| Author |
Message |
|
| thesecondcoming |
Posted - 1/31/2013 4:43:30 AM | show profile | flag this post
And with lower paychecks due to higher taxes on everyone, it stays.
But to quote the new liberal line when dealing with Obama's presidency, "What difference does it make!"
|
|
| orthicon |
Posted - 1/31/2013 2:02:54 PM | show profile | flag this post
recession?.. with the dow bouncing around 14,000..
daily?..
don't think so..
|
|
| Village Gal |
Posted - 1/31/2013 2:08:58 PM | show profile | flag this post
no recesssion here in NYC what with with job growth
in finance, technology and the service industries.
|
|
| VTexan |
Posted - 1/31/2013 2:12:07 PM | show profile | flag this post
It could be raining 5 dollar bills
...and second coming would claim it was a scandal they weren't tens.
|
|
| orthicon |
Posted - 1/31/2013 3:06:25 PM | show profile | flag this post
he's just trolling, like his godfather cruiztwit..
ignoring him is one of the fringe benefits of joining the boycott cruiser organization..
|
|
| cruiser |
Posted - 1/31/2013 3:54:24 PM | show profile | flag this post
The recession lives on
New unemployment claims actually rose in the last quarter but the Obama administration...in one of its most bizarre assertions to date...said even though jobless claims had risen, the economy was still consistent with "modest hiring."
Let me justapose these: (News reports) Unemployment claims have risen (Obama says) The economy is consistent with "modest hiring."
Fact: New unemployment claims OFFSET any hiring because the numbers went up.
Is it me that's confused? Or is it the administration? I inow which one I'd bet on.
(Oh, and I REALLY want to see our resident propagandist, etwinkie, try to explain this to make the administration "right." That oughta be humorous.)
|
|
| etaoin shrdlu |
Posted - 2/1/2013 9:58:50 AM | show profile | flag this post
Seriously, cruzo?
New unemployment claims are up -- from the biggest drop in years a week or two earlier.
And the latest unemployment figures out today show 157,000 NET jobs gained last month.
Remember, unemployment claims are not cumulative. The jobs figures are.
But you may want to consider getting what you wish for. In your case -- and the case of other conservatives -- you wish for smaller government and less government spending.
Since the recovery began, most of the drag on jobs numbers has been caused by layoffs in the public sector. Roughly a half million government jobs (local, state and federal) have been eliminated.
http://www.latimes.com/business/money/la-fi-mo-state-budget-cuts-20130109,0,5407378.story
11,000 public school jobs cut in December, 2012: http://news.yahoo.com/u-public-schools-cut-11-000-jobs-december-214439831--business.html
And the dip in GDP in the fourth quarter came from massive reductions in government spending (see the link below).
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/01/30/the-only-chart-you-need-on-the-gdp-report/
|
|
| cruiser |
Posted - 2/1/2013 10:25:00 AM | show profile | flag this post
Nice try but
FAIL
|
|
| etaoin shrdlu |
Posted - 2/1/2013 10:32:10 AM | show profile | flag this post
Another surrender from cruzo...
faced with facts -- as presented in three links above -- he fails to produce any evidence to support his position.
Yes, cruzo, you did indeed FAIL.
|
|
| cruiser |
Posted - 2/1/2013 10:34:35 AM | show profile | flag this post
You can say anything
you think will protect your ego. That won't change the facts.
|
|
| etaoin shrdlu |
Posted - 2/1/2013 10:37:23 AM | show profile | flag this post
Exactly...
and here are the facts again -- since you can't seem to provide any:
Since the recovery began, most of the drag on jobs numbers has been caused by layoffs in the public sector. Roughly a half million government jobs (local, state and federal) have been eliminated.
http://www.latimes.com/business/money/la-fi-mo-state-budget-cuts-20130109,0,5407378.story
11,000 public school jobs cut in December, 2012: http://news.yahoo.com/u-public-schools-cut-11-000-jobs-december-214439831--business.html
And the dip in GDP in the fourth quarter came from massive reductions in government spending (see the link below).
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/01/30/the-only-chart-you-need-on-the-gdp-report/
|
|
| cruiser |
Posted - 2/1/2013 10:51:44 AM | show profile | flag this post
This is the reason
all of etwinkie's job numbers are phony:
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2013/02/01/85-million-americans-left-labor-force-obamas-first-term#ixzz2Jehi6Wet
He can cite all of the fudged numbers he wants...and that's what they've been for the last four years...but the "not in the labor force" number continues to grow and render all of the other statistics he cites misleading or just flat untrue.
|
|
| etaoin shrdlu |
Posted - 2/1/2013 11:07:59 AM | show profile | flag this post
Poor cruzo...
can't read and can't do math.
But he can link to a right wing opinion site with an ax to grind.
The fact remains, there have been a half-million lay-offs in the public sector since the recovery began.
And we're adding a net total of around 150,000 new jobs per month.
Cruzo, you are proving yourself to be just as much of an expert on unemployment calculations as you are on guns, climate change, dinosaur poop, women and every other topic you have absolutely no experience with nor knowledge of.
But you sure as hell can parrot right wing talking points!
Pretty bird! You get a cracker!
|
|
| cruiser |
Posted - 2/1/2013 11:11:26 AM | show profile | flag this post
More ego defense from etwinkie
That's all it is. The facts are just as I posted.
|
|
| etaoin shrdlu |
Posted - 2/1/2013 11:55:01 AM | show profile | flag this post
Again, you are clueless, cruzo...
And this is some incredibly bad math from the right wing commentator you rely on as "facts."
First, his 8.5 million number -- is based on the number of people not in the civilian labor force.
See line 1: http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.t16.htm
This includes children under 16.5 (so 17 year olds who don't have a job are considered "out of the work force), invalids and retirees among others. And the past four years have seen rising retirement rates as baby boomers age. In fact, 10,000 Americans turn 65 every DAY.
http://www.pewresearch.org/daily-number/baby-boomers-retire/
In fact, that rising retirement wave is credited with most of the growth in that 8.5 million number. And it's expected to keep rising, regardless of who's in office, for at least 19 years as the baby boomer wave passes into retirement.
You may be confusing this leap in logic from your right wing commentator with the number of "discouraged workers."
That's the number you hear each month that have "given up looking for work" and it changes from month to month.
"Discouraged Workers" -- the term the BLS uses -- are people who were actively looking for work in the past year but have given up. This changes from month to month.
People who may have given up on looking for work in October, may return to the labor market in November. There is some overlap, but most of these people tend to go back to work after a few months.
If you look at ACTUAL BLS figures, the total number of discouraged workers comes to only 804,000 people. That's down from 1,059,000 a year ago -- a decline of 24% in a single year.
http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.t16.htm
|
|
| mpdodgson |
Posted - 2/1/2013 12:08:03 PM | show profile | flag this post
Who needs
The Bureau of Labor when you've got "Newsbusters" on your side.
Regardless, I just don't see, with any Math you want to use, how even a modest NET GAIN of 157,000 jobs is a FAIL.
So much more work to do..but a NET is bettter than a LOSS. duh.
|
|
| cruiser |
Posted - 2/1/2013 1:43:39 PM | show profile | flag this post
"First, his 8.5 million number..."
You might as well have saved your breath. You don't have a clue what you're talking about. It's all left wing talking points and your speculation.
|
|
| etaoin shrdlu |
Posted - 2/1/2013 2:50:29 PM | show profile | flag this post
Thank you, cruzo...
that sort of bluster -- without any ability to take apart a single one of my facts -- is your standard modus operandi for surrender.
Stick with your right wing talking points. It's easier than thinking for yourself, Pretty Bird.
|
|
| cruiser |
Posted - 2/1/2013 3:35:41 PM | show profile | flag this post
Whatever
keeps your ego intact is what you should go with if all you're concerned with is ego defense. But if you have the least bit of interest in the truth then you need to read places other than the far left sites you're always quoting on here.
|
|
| mpdodgson |
Posted - 2/1/2013 10:34:31 PM | show profile | flag this post
Read that one again.
"you need to read places other than the far left sites you're always quoting on here."
You know,like the BLS. The Federal Government. The guys that actually keep the records. Even if we have a net increase in jobs, you'e only only getting that that from far left places.
Like Venus.
|
|
| orthicon |
Posted - 2/1/2013 10:41:10 PM | show profile | flag this post
actually, mp..we know where cruiztwit is getting it from..
we've commented on this before..
uranus..
|
|
| thesecondcoming |
Posted - 2/1/2013 11:01:45 PM | show profile | flag this post
A recession is.....
a decrease in GDP over two quarters.
The 4th quarter GDP fell.
With the tax increase imposed on all working Americans, the GDP will drop again in the 1st quarter of 2013. That's the text book definition of a recession.
You libs are clueless about what the economy is.
|
|
| Grateful Deadline |
Posted - 2/2/2013 11:29:45 AM | show profile | flag this post
A tax wasn't imposed -- a tax cut wasn't renewed. Thank the folks who've been stalling everything in Congress.
It has made a $40-a-month difference to me. To compensate, I got the cable company to knock $30 off the monthly rate (back almost to the introductory rate), and I've quit buying sodas and coffee where I teach. I had been buying a couple of 20-ounce sodas and a coffee a week.
Calculated out, I'll deprive the economy of approximately 60 20-ounce sodas and 30 Starbucks tall coffees of the day a year, about $148.50. Taken together with the tax reinstatement, I am purposely depriving the economy of $28.50 a year.
|
|
| cruiser |
Posted - 2/2/2013 2:17:20 PM | show profile | flag this post
In other words
you're not paying your fair share.
|
|
| Grateful Deadline |
Posted - 2/2/2013 5:12:55 PM | show profile | flag this post
Oh. My. God. You'll throw any piece of illogic out there to bait an argument, won't you?
No, cruiser -- adjusting one's budget to one's take-home pay is called "smart." Nobody is obligated to pay a higher rate to the cable company than they have to, and nobody is obligated to buy sodas and coffee.
If you believe you that you have a personal duty to pay more for services and to buy what you don't need, then you go ahead and do it. It's your choice.
;o)
|
|
Log in to customize alerts, subscribe to newsletters, and apply to jobs.
June 4, 2013 | San Francisco
