If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(NPR)   New Jobs report: 96,000 jobs added and Unemployment down to 8.1%. November's Jobs report: Mitt Romney still unemployed   (npr.org) divider line 714
    More: Spiffy, Mitt Romney, Alan Krueger, a.m. ET, Bureau of Labor Statistics, unemployment  
•       •       •

1194 clicks; posted to Politics » on 07 Sep 2012 at 11:10 AM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



714 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-09-07 11:49:47 AM

MattStafford: Sure, there would be some overlap, but that is basically what I mean by distorted. We are training our people and tooling our factories to do things that won't be around forever.


How is that "distorted"? That's just part of the economy. Are you claiming that an economy with no military expenses is somehow "normal", and that the existence of a military "distorts" that baseline? That seems a little strange.

MattStafford: Sure, let them spend it on food, consumable, and entertainment. Grocery stores/food production expand, retail stores/manufacturing expands, entertainment industry expands. What happens to those industries when the government lays off those individuals?


Nothing 'happens'. The money flows around the economy; that's how economies work.

Ditch digger pays money to buy food.
Grocer pays employees with that money.
Employee goes to a movie with that money.
Movie theater buys popcorn with that money.
Popcorn maker buys house with that money.
Contractors buys food with that money.

And around and around we go. You need to create the demand, and without people there's no demand.
 
2012-09-07 11:49:50 AM

starsrift: LucklessWonder: Politics has gotten so divisive. Let me post something that will help the healing of this country, whether you are Democratic, Republican, Libertarian, Fascist or Communist. Behold, the healing power of.... [www.989thedrive.com image 500x569]

I'm sorry, but that's not sufficient. More is required.


collider.com

www.scarlettjohansson.org

moviesandtvhistoryguy.com

4.bp.blogspot.com

3.bp.blogspot.com

25.media.tumblr.com
 
2012-09-07 11:50:01 AM

MattStafford: If the government ever slowed down defense spending, these people are trained for jobs that don't exist in the private economy.


If you can build an airplane for the government, you can build an airplane for the private sector. But, to take it down to a more granular level, if you can produce specialty plastic for the crazy new plane the government wants, you can produce that plastic for any number of private interests. Same with electronics. Same with computers. DARPA created the ARPANET as a purely military project, and as a result, we have the internet. The most powerful economic driver we've produced, like, ever. To say that ending government spending results in jobs simply disappearing forever belies a failure to understand how interconnected our economy actually is, and fails to see the simple connections between the military, space program, university science departments, and the private sector. There is no clear and clean line of demarcation between the government and the private sector, because everything is interconnected.
 
2012-09-07 11:50:14 AM

impaler:

[research.stlouisfed.org image 630x378]



Notice the slope on the downward trend when it is in growth phase. The slope is always approximately the same, and is the same for Obama's recovery. Apparently it is hard to grow the economy at a faster rate.
 
2012-09-07 11:50:31 AM
I'm not particularly worried about unemployment as the sole measure of the Obama Administration. I consider the whole package.

President Obama and his team have been dealing with two wars, the Great Recession, political strife, and numerous issues in great style and wise leadership.

Mitt Romney has provided no specifics on what his administration would do different except vague talks of reducing regulations, cutting taxes, and reducing benefits for the poor, the elderly, and those less fortunate than himself.

I'm not voting Republican because the party and its leaders offer nothing except more of the same bullshiat they've fed Americans since 1980, 1988, 2000, 2004, 2008, 2010.

Sadly, the GOP has simply morphed into the American Independent Party, sans bedsheets, IMHO.

upload.wikimedia.org = upload.wikimedia.org
 
2012-09-07 11:50:35 AM

cameroncrazy1984: skullkrusher: The fact that we had catastrophic job loss under Bush has no bearing on whether this number is good or no

You're right. Context is irrelevant. Why should we look at where we were when considering where we are today? It's pointless! You're supposed to look at everything by itself!


Mount Rushmore. You didn't built it! No one built it! It was formed by God but he did that in the past so let's not talk about it! Unless we're talking about how God should be in every policy we make.
 
2012-09-07 11:50:39 AM

cameroncrazy1984: DamnYankees: Debeo Summa Credo: Where does the money come from to hire your ditch diggers or do nothingers?

We can either borrow, tax or print. Given our current interest rates, I think borrowing makes the most sense.

What are they, like 6%?


They are negative in real terms.
 
2012-09-07 11:52:51 AM

Debeo Summa Credo: Yeah, four out of five of those are dubious/questionable.


Okay, explain why.
 
2012-09-07 11:53:28 AM

MattStafford: Can't you see the problem? T


Or because of the spending of those ditch diggers demand increases across the board leading to new jobs which the ditch diggers take bit by bit as they find jobs they prefer to digging ditches.
 
2012-09-07 11:54:06 AM

cameroncrazy1984: skullkrusher: The fact that we had catastrophic job loss under Bush has no bearing on whether this number is good or no

You're right. Context is irrelevant. Why should we look at where we were when considering where we are today? It's pointless! You're supposed to look at everything by itself!


are you serious? We don't need to look at what happened under Bush to know that the expectations for this month was 125K new jobs and this number is well short of the mark and therefore rather disappointing. You honestly don't understand this?
 
2012-09-07 11:54:32 AM

MattStafford: DamnYankees: MattStafford: The government could go massively into debt and hirer a ton of ditch diggers, which would show up as a huge jobs gain on these reports, but that would actually be bad for the economy.

I don't believe it would be, actually.

Well, sorry to say, but you've been brainwashed. Going into debt to hire completely unproductive workers serves only to provide a temporary boost in the economy. It also massively distorts the economy, and sets it up for a crash when the spending spigot is eventually turned off.

What do you think would happen if the government started spending billions on digging ditches and filling them back up? The shovel industry would get a huge boom due to increased demand. The logging industry would get a huge boom due to increased demand from the shovel industry. The towns around the ditch fields would get a huge boom due to all of the workers there. The towns around the shovel factories would get a huge boost due to all of the increased employment there.

Now in Keynesian fantasy land, the economy is booming, so they can turn down the government spending. They lay off a bunch of ditch diggers, assuming that they will be hired by the now booming shovel and lumber industry, or find a place in the now booming service/retail sectors in those towns. But clearly, they do not, and the economy crashes, reverts to status quo, except with massively misplaced resources.

Or you can keep on believing that going into debt then spending that money on absolutely nothing productive is somehow beneficial for the economy in the long run.


I don't know about DamnYankees, but my issue with your original post was proclaiming ditchdigging as useless, after listing "There is quite a difference between adding 96,000 burger flippers or 96,000 paper pushers or 96,000 manufacturers or 96,000 R+D guys." I agree with your point about there being a difference between the types of jobs added making a difference, but I disagreed that ditchdigging should be the example of a job which is useless.

Ditchdigging is something that you're not supposed to need an advanced degree for, and it's highly localized; so it would be a job which would employ more swaths of people locally than your R+D guys doing highly specialized work for companies who are going to outsource the actual production/manufacture (China) and paper-pushing (Philippines) to the third world for pennies. The only hitch in that is reliance on in-country outsourcing (hiring illegals instead of hiring Americans) ... but it's still an objection for more groups of people than highly specialized work.

Burger flipping is not romantic, but again it's supposed to be a job you're not supposed to need an advanced degree for, and it's highly localized... and unfortunately , employers will take illegals before Americans. Manufacturers... there was a reason why Biden mentioned that single company in Warroad, Minnesota in his speech last night, the one which didn't lay off a single person while their competitors went full Bain, and whose owners were willing to take a paycut in order to keep their employees employed. That company is exception, not the rule. It would be nice if more companies were like that company, though. Profit and stockholders exist in reality, but still.. we can always dream of Bedford Falls.

Adding paper-pushers is the example you should have used, instead of ditchdiggers. R+D, again, is so fking highly specialized, one would have to dig deeper into the numbers to see how education is keeping up with it, and whether those hires were local or global. If you add 96,000 R+D jobs, but most of those end up being filled globally/via legals, that doesn't help Joe and Jane Q. Public put a meal on their own table.

As for "They lay off a bunch of ditch diggers, assuming that they will be hired by the now booming shovel and lumber industry, or find a place in the now booming service/retail sectors in those towns. But clearly, they do not, and the economy crashes, reverts to status quo, except with massively misplaced resources." -- I'll be honest: I'll take that short term solution; I'll take it even more if it meant 30s style infrastructure 'we're going to employ you because you want to work regardless of education, credit or felonies' government programs. Get people employed, and then figure out the rest as you go.
 
2012-09-07 11:54:42 AM

DamnYankees: cameroncrazy1984: DamnYankees: Debeo Summa Credo: Where does the money come from to hire your ditch diggers or do nothingers?

We can either borrow, tax or print. Given our current interest rates, I think borrowing makes the most sense.

What are they, like 6%?

They are negative in real terms.


I borrowed money to buy a house at 3.85%. If inflation ever ticks up even remotely, I essentially borrowed the money to buy a house for free. I'm sure the bank got an even more ridiculously sweet deal. Why WOULDN'T you borrow at those rates?
 
2012-09-07 11:54:55 AM

NateGrey: ITT

Fark Cons explain why the unemployment rate going down is bad.


Kee-ryst, even the Washington Post says these numbers suck. The unemployment rate can go down if people simply quit looking for work, which is what the Post said happened. Quit trying to sell a turd as excellent sweet-smelling nutrients that encourage young things to grow. "I need more time" is a far easier case to make.
 
2012-09-07 11:55:23 AM
*Ctrl+F*..... "fiscal cliff"* ......... Phrase not found.

:-/
 
2012-09-07 11:55:38 AM

AirForceVet: I'm not particularly worried about unemployment as the sole measure of the Obama Administration.


Wise strategy if you're an Obama supporter.
 
2012-09-07 11:55:49 AM

skullkrusher: are you serious? We don't need to look at what happened under Bush to know that the expectations for this month was 125K new jobs and this number is well short of the mark and therefore rather disappointing. You honestly don't understand this?


No, I understand completely and that it'll probably be revised upward next month like the last few have. I'm not disappointed that our economy is adding jobs, if that's what you're asking. That's like being disappointed you're getting an ice cream cone when you were promised a slightly larger ice cream cone.
 
2012-09-07 11:55:58 AM

skullkrusher: cameroncrazy1984: skullkrusher: The fact that we had catastrophic job loss under Bush has no bearing on whether this number is good or no

You're right. Context is irrelevant. Why should we look at where we were when considering where we are today? It's pointless! You're supposed to look at everything by itself!

are you serious? We don't need to look at what happened under Bush to know that the expectations for this month was 125K new jobs and this number is well short of the mark and therefore rather disappointing. You honestly don't understand this?


Some people don't realize that adisappointing jobs report doesnt necessarily mean Romney could do better (or good at all)

And some people just realize how many people don't realize that and that they all can vote.
 
2012-09-07 11:56:13 AM

theknuckler_33: skullkrusher: Graffito: theknuckler_33: 96,000 jobs added and Unemployment down to 8.1%

Hmm, I'm an Obama supporter and am pretty liberal, but that seems a bit odd to me.

/96K was NOT a good number for Obama.

No, but it's sure beats the 700K jobs lost in a quarter under the previous administration.

it is also not as bad as the Holocaust and the Black Death combined. Just as relevant.

Not really. Those things cannot be attributed to the policies of the previous administration (which are basically the policies of the current GOP candidate). I'd say it is relevant to the current election cycle.


to the election, sure. I suppose your slashy was in reference to that context. My bad
 
2012-09-07 11:56:31 AM

Galloping Galoshes: NateGrey: ITT

Fark Cons explain why the unemployment rate going down is bad.

Kee-ryst, even the Washington Post says these numbers suck. The unemployment rate can go down if people simply quit looking for work, which is what the Post said happened. Quit trying to sell a turd as excellent sweet-smelling nutrients that encourage young things to grow. "I need more time" is a far easier case to make.


You know who else stopped looking for work?

aarphealthquotes.com
 
2012-09-07 11:56:54 AM

MattStafford: DamnYankees: MattStafford: The government could go massively into debt and hirer a ton of ditch diggers, which would show up as a huge jobs gain on these reports, but that would actually be bad for the economy.

I don't believe it would be, actually.

Well, sorry to say, but you've been brainwashed. Going into debt to hire completely unproductive workers serves only to provide a temporary boost in the economy. It also massively distorts the economy, and sets it up for a crash when the spending spigot is eventually turned off.

What do you think would happen if the government started spending billions on digging ditches and filling them back up? The shovel industry would get a huge boom due to increased demand. The logging industry would get a huge boom due to increased demand from the shovel industry. The towns around the ditch fields would get a huge boom due to all of the workers there. The towns around the shovel factories would get a huge boost due to all of the increased employment there.

Now in Keynesian fantasy land, the economy is booming, so they can turn down the government spending. They lay off a bunch of ditch diggers, assuming that they will be hired by the now booming shovel and lumber industry, or find a place in the now booming service/retail sectors in those towns. But clearly, they do not, and the economy crashes, reverts to status quo, except with massively misplaced resources.

Or you can keep on believing that going into debt then spending that money on absolutely nothing productive is somehow beneficial for the economy in the long run.


A bunch of guys start running taco trucks to feed the diggers. The taco truck guys can now afford to see the doctor, who hires another nurse. The truck dealer can now send his kids to private school. Their teacher starts lunching at a taco truck because she's more overworked and it's convenient. A guy learns to fix machines at the shovel factory, later opening his own diesel garage.

Some of that does indeed persist once the spigot closes. Since most employment these days is in nontradable local services, it's not that hard to get a self-sustaining increase in employment.

Since unemployed people produce nothing, it's hard to make them less productive by paying them to do something. So much the better if it's something useful, but even make-work has macroeconomic value.
 
2012-09-07 11:57:03 AM

MattStafford: Who cares how many jobs have been added. What is important is what those jobs actually are. There is quite a difference between adding 96,000 burger flippers or 96,000 paper pushers or 96,000 manufacturers or 96,000 R+D guys.


That sure as hell didn't seem to matter in the decade before Jan. 20, 2009, when after the dot-com bubble collapsed the Bush administration's unemployment numbers were boosted by low-wage, service sector, job growth, while white- and blue-collar employment contracted.
 
2012-09-07 11:57:05 AM

sten: Now, I'm not saying everything is great. But...


and...


may have something to do with this...


And that's fine! People hadn't been retiring, which was hurting employment opportunities for young people. If the old people feel confident about their retirement, I say good. Get them out of there and get the younger crowd employed stat!
 
2012-09-07 11:57:15 AM
The last thing I ever want to do is give Republicans advice that might help. But they got thoroughly out-conventioned this week so here's a pity freebie:

The jobs report wasn't great news for America but it wasn't awful news. So If Mitt Romney--and ONLY Mitt Romney--is able to find it in himself to hit the campaign trail this weekend and repeat, with the same cadence, tone, and vocabulary, Stringer Bell's 40 Degree Day speech (NSFW) I'll consider voting for him.
 
2012-09-07 11:57:37 AM

Duke Phillips' Singing Bears: sten: Now, I'm not saying everything is great. But...
[i376.photobucket.com image 600x300]

and...
[i376.photobucket.com image 744x503]

may have something to do with this...

But what's wrong with that? Clearing out the old workers so new workers can come up is a good thing. In the place my wife works, there are TONS of boomers and even older workers just hanging out, sucking up benefits and working at 1/10 the pace of everyone else because them computers be confusing, yo. Honestly? I'd rather they move into the retirement phase of life and start clearing up some space for promotion. I'll eat the necessary tax hikes to keep them from starving to death. The colo-rectal and lung cancers and heart disease will get them soon enough anyway. Just like all of us.


I meant "not everything is great with the economy in general". Retiring workers...going to happen.
 
2012-09-07 11:57:41 AM

WhyteRaven74: Dr Dreidel: Probably not all 368k, but significantly enough?

Well just consider the oldest baby boomers are 66 or turning 66 this year. If we take 65 as a standard that means there are are already a ton of people who either have retired or will soon retire.


OK, but is it statistically significant?

If 70% of those 368,000 are over 59, it's a safe bet that retirements are helping. If it's only 15% over 59, retirements (at least, planned retirements at the end of a life spent working) are not the likely cause.

If the average age of the people who dropped out is 55+, it's a good bet that retirement is driving the drop. If the average age is 35-, we have a problem.

Numbers, Raven. I know what the demographics are - and both my parents are boomers.

rumpelstiltskin: "Underemployment" is like me, who should be a free safety in the NFL but instead has to do whatever it is I've been doing for the last 20 years while I wait for Clark Hunt to answer my emails.


And what is the name of the measurement they take of underemployment?

// I'd be a TE
// see you on the playground, punk
// unless your name is John Lynch; in which case I wish you a fine day and the best of happiness that scantily-clad and morality-free women of shapely form can bring, good sir
 
2012-09-07 11:57:47 AM

Cletus C.: AirForceVet: I'm not particularly worried about unemployment as the sole measure of the Obama Administration.

Wise strategy if you're an Obama supporter.


Yeah, luckily we have the Romney supporters who care about the economy so much they're willing to support the party that has done nothing but obstruct jobs bills. YAY!
 
2012-09-07 11:57:48 AM

Galloping Galoshes: Kee-ryst, even the Washington Post says these numbers suck.


Look at everyone trying to spin job growth as a BAD THING

It's so funny. "He's not making it better but it's not fast enough! Let's go ahead and elect some Republicans. I'm sure they know how to fix what they broke!"
 
2012-09-07 11:58:38 AM

WhyteRaven74: MattStafford: Can't you see the problem? T

Or because of the spending of those ditch diggers demand increases across the board leading to new jobs which the ditch diggers take bit by bit as they find jobs they prefer to digging ditches.


More than that, 'make-work' programs and projects are rarely as unproductive as ditch digging.

Things like the interstate highway system, the Hoover dam, the vast number of modernized bridges in the 20th century, these were government projects crafted as 'make-work'. Once these men were done with these projects, they had talents, skills, marketable skills that enabled them to find more work elsewhere.

So, the idea that economy would be artificially boosted with an inevitable collapse after the money is gone/project is done...that's deliberately obtuse or plainly ignorant of how such things actually work.
 
2012-09-07 11:59:35 AM

Gaseous Anomaly: Since unemployed people produce nothing, it's hard to make them less productive by paying them to do something. So much the better if it's something useful, but even make-work has macroeconomic value.


Honestly? You could just give them the money for free. They'd still spend it. At least if you make them dig a ditch, you have a ditch. A ditch can be a really useful thing. A ditch can move water from one point to another. One of the reasons the Roman empire was so powerful was because it knew how to move water from one point to another. If this country stopped moving water from one point to another half of us would be dead of dysentery inside of a year. A ditch is a critical thing.
 
2012-09-07 11:59:47 AM

DamnYankees: We can either borrow, tax or print. Given our current interest rates, I think borrowing makes the most sense.


Out of curiousity, suppose there was a drunk who spent all of his money on wine and women, building bigger houses and taking extravagant trips. The bank was funding all of this at an extremely low rate. Would you think it fiscally prudent for him to double down on this just because of the low rates?
 
2012-09-07 12:00:08 PM

Galloping Galoshes: quit looking for work


It's not that they all quit looking for work just because they gave up. Some quit looking because school started up, some retired.
 
2012-09-07 12:00:26 PM

cameroncrazy1984: No, I understand completely and that it'll probably be revised upward next month like the last few have


Last month was reported 163K and revised down to 141K

cameroncrazy1984: I'm not disappointed that our economy is adding jobs, if that's what you're asking.


nope, I have no idea how you would construe that I was asking that.

cameroncrazy1984: That's like being disappointed you're getting an ice cream cone when you were promised a slightly larger ice cream cone.


no, it is nothing like that at all.
 
2012-09-07 12:00:53 PM

skullkrusher: are you serious? We don't need to look at what happened under Bush to know that the expectations for this month was 125K new jobs and this number is well short of the mark and therefore rather disappointing. You honestly don't understand this?


The margin or error on job numbers is 100K jobs. Don't you think you're being a little more precise than is statistically possible?
 
2012-09-07 12:01:12 PM

MattStafford: DamnYankees: I dont' know what this means.

To use a real world example, think of our military industrial complex. We are employing millions of people directly through defense contracts. Think of all the engineers at Boeing/Lockheed, all of the factory workers building the planes/bombs/whatever, all of the paper pushers at the DoD, all of the actual soldiers. People have been trained for decades to do jobs that are only supported by government debt. These factories build things only demanded by government debt. If the government ever slowed down defense spending, these people are trained for jobs that don't exist in the private economy. These factories are tooled to build things that aren't demanded by the private economy.

Sure, there would be some overlap, but that is basically what I mean by distorted. We are training our people and tooling our factories to do things that won't be around forever.

DamnYankees: I like in your telling of the story, the money earned by these individuals does absolutely nothing. They don't spend it on food, consumables or entertainment. It just sits there waiting for a crash.

Sure, let them spend it on food, consumable, and entertainment. Grocery stores/food production expand, retail stores/manufacturing expands, entertainment industry expands. What happens to those industries when the government lays off those individuals?


Thank you for your further explanations.
 
2012-09-07 12:01:46 PM

GAT_00: ferretman: Spiffy? It's a total failure. only +96,000 jobs....with 368,000 people who dropped out and almost 89,000,000 not in the work force.

It's still growth and the unemployment rate fell. That's probably enough. Incumbents usually win when the unemployment rate falls during re-election.


You dear sir deserve a drink...

www.politifake.org
 
2012-09-07 12:01:50 PM

MattStafford: DamnYankees: We can either borrow, tax or print. Given our current interest rates, I think borrowing makes the most sense.

Out of curiousity, suppose there was a drunk who spent all of his money on wine and women, building bigger houses and taking extravagant trips. The bank was funding all of this at an extremely low rate. Would you think it fiscally prudent for him to double down on this just because of the low rates?


Prudent for him, personally? But its better for the economy if he were to do that than if the bank just sat on that money and did nothing.

But this is not a good analogy, since the increased spending does not, in any way, increase the drunk's ability to earn income in the future. The government creating economic activity does increase its ability to take in revenue in the future.
 
2012-09-07 12:02:12 PM

CPennypacker: Some people don't realize that adisappointing jobs report doesnt necessarily mean Romney could do better (or good at all)


also, some people don't realize that honestly looking at a jobs report and saying "this is disappointing" is not a criticism of Obama nor an endorsement of Romney. It is an objective analysis of results vs expectations.
 
2012-09-07 12:02:15 PM

skullkrusher: nope, I have no idea how you would construe that I was asking that.


You asked me if 96,000 is disappointing. I'm sorry, I just don't see how the economy adding jobs is all that disappointing. Is it less than projected? Sure. Disappointing? No.
 
2012-09-07 12:02:25 PM

MattStafford: Who cares how many jobs have been added


8.1% of the United States definitely do
 
2012-09-07 12:02:30 PM

Infernalist: More than that, 'make-work' programs and projects are rarely as unproductive as ditch digging.

Things like the interstate highway system, the Hoover dam, the vast number of modernized bridges in the 20th century, these were government projects crafted as 'make-work'. Once these men were done with these projects, they had talents, skills, marketable skills that enabled them to find more work elsewhere.

So, the idea that economy would be artificially boosted with an inevitable collapse after the money is gone/project is done...that's deliberately obtuse or plainly ignorant of how such things actually work.


I couldn't have said it better myself. Money doesn't have much of a use beyond its ability to change hands. The faster it changes hands, the better off we all are. When money changes hands, things get built. People get fed. Jobs get created. When money sits and does nothing it becomes paper again. When it moves, it becomes energy. Who cares who moves it? If the government is willing to move it, I say they should move it.
 
2012-09-07 12:03:05 PM
So for every 1 job gained only 4 people stopped looking? Wow, that's certainly great news!!

No matter how bad the economy gets, there's still more than enough of kool-aid to go around, it seems.
 
2012-09-07 12:03:15 PM

skullkrusher: also, some people don't realize that honestly looking at a jobs report and saying "this is disappointing" is not a criticism of Obama nor


So to you, "less than projected" equals "disappointing"

So it is exactly like being promised a slightly larger ice cream cone and only receiving a smaller one.
 
2012-09-07 12:03:32 PM

Brick-House: GAT_00: ferretman: Spiffy? It's a total failure. only +96,000 jobs....with 368,000 people who dropped out and almost 89,000,000 not in the work force.

It's still growth and the unemployment rate fell. That's probably enough. Incumbents usually win when the unemployment rate falls during re-election.

You dear sir deserve a drink...

[www.politifake.org image 640x640]


What is this I don't even
 
2012-09-07 12:03:36 PM

Brick-House: GAT_00: ferretman: Spiffy? It's a total failure. only +96,000 jobs....with 368,000 people who dropped out and almost 89,000,000 not in the work force.

It's still growth and the unemployment rate fell. That's probably enough. Incumbents usually win when the unemployment rate falls during re-election.

You dear sir deserve a drink...

[www.politifake.org image 640x640]


You sound tired, brick.
 
2012-09-07 12:03:41 PM

skullkrusher: theknuckler_33: skullkrusher: Graffito: No, but it's sure beats the 700K jobs lost in a quarter under the previous administration.

it is also not as bad as the Holocaust and the Black Death combined. Just as relevant.

Not really. Those things cannot be attributed to the policies of the previous administration (which are basically the policies of the current GOP candidate). I'd say it is relevant to the current election cycle.

to the election, sure. I suppose your slashy was in reference to that context. My bad


No problem.
 
2012-09-07 12:03:42 PM

MattStafford: The bank was funding all of this at an extremely low rate


That would be a very foolish bank and they would be sure to lose their money. Banks used to not make bad bets on people they knew were going to spend their money on wine and women. I don't think even a modern bank would make such a bet.
 
2012-09-07 12:03:53 PM

cameroncrazy1984: Debeo Summa Credo: Yeah, four out of five of those are dubious/questionable.

Okay, explain why.


They all at based on economic assumptions and expectations of how the economy would react if the GOP had acted otherwise. A right wing blogger could make a similar list citing how Obama has stood in the way of job growth by passing health care reform, signing Dodd frank, or not agreeing to extend all tax cuts while the economy is still soft. Those would all rest on assumptions as well.

Again, though, I'm not going to assign proportional blame here.
 
2012-09-07 12:03:54 PM

MattStafford: DamnYankees: We can either borrow, tax or print. Given our current interest rates, I think borrowing makes the most sense.

Out of curiousity, suppose there was a drunk who spent all of his money on wine and women, building bigger houses and taking extravagant trips. The bank was funding all of this at an extremely low rate. Would you think it fiscally prudent for him to double down on this just because of the low rates?


My intro econ classes were divided up by semester into Marco and Micro. It's a shame yours were not.
 
2012-09-07 12:04:00 PM

impaler: skullkrusher: are you serious? We don't need to look at what happened under Bush to know that the expectations for this month was 125K new jobs and this number is well short of the mark and therefore rather disappointing. You honestly don't understand this?

The margin or error on job numbers is 100K jobs. Don't you think you're being a little more precise than is statistically possible?


no. If it turns out that this number is revised and actual jobs exceeds projections, then it becomes a good job number.
 
2012-09-07 12:04:03 PM

cameroncrazy1984: skullkrusher: also, some people don't realize that honestly looking at a jobs report and saying "this is disappointing" is not a criticism of Obama nor

So to you, "less than projected" equals "disappointing"

So it is exactly like being promised a slightly larger ice cream cone and only receiving a smaller one.


I'm with skullkrusher. Worse than expected is pretty much the definition of disappointing.
 
Displayed 50 of 714 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report