare it to? Is the Affordable Care Act on the legal books from between March of 2010 and March 29th of 2015? 'Yes' would be the correct answer. Has job growth taken place between those two dates? Yes. Is it solely due to the ACA? I would say the 'ACA' and 'job growth' to share a distant relationship with each other. Meaning the ACA is not solely to thank for the job growth, yet, in some key areas both in the government and private sector, its impact may have improved things more directly (i.e. employment-wise). Have people that were against the ACA (and still against it) stated the ACA would kill job growth in the nation? 'Yes'. But we have already established both the ACA existing in a time frame, and job growth taking place (and the relationship between the two terms). The fact here is those that stated the ACA would kill job growth, are placing the two concepts together. Implying 'correlation means causation' before the facts were accounted. If you recall, I've stated that the ACA is not a law that brings socialism into play at a national level. But rather the law's wording establishes rules by which health insurance policies are bought and sold in America.

joether -> RE: US JOB Growth Strong (3/29/2015 3:38:20 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: bounty44 quote: ORIGINAL: joether quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri quote: ORIGINAL: cloudboy I thought ACA was supposed to kill off job growth? http://www.wsj.com/articles/jobs-report-u-s-adds-295-500-jobs-unemployment-falls-to-5-5-1425648924 The strongest stretch of job creation in two decades pushed the U.S. unemployment rate into the Federal Reserve’s target zone, keeping the central bank on track to raise interest rates as early as June and jolting investors worried about higher borrowing costs and slimmer corporate profits. What would the job numbers be without the ACA in place? That would be a hard number to estimate. Since truthfully the only way to truly determine the ACA's impact would be to travel to a parallel dimension where the ACA failed to get voted in on March of 2010. Do you happen to have a 'time & space jumping device' handy? then from a methodological perspective, you cannot rightly say that the aca didn't hurt job growth...there are other things you can say, but not that. It would be up to you to provide the burden of evidence that states this. But this is also basic mathematics taken at a simplistic level. 5 + (-3) = 2. Yes, three jobs were lost in a hypothetical ACA/job growth review. Yet, five jobs were created. So therefore, it shows a gain of '2'. Again, unless we had a way of looking at the actual impact in the United States had the ACA not been voted through; it would be very hard if not impossible to determine the ultimate impact of the law in any given year since its signing by President Obama.

DesideriScuri -> RE: US JOB Growth Strong (3/29/2015 5:06:29 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tj444 quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri quote: ORIGINAL: tj444 quote: ORIGINAL: cloudboy I thought ACA was supposed to kill off job growth? http://www.wsj.com/articles/jobs-report-u-s-adds-295-500-jobs-unemployment-falls-to-5-5-1425648924 The strongest stretch of job creation in two decades pushed the U.S. unemployment rate into the Federal Reserve’s target zone, keeping the central bank on track to raise interest rates as early as June and jolting investors worried about higher borrowing costs and slimmer corporate profits. how many of these jobs are real jobs and how many are part-time jobs, where 1 full-time (real) job has been split into 2 part-time jobs (so the businesses don't have to pay for healthcare & other benefits)?.. Imo, its not about how many jobs, but rather, how many people are getting ahead with real income, not just struggling and starving slower and getting further in debt.. where just one glich can cause them to become homeless.. I look at the stats of what number of people are paying unreasonable amounts for housing, those paying more than 30% of their income.. those numbers are growing.. I don't consider that a good economy.. the people paying 40%, 50%, or even more of their income for housing don't have that much to cheer about.. and rents are increasing as well.. If you go to the BLS.gov site and look at the latest jobs report, the number of part time jobs didn't change much from last month. that doesn't matter to those that are forced (by economics) to take part-time work when they need full-time work.. again, I look at the number of people that spend more than 30% of their income on housing.. since housing is pretty much a necessity for most people.. You asked how many of those jobs were part time. I responded that, according to the BLS, there was not an appreciable increase in the number of part time jobs from last month. If it doesn't matter to those who blah blah blah, why did you fucking ask the question? Did you want the information or not? If you did, I gave it to you. You're welcome. If you didn't, don't ask the fucking question.

DesideriScuri -> RE: US JOB Growth Strong (3/29/2015 5:08:02 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: joether quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri quote: ORIGINAL: joether quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri What would the job numbers be without the ACA in place? That would be a hard number to estimate. Since truthfully the only way to truly determine the ACA's impact would be to travel to a parallel dimension where the ACA failed to get voted in on March of 2010. Do you happen to have a 'time & space jumping device' handy? How can it be stated that the ACA isn't killing off job growth, if there is nothing to compare it to? Is the Affordable Care Act on the legal books from between March of 2010 and March 29th of 2015? 'Yes' would be the correct answer. Has job growth taken place between those two dates? Yes. Is it solely due to the ACA? I would say the 'ACA' and 'job growth' to share a distant relationship with each other. Meaning the ACA is not solely to thank for the job growth, yet, in some key areas both in the government and private sector, its impact may have improved things more directly (i.e. employment-wise). Have people that were against the ACA (and still against it) stated the ACA would kill job growth in the nation? 'Yes'. But we have already established both the ACA existing in a time frame, and job growth taking place (and the relationship between the two terms). The fact here is those that stated the ACA would kill job growth, are placing the two concepts together. Implying 'correlation means causation' before the facts were accounted. If you recall, I've stated that the ACA is not a law that brings socialism into play at a national level. But rather the law's wording establishes rules by which health insurance policies are bought and sold in America. IOW, you very well may be mistaking correlation for causation. Got it.

tj444 -> RE: US JOB Growth Strong (3/29/2015 7:39:44 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri quote: ORIGINAL: tj444 quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri quote: ORIGINAL: tj444 quote: ORIGINAL: cloudboy I thought ACA was supposed to kill off job growth? http://www.wsj.com/articles/jobs-report-u-s-adds-295-500-jobs-unemployment-falls-to-5-5-1425648924 The strongest stretch of job creation in two decades pushed the U.S. unemployment rate into the Federal Reserve’s target zone, keeping the central bank on track to raise interest rates as early as June and jolting investors worried about higher borrowing costs and slimmer corporate profits. how many of these jobs are real jobs and how many are part-time jobs, where 1 full-time (real) job has been split into 2 part-time jobs (so the businesses don't have to pay for healthcare & other benefits)?.. Imo, its not about how many jobs, but rather, how many people are getting ahead with real income, not just struggling and starving slower and getting further in debt.. where just one glich can cause them to become homeless.. I look at the stats of what number of people are paying unreasonable amounts for housing, those paying more than 30% of their income.. those numbers are growing.. I don't consider that a good economy.. the people paying 40%, 50%, or even more of their income for housing don't have that much to cheer about.. and rents are increasing as well.. If you go to the BLS.gov site and look at the latest jobs report, the number of part time jobs didn't change much from last month. that doesn't matter to those that are forced (by economics) to take part-time work when they need full-time work.. again, I look at the number of people that spend more than 30% of their income on housing.. since housing is pretty much a necessity for most people.. You asked how many of those jobs were part time. I responded that, according to the BLS, there was not an appreciable increase in the number of part time jobs from last month. If it doesn't matter to those who blah blah blah, why did you fucking ask the question? Did you want the information or not? If you did, I gave it to you. You're welcome. If you didn't, don't ask the fucking question. actually no, you didn't give me the specific numbers or web page with that specific data.. I don't have a month to go thru that website (omg..) and figure out where they are hiding that info.. but,.. comparing the number this month to last month is sorta ridiculous/pointless as the conversion of jobs from full-time to part-time has been going on for a couple of decades.. so I would want to compare the numbers from today to various points back 20 or more years.. Really, there are a lot of factors that go into the whole picture.. there are young people that cant find a job so they can pay their student loans, there are old farts that retired but ran outta money so had to go back to work, there are those multi-millions of offshore jobs that were supposed ta come back onshore (have they?), there are robots taking jobs, other tech eliminating/reducing the number of jobs, etc etc.. and we know the govt fucks around with the numbers/stats & the unemployment rate is really double the rate they quote.. they just disqualify certain people from being "unemployed" so their numbers look better.. and what is the real wage today compared to 20 or more years ago, inflation has eaten away earnings and people are actually earning less now that they did back then.. so strong job growth??? I don't think so... I call it mediocre job growth.. too many people are like hamsters on little wheels, spinning their little heart out and getting nowhere..

Page: [1] 2 3 4 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875