Unemployment fell

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: blanghorst

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: blanghorst

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Well at least Obama didn't come strutting out and say "The Economy is strong" like your hero.

Nor is he making ridiculous and dire predictions like $10/gal gas like some people....

Hang in there there, we hit my $5 mark. They are still shooting for $8

Not a far stretch to hit Europe's $10 from there.

It's all be design. What do you think Cash for Clunkers is for?

That's funny, the national average never hit $5/gallon and I never saw $5/gallon locally.

You don't even remotely know what you're talking about.

Well that's just you because clearly you are special.

Many other ordinary Americans spent $5 a gallon.

 

[IndyColtsFan]

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Well that's just you because clearly you are special.

Many other ordinary Americans spent $5 a gallon.

Perhaps you are unable to read. Let me repeat it in bold: The national average for gas prices never hit $5/gal. "We" did NOT hit your "$5 mark." I can't help some were gouged, but clearly not the majority. You must be "special," but in a different way.

Still a far cry from $10/gal....buffoon.

 

[alchemize]

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: alchemize
So Dave these numbers are fake, and unemployment is much worse, right?

They are clearly missing at least a million people but at least they are say they are missing at least a million people unlike the lying Republicans.

Are you declaring the "Economy strong?"

The BLS is saying something different now 9 months later? Please prove your statement...

 

[MrMatt]

Originally posted by: manlymatt83

Unemployment rate fell to 9.4 percent in July. Pace of job loss slowed to 247,000 -- beating analyst expectations.

http://www.cnn.com

Reading this news, I'm wondering - is there anyone still at this point who still feels things could get worse, or we could re-test the lows we saw in the market once again? Most recessions in the past and have had at least two or three "ups and downs", and so far we've only had one down and now climbing back up. If unemployment numbers are getting better, and so are economic indicators (apparently), does that mean we're almost to the point of being past this, or will things turn again?

Commercial credit crunch will be arriving soon.

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: alchemize

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: alchemize
So Dave these numbers are fake, and unemployment is much worse, right?

They are clearly missing at least a million people but at least they are say they are missing at least a million people unlike the lying Republicans.

Are you declaring the "Economy strong?"

The BLS is saying something different now 9 months later? Please prove your statement...

9 months ago Bush was controlling them. Obama controls them now.

All the proof neccessary.

Go back to you corner little boy.

 

[her209]

Originally posted by: Patranus

Originally posted by: her209
How did they change it?

See my post several posts ago.

1) That definition has always been used. See "U-3 Total unemployed, as a percent of the civilian labor force (official unemployment rate)."

2) Even the unemployment number which includes the people who have given up looking for work has gone down. See "U-6 Total unemployed, plus all marginally attached workers, plus total employed part time for economic reasons, as a percent of the civilian labor force plus all marginally attached workers." where "marginally attached workers" is defined as "Marginally attached workers are persons who currently are neither working nor looking for work but indicate that they want and are available for a job and have looked for work sometime in the recent past. Discouraged workers, a subset of the marginally attached, have given a job-market related reason for not looking currently for a job. Persons employed part time for economic reasons are those who want and are available for full-time work but have had to settle for a part-time schedule."

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: her209

Originally posted by: Patranus

Originally posted by: her209
How did they change it?

See my post several posts ago.

1) That definition has always been used. See "U-3 Total unemployed, as a percent of the civilian labor force (official unemployment rate)."

2) Even the unemployment number which includes the people who have given up looking for work has gone down. See "U-6 Total unemployed, plus all marginally attached workers, plus total employed part time for economic reasons, as a percent of the civilian labor force plus all marginally attached workers." where "marginally attached workers" is defined as "Marginally attached workers are persons who currently are neither working nor looking for work but indicate that they want and are available for a job and have looked for work sometime in the recent past. Discouraged workers, a subset of the marginally attached, have given a job-market related reason for not looking currently for a job. Persons employed part time for economic reasons are those who want and are available for full-time work but have had to settle for a part-time schedule."

Hey hey hey no facts allowed buster

 

[Siddhartha]

If you push all the paranoia and Obama is a poop head aside, these unemployment numbers are lower than expected and hopefully point to good news about the economy.

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: Siddhartha
If you push all the paranoia and Obama is a poop head aside, these unemployment numbers are lower than expected and hopefully point to good news about the economy.

With what new jobs?

 

[IndyColtsFan]

Originally posted by: BarneyFife
Unemployment rate going down.
Stock market going up.

Obama is doing an excellent job. I'm glad we outnumber the right wing wackos so we can push our health care through in the fall so we can finally help the working class.

While bankrupting the country in the process. GREAT plan.

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: blanghorst

Originally posted by: BarneyFife
Unemployment rate going down.
Stock market going up.

Obama is doing an excellent job. I'm glad we outnumber the right wing wackos so we can push our health care through in the fall so we can finally help the working class.

While bankrupting the country in the process. GREAT plan.

More so than Bush? He is clearly a God of even higher power.

Oh that's right, the Messiah.

 

[alchemize]

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: alchemize

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: alchemize
So Dave these numbers are fake, and unemployment is much worse, right?

They are clearly missing at least a million people but at least they are say they are missing at least a million people unlike the lying Republicans.

Are you declaring the "Economy strong?"

The BLS is saying something different now 9 months later? Please prove your statement...

9 months ago Bush was controlling them. Obama controls them now.

All the proof neccessary.

Go back to you corner little boy.

:laugh: :laugh: Trolling with a vengeance...

Sounds like you believe the democrats finally have Full Control!

 

[IndyColtsFan]

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: blanghorst

Originally posted by: BarneyFife
Unemployment rate going down.
Stock market going up.

Obama is doing an excellent job. I'm glad we outnumber the right wing wackos so we can push our health care through in the fall so we can finally help the working class.

While bankrupting the country in the process. GREAT plan.

More so than Bush? He is clearly a God of even higher power.

Oh that's right, the Messiah.

Wow, you are delusional. Have you seen the deficit numbers of Obama vs. Bush? Go ahead and look for them and THEN tell me who is the one spending more. Bush was an idiot, but Obama has him beat hands down on spending.

Instead of toeing the party line and rehasing the same sound bites, I have an idea. Go review what the CBO said about the Democrats' health plan and THEN try to say something intelligent.

 

[IndyColtsFan]

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Hey hey hey no facts allowed buster

Sounds like your personal motto, since you never provide any.

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: blanghorst

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Hey hey hey no facts allowed buster

Sounds like your personal motto, since you never provide any.

:lips:

 

[IndyColtsFan]

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: blanghorst

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Hey hey hey no facts allowed buster

Sounds like your personal motto, since you never provide any.

:lips:

Thanks, you proved my point.

 

[daniel49]

Originally posted by: Skoorb
Damn, this is surprising. Even if it's an anomaly and a temporary blip I have thought for a long time we'll definitely see 10% unemployment. We still might, but I wouldn't have expected unemployment to flat line or drop yet. I do like being wrong sometimes

Obama is still expecting 10%, not that his pedictions mean much.

 

[WhipperSnapper]

Originally posted by: alchemize
I've been explained to numerous times how those numbers are manipulated, so therefore things must be much, much worse

Glad to see we might be hitting bottom.

I wonder. What's often left out is the fact that we need about 150,000 net new jobs every month merely to keep pace with our nation's explosive rate of population growth. So even if the nation gains 80,000 jobs in one month, we've still lost jobs relative to population.

 

[Engineer]

Originally posted by: WhipperSnapper

Originally posted by: alchemize
I've been explained to numerous times how those numbers are manipulated, so therefore things must be much, much worse

Glad to see we might be hitting bottom.

I wonder. What's often left out is the fact that we need about 150,000 net new jobs every month merely to keep pace with our nation's explosive rate of population growth. So even if the nation gains 80,000 jobs in one month, we've still lost jobs relative to population.

Out of curiosity, is the number still at 150,000? The reason I ask is because there have been recent reports that immigration is at it's lowest point since the 70's as well as a huge drop in applications for green cards (recent yahoo story). I remember 150,000 being the number a few years ago so is it safe to assume that the number has dropped?

 

[heyheybooboo]

Originally posted by: blanghorst
Wow, you are delusional. Have you seen the deficit numbers of Obama vs. Bush? Go ahead and look for them and THEN tell me who is the one spending more. Bush was an idiot, but Obama has him beat hands down on spending.

Can do!

Increase in Federal Debt

Last 200 days of the Bush Administration: $1,132,807,773,511.09

First 200 days of the Obama Administration: $1,035,088,909,894.16



The answer to your question: George W. Bush, The Man Who Broke the United States of America

(by $97,718,863,616.93 for the math-challenged)



Was that the answer you were looking for?

 

[Engineer]

Originally posted by: heyheybooboo

Originally posted by: blanghorst
Wow, you are delusional. Have you seen the deficit numbers of Obama vs. Bush? Go ahead and look for them and THEN tell me who is the one spending more. Bush was an idiot, but Obama has him beat hands down on spending.

Can do!

Increase in Federal Debt

Last 200 days of the Bush Administration: $1,132,807,773,511.09

First 200 days of the Obama Administration: $1,035,088,909,894.16



The answer to your question: George W. Bush, The Man Who Broke the United States of America

(by $97,718,863,616.93 for the math-challenged)



Was that the answer you were looking for?

Wow, I never saw that coming!

 

[WhipperSnapper]

Originally posted by: EngineerOut of curiosity, is the number still at 150,000? The reason I ask is because there have been recent reports that immigration is at it's lowest point since the 70's as well as a huge drop in applications for green cards (recent yahoo story). I remember 150,000 being the number a few years ago so is it safe to assume that the number has dropped?

I'm not sure what the estimated number is, but the last I heard it was around 150,000. Since our population is increasing by about 3 million every year, that figure doesn't seem unreasonable.

 

[alchemize]

Originally posted by: heyheybooboo

Originally posted by: blanghorst
Wow, you are delusional. Have you seen the deficit numbers of Obama vs. Bush? Go ahead and look for them and THEN tell me who is the one spending more. Bush was an idiot, but Obama has him beat hands down on spending.

Can do!

Increase in Federal Debt

Last 200 days of the Bush Administration: $1,132,807,773,511.09

First 200 days of the Obama Administration: $1,035,088,909,894.16



The answer to your question: George W. Bush, The Man Who Broke the United States of America

(by $97,718,863,616.93 for the math-challenged)



Was that the answer you were looking for?

Hooray for the next 2000 days!

 

[heyheybooboo]

@ alchemize

Loser Horns w/ Buzzer

tell me who is the one spending more

 

[IndyColtsFan]

Originally posted by: heyheybooboo

Originally posted by: blanghorst
Wow, you are delusional. Have you seen the deficit numbers of Obama vs. Bush? Go ahead and look for them and THEN tell me who is the one spending more. Bush was an idiot, but Obama has him beat hands down on spending.

Can do!

Increase in Federal Debt

Last 200 days of the Bush Administration: $1,132,807,773,511.09

First 200 days of the Obama Administration: $1,035,088,909,894.16


The answer to your question: George W. Bush, The Man Who Broke the United States of America

(by $97,718,863,616.93 for the math-challenged)

Was that the answer you were looking for?

Nice try, but please reread what I asked for in my original posting.

Have you seen the deficit numbers of Obama vs. Bush?

Now, go ahead and look for the numbers over Bush's entire term and look at the projections for Obama's first term. Here are some hints, and you can even look at a hypothetical second Obama term:

Deficit comparison

As a matter-of-fact, the lowest deficit projected in either of Obama's terms (assuming he wins in 2012) is still significantly greater than the highest Bush deficit.

Also, please note in my original posting that I said Bush was an idiot. I stand by that, but Obama will handily outspend him.