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  
•       •       •

1193 clicks; posted to Politics » on 07 Sep 2012 at 11:10 AM (1 year 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 01:44:07 PM

Infernalist: National debt is an 'asset'. It is not repaid, but is rather seen as a stake in the issuing nation. Our national debt pays 'interest' to the holders of that debt and is seen as a valued form of revenue for those holders. It is NEVER repaid, for the most part, but rather simply paid down to a reasonable amount(determined by economic geniuses by means of formula that I don't even pretend to grasp fully).

The Government Is Not A Person. The Government's Debt Does Not Function In The Same Manner As Your Debt. You Can Not Use The Same Rules, It Doesn't Work That Way.



The government's debt does function in the same manner as my debt. I can use the same rules, and it does work that the way. The only difference, the government can print money. That is it. The single, solitary difference. Everything else operates the exact same way. And if you suggest money printing as a solution to our debt problems, you're a joke.

Entity A lends money to Entity B. Entity B spends that money. Entity B then has to pay back principal, plus interest to Entity A.

That is how all debt works, mine, yours, Google's, the Government's. Everyone's.

The government just has a lot more credit, and people are far more willing to lend to it. It doesn't change how debt works.
 
2012-09-07 01:44:25 PM

tenpoundsofcheese: Face it, the Dems had a majority in the House.


Not when the AJA was introduced. That was 2011.

tenpoundsofcheese: 0bama's own party killed it, not the GOP.


No they didn't. Senate Republicans vote to kill Obama's jobs bill

Do you even watch the news?
 
2012-09-07 01:44:35 PM

Dusk-You-n-Me: Fix unemployment and you'll fix the debt, not the other way around. That's called austerity,


Not to nit-pick, but that's not what Austerity is.

"In economics, austerity refers to a policy of deficit-cutting by lowering spending often via a reduction in the amount of benefits and public services provided."
 
2012-09-07 01:45:36 PM

tenpoundsofcheese: KarmicDisaster: tenpoundsofcheese: Mrtraveler01: tenpoundsofcheese: No, the economy is creating jobs, fewer this year than last year which means the economy has no faith in whatever it is that 0bama claims he is doing to create jobs.

Because it's all Obama's fault and nothing to do with market forces in general.

Got it!

Good, you are learning. Now you should try to understand what influences market forces.

If companies see an anti-business, anti-success President who doesn't have a clue about how to improve the economy, they don't have faith in the economic strength and they don't hire.

Actually, as I mentioned before, the slope of the recovery under Obama on the unemployment chart above is the same as other growth periods. Jobs are not being created at a slower rate.

154,000 jobs a month in 2011
139,000 jobs a month in 2012
That slope ain't good.


Now if only the Republicans hadn't filibustered his jobs plan. I wonder what the slope would have looked like then?
 
2012-09-07 01:45:37 PM

More_Like_A_Stain: And I like that his story always (he's told several varieties of the same story) includes the public worker doing something useless. Such as digging holes or ditches and then filling them back up. Never does that worker do something useful like building or repairing roads and bridges. Or training to fill jobs in new industries.


I am actually in favor of investment in productive things. You can look through my comment history (I think) and see that I support necessary infrastructure and education, and I am fine going into debt for that. Debt for unproductive things destroys countries, however.
 
2012-09-07 01:45:52 PM

impaler: U6 is pretty much just U3 multiplied by 1.74. They say the same thing, just have a different scale. Why would you call the larger scale "real" when people use the smaller one?


A dash a scare tactics, a smidgeon of sensationalism, and a heaping bowl full of ignance.
 
2012-09-07 01:46:00 PM

BojanglesPaladin: Unemployment rate when Obama won the election: 6.7%
Unemployment rate when Obama took Office: 8.3%
Unemployment rate Today: 8.1%

That is not success. It's just not. For almost four years now, the administration has been saying be patient, we're working on it. It will get better.

It's not better. It's just not worse.


Vote Republican?
 
2012-09-07 01:46:10 PM

YoungSwedishBlonde: Good lord, are all Republicans this retarded? Or do they really believe that everything done by government has no inherent value (infrastructure, education, defense, etc) strictly because it's funded by the government?


YES.

Unless it's defense spending. Somehow that government spending can magically create jobs.

Congress should really take advantage of this magical property - make every dollar a "defense" dollar.

Food stamps - relabel them "Wartime family sustenance certificates."
US Postal Service - "Service for Cyber-attack Resistant Information Distribution"
US Department of Education - "US Department of Defense Worker Training"
 
2012-09-07 01:46:39 PM

Mrtraveler01: tenpoundsofcheese: KarmicDisaster: tenpoundsofcheese: Mrtraveler01: tenpoundsofcheese: No, the economy is creating jobs, fewer this year than last year which means the economy has no faith in whatever it is that 0bama claims he is doing to create jobs.

Because it's all Obama's fault and nothing to do with market forces in general.

Got it!

Good, you are learning. Now you should try to understand what influences market forces.

If companies see an anti-business, anti-success President who doesn't have a clue about how to improve the economy, they don't have faith in the economic strength and they don't hire.

Actually, as I mentioned before, the slope of the recovery under Obama on the unemployment chart above is the same as other growth periods. Jobs are not being created at a slower rate.

154,000 jobs a month in 2011
139,000 jobs a month in 2012
That slope ain't good.

I have to ask. Are you only using the first 8 months of 2011 for that number or the whole year?

Because that would be an incredibly dishonest talking point to use if you were using 12 months in 2011 to compared to 8 months in 2012.


Just like how he takes his other figures from "when Obama won the election" and not when he actually took office.
 
2012-09-07 01:46:53 PM

Dusk-You-n-Me: tenpoundsofcheese: Face it, the Dems had a majority in the House.

Not when the AJA was introduced. That was 2011.

tenpoundsofcheese: 0bama's own party killed it, not the GOP.

N


here ya go.
 
2012-09-07 01:46:55 PM

BojanglesPaladin: "In economics, austerity refers to a policy of deficit-cutting by lowering spending often via a reduction in the amount of benefits and public services provided."


By 'fixing the debt' I meant exactly this. Since we can never raise taxes, apparently, fixing our debt would involve a lot of cuts. The middle class gets the shaft, the wealthy sigh heavily.
 
2012-09-07 01:47:12 PM

skullkrusher: NateGrey: skullkrusher: gameshowhost: [i48.tinypic.com image 403x403]

next time someone tells you Obama is destroying the economy, lie about the stock market? That is a terrible plan. That shiat is easy to check, yo

Uh the stock market isnt high?

Oh this is where you derp away that because its 8% away from the record high it doesnt count.

Derp away!

man, I can't quit you


Dont mind me, throwing some numbers around, continue trolling! =)

teehee
 
2012-09-07 01:47:50 PM

DamnYankees: skullkrusher: what numbers you using for that? US Debt to revs is over 100%. A far lower ratio than many major companies but certainly not 6%

Debt *payment*. Not total debt. I'm saying how much of our budget is spent on servicing debt. When people get mortgages, the important thing is whether you can make the monthly payments, not the actual total amount outstanding. That's how you judge whether you are in over your head.


oooooooh.
gotcha. Debt SERVICE to revenues. That makes more sense
 
2012-09-07 01:48:03 PM

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.


Yeah, it's like the deficit: If you can't fix it all at once, it's not worth even trying.
 
2012-09-07 01:48:13 PM

DamnYankees: MattStafford: If Google took out a billion dollar loan, and hired people to dig ditches and fill them back up, that would be terrible for the economy. It is just that the government is far more likely to do that, because it is politically popular to hire people and spend money.

It would only be bad for the economy to the extent it hurt Google. It would actually be a relatively good thing for the economy if Apple did this, for example, since Apple is sitting on a huge amount of cash which is not doing anything to help the economy.


If Apple paid cash for this, than yeah, who cares. If Apple took out a billion dollar loan, then it would be extremely damaging to the economy. And that money isn't just sitting in a vault in Cupertino, sorry to burst your bubble, but it is out doing things.
 
2012-09-07 01:48:54 PM

KarmicDisaster: Just like how he takes his other figures from "when Obama won the election" and not when he actually took office.


wut? when did I do that? Or are you lying?
 
2012-09-07 01:48:54 PM

NateGrey: skullkrusher: NateGrey: skullkrusher: gameshowhost: [i48.tinypic.com image 403x403]

next time someone tells you Obama is destroying the economy, lie about the stock market? That is a terrible plan. That shiat is easy to check, yo

Uh the stock market isnt high?

Oh this is where you derp away that because its 8% away from the record high it doesnt count.

Derp away!

man, I can't quit you

Dont mind me, throwing some numbers around, continue trolling! =)

teehee


man, easy with the commas. There are kids in China who'd love just one comma and you're being all showy with your three

/vote NateGrey
//teehee
 
2012-09-07 01:48:59 PM

MattStafford: Infernalist: The GOP and the ignorant among us insist on treating the government as if it were a 'person' with 'personal' debts, assets, income and other individual aspects to an individual economic situation. They literally go cross-eyed when you try to explain to them that national debt is not a bad thing in the proper amount and utilized correctly.

They'll go bug-eyed if you try to show them how national debt has actual 'value'.

Please explain. The debt will have to be paid back eventually, either by reduction in services and increase in taxation, or a dramatic devaluation of the dollar.


Or economic growth making the debt small relative to tax revenue. But what are the odds of that?
 
2012-09-07 01:49:08 PM

tenpoundsofcheese: Dusk-You-n-Me: tenpoundsofcheese: Face it, the Dems had a majority in the House.

Not when the AJA was introduced. That was 2011.

tenpoundsofcheese: 0bama's own party killed it, not the GOP.

N

here ya go.


Are you really this stupid that you can't even read your own sources?

Majority Leader Reid, D-Nev., changed his vote from yes to no in order to preserve the motion to proceed. A Senator has to be with the winning side in order to have the ability to bring the measure up again at any time without filing cloture.

It was a procedural thing and not because Harry Reid thought 9Bama's jobs bill was a bad idea.
 
2012-09-07 01:49:24 PM

tenpoundsofcheese: here ya go.


Right, it was filibustered by the Senate GOP. So your point about the Dems controlling the House at the time was not only wrong it was completely irrelevant. Do you even watch the news?
 
2012-09-07 01:49:46 PM

Pincy: tenpoundsofcheese: KarmicDisaster: tenpoundsofcheese: Mrtraveler01: tenpoundsofcheese: No, the economy is creating jobs, fewer this year than last year which means the economy has no faith in whatever it is that 0bama claims he is doing to create jobs.

Because it's all Obama's fault and nothing to do with market forces in general.

Got it!

Good, you are learning. Now you should try to understand what influences market forces.

If companies see an anti-business, anti-success President who doesn't have a clue about how to improve the economy, they don't have faith in the economic strength and they don't hire.

Actually, as I mentioned before, the slope of the recovery under Obama on the unemployment chart above is the same as other growth periods. Jobs are not being created at a slower rate.

154,000 jobs a month in 2011
139,000 jobs a month in 2012
That slope ain't good.

Now if only the Republicans hadn't filibustered his jobs plan. I wonder what the slope would have looked like then?


a lot worse. that is why the 3 dems voted against it in the Senate.
 
2012-09-07 01:49:52 PM

MattStafford: If Apple took out a billion dollar loan, then it would be extremely damaging to the economy


...why?

If Apple spent their billion dollars to hire people, that's good.

If Apple loaned the billion dollars to Google and Google hired people, it would bad.

...why?
 
2012-09-07 01:50:22 PM

lennavan: MattStafford: Dusk-You-n-Me: MattStafford: they will destroy 1000 jobs when they pay that debt down.

Because you say so?

Just think about it. Government creates 10,000 dollars, and hires 1000 workers to dig a ditch and fill it back in. Eventually the government will be forced to cut that spending or raise taxes, either of which will destroy jobs (right around 10,000 dollars worth of jobs).

If debt creation creates job, then paying down debt destroys jobs.

How exactly does raising taxes destroy an equal number of jobs?


The same way trickle down economics works.


/it doesn't
 
2012-09-07 01:50:33 PM

justtray: MattStafford: Dusk-You-n-Me: MattStafford: they will destroy 1000 jobs when they pay that debt down.

Because you say so?

Just think about it. Government creates 10,000 dollars, and hires 1000 workers to dig a ditch and fill it back in. Eventually the government will be forced to cut that spending or raise taxes, either of which will destroy jobs (right around 10,000 dollars worth of jobs).

If debt creation creates job, then paying down debt destroys jobs.

WOW. Please stick to being bad at football, you're TERRIBLE at economics and logic.


The logical conclusion from his "If debt creation creates job, then paying down debt destroys jobs," would be that getting rid of banks and lending institutions entirely, will help the economy at large.
 
2012-09-07 01:50:37 PM

Mrtraveler01: This is perhaps the dumbest thing I've read about economics on Fark.

How the fark do you explain Detroit and the fact that the auto industry is the lifeblood of that city and therefore the cities fate depends on how the Big 3 are doing?

Face it, the real answer is that it's ok when private industry "manipulates economies" because it's not the government because government is bad...or something.


I'm not sure what you're asking. I have said before that I think the private sector can distort the economy just as much as the public sector, they are just less likely to do so.
 
2012-09-07 01:51:40 PM
Rmoney unavailable for comment on the new numbers.

i.usatoday.net
 
2012-09-07 01:52:14 PM

WhyteRaven74: On the day Obama took office unemployment was rapidly increasing. And hey why not blame the private sector? Or is the private sector utterly blameless in everything?


Interesting that you would respond to a statement of fact with an attempt to shift blame. I have not said a word about "Fault"

I am simply stating the fact that Obama has not generated a sunstantial change in the unemployment rate during his term. He said he would. He has not.

Do YOU consider the current unemployment rate to be a 'success story' for Obama?
 
2012-09-07 01:52:23 PM

MattStafford: Mrtraveler01: This is perhaps the dumbest thing I've read about economics on Fark.

How the fark do you explain Detroit and the fact that the auto industry is the lifeblood of that city and therefore the cities fate depends on how the Big 3 are doing?

Face it, the real answer is that it's ok when private industry "manipulates economies" because it's not the government because government is bad...or something.

I'm not sure what you're asking. I have said before that I think the private sector can distort the economy just as much as the public sector, they are just less likely to do so.


Why do you think it's less likely? I mean just take a trip across the rust belt and tell me that the private sector doesn't distort the economy as much as the government does.
 
2012-09-07 01:52:43 PM

BojanglesPaladin: Unemployment rate when Obama won the election: 6.7%
Unemployment rate when Obama took Office: 8.3%
Unemployment rate Today: 8.1%

That is not success. It's just not. For almost four years now, the administration has been saying be patient, we're working on it. It will get better.

It's not better. It's just not worse.


It dipped all the way to 10 in October of 2009. its up from 10. Are you suggesting that between the end of January and the end of October 2009, Obama drafted legislation, passed it, and it took full effect, dropping the unemployment rate by another 1.7%? Or do realistic assessments of what actually happened not matter when you're herping?
 
2012-09-07 01:52:52 PM

MattStafford: The government's debt does function in the same manner as my debt. I can use the same rules, and it does work that the way. The only difference, the government can print money. That is it. The single, solitary difference. Everything else operates the exact same way. And if you suggest money printing as a solution to our debt problems, you're a joke.


People live forever? And get to decide how much money they make, like elected governments decide on the level of taxation? ... ok then.

The difference the ability to print money makes is that there is literally zero risk of involuntary default when lending to the US government. We might decide to default because we think printing the necessary money or raising the necessary taxation would be worse. We might decide to default because of political dysfunction. But when you lend a person money they might turn out to be unable to pay it back; that can't happen to the US government.
 
2012-09-07 01:53:18 PM

tenpoundsofcheese: Pincy: tenpoundsofcheese: KarmicDisaster: tenpoundsofcheese: Mrtraveler01: tenpoundsofcheese: No, the economy is creating jobs, fewer this year than last year which means the economy has no faith in whatever it is that 0bama claims he is doing to create jobs.

Because it's all Obama's fault and nothing to do with market forces in general.

Got it!

Good, you are learning. Now you should try to understand what influences market forces.

If companies see an anti-business, anti-success President who doesn't have a clue about how to improve the economy, they don't have faith in the economic strength and they don't hire.

Actually, as I mentioned before, the slope of the recovery under Obama on the unemployment chart above is the same as other growth periods. Jobs are not being created at a slower rate.

154,000 jobs a month in 2011
139,000 jobs a month in 2012
That slope ain't good.

Now if only the Republicans hadn't filibustered his jobs plan. I wonder what the slope would have looked like then?

a lot worse. that is why the 3 dems voted against it in the Senate.


Why would it be a lot worse? 

/sits back and grabs some popcorn as he gets ready for you to explain this to me
 
2012-09-07 01:53:24 PM

CPennypacker: It dipped all the way to 10 in October of 2009. its up from 10. Are you suggesting that between the end of January and the end of October 2009, Obama drafted legislation, passed it, and it took full effect, dropping the unemployment rate by another 1.7%? Or do realistic assessments of what actually happened not matter when you're herping?


You have your "ups" and "downs" flipped.
 
2012-09-07 01:53:39 PM

lennavan: MattStafford: If Google took out a billion dollar loan, and hired people to dig ditches and fill them back up, that would be terrible for the economy.

Uh, actually that would be great for the economy. I dont think you understand how the economy works dude.


You are an idiot.

How can so many seemingly otherwise intelligent people think that going into debt and spending that money on something unproductive is good. It is mind boggling.
 
2012-09-07 01:54:01 PM

Mrtraveler01: tenpoundsofcheese: KarmicDisaster: tenpoundsofcheese: Mrtraveler01: tenpoundsofcheese: No, the economy is creating jobs, fewer this year than last year which means the economy has no faith in whatever it is that 0bama claims he is doing to create jobs.

Because it's all Obama's fault and nothing to do with market forces in general.

Got it!

Good, you are learning. Now you should try to understand what influences market forces.

If companies see an anti-business, anti-success President who doesn't have a clue about how to improve the economy, they don't have faith in the economic strength and they don't hire.

Actually, as I mentioned before, the slope of the recovery under Obama on the unemployment chart above is the same as other growth periods. Jobs are not being created at a slower rate.

154,000 jobs a month in 2011
139,000 jobs a month in 2012
That slope ain't good.

I have to ask. Are you only using the first 8 months of 2011 for that number or the whole year?

Because that would be an incredibly dishonest talking point to use if you were using 12 months in 2011 to compared to 8 months in 2012.


Take it up with the AP. That is how they are reporting the news.

The average for that same period is 143,00 for 2011.
So face it, 0bama has failed.
 
2012-09-07 01:54:16 PM

NateGrey: Vote Republican?


Only if you think that is a better choice. You will have to decide that for yourself.

Personally, I am not yet convinced that either candidate has a viable plan to fix the economy.
 
2012-09-07 01:54:20 PM

BojanglesPaladin: Unemployment rate when Obama won the election: 6.7%
Unemployment rate when Obama took Office: 8.3%
Unemployment rate Today: 8.1%

That is not success. It's just not. For almost four years now, the administration has been saying be patient, we're working on it. It will get better.

It's not better. It's just not worse.


When he took over the bleeding hadn't been stopped yet. It got much worse. It is getting better.
 
2012-09-07 01:55:12 PM
"The government can't create jobs"
Corporate profits at an all time high.
"Unemployment is Obama's fault"

Republican double-think.
 
2012-09-07 01:55:26 PM

BojanglesPaladin: I am simply stating the fact that Obama has not generated a sunstantial change in the unemployment rate during his term. He said he would. He has not.


Do we have a command economy? Are you asking for one? Because every time you blame the president for not creating private sector jobs that is what you are implicitly suggesting.
 
2012-09-07 01:55:29 PM

MattStafford: And that money isn't just sitting in a vault in Cupertino, sorry to burst your bubble, but it is out doing things.


it isn't being spent at the same rate as 1 mil poor people with 1000 bucks each, if it did lowering the corporate tax rate would have the same bang for your buck as extending unemployment benefits or expanding foodstamps benefits.
 
2012-09-07 01:55:44 PM

MattStafford: How can so many seemingly otherwise intelligent people think that going into debt and spending that money on something unproductive is good. It is mind boggling.


You do realize that we all agree its better to spend it on more productive things. But it's more productive than having those unemployed people do absolutely nothing and basically just be excluded from the economy.
 
2012-09-07 01:56:12 PM

tenpoundsofcheese: Mrtraveler01: tenpoundsofcheese: KarmicDisaster: tenpoundsofcheese: Mrtraveler01: tenpoundsofcheese: No, the economy is creating jobs, fewer this year than last year which means the economy has no faith in whatever it is that 0bama claims he is doing to create jobs.

Because it's all Obama's fault and nothing to do with market forces in general.

Got it!

Good, you are learning. Now you should try to understand what influences market forces.

If companies see an anti-business, anti-success President who doesn't have a clue about how to improve the economy, they don't have faith in the economic strength and they don't hire.

Actually, as I mentioned before, the slope of the recovery under Obama on the unemployment chart above is the same as other growth periods. Jobs are not being created at a slower rate.

154,000 jobs a month in 2011
139,000 jobs a month in 2012
That slope ain't good.

I have to ask. Are you only using the first 8 months of 2011 for that number or the whole year?

Because that would be an incredibly dishonest talking point to use if you were using 12 months in 2011 to compared to 8 months in 2012.

Take it up with the AP. That is how they are reporting the news.

The average for that same period is 143,00 for 2011.
So face it, 0bama has failed.


Got a citation?

Sorry that I don't take your word for it but I need a citation.
 
2012-09-07 01:56:39 PM

BojanglesPaladin: NateGrey: Vote Republican?

Only if you think that is a better choice. You will have to decide that for yourself.

Personally, I am not yet convinced that either candidate has a viable plan to fix the economy.


It's ok. Nate's just pissed he won't be old enough to vote for Obama in November
 
2012-09-07 01:57:13 PM

BojanglesPaladin: Unemployment rate when Obama won the election: 6.7%
Unemployment rate when Obama took Office: 8.3%
Unemployment rate Today: 8.1%

That is not success. It's just not. For almost four years now, the administration has been saying be patient, we're working on it. It will get better.

It's not better. It's just not worse.


The labor participation percentage is the lowest in 30 years.
So it is worse, a lot worse.
 
2012-09-07 01:57:23 PM

DamnYankees: MattStafford: How can so many seemingly otherwise intelligent people think that going into debt and spending that money on something unproductive is good. It is mind boggling.

You do realize that we all agree its better to spend it on more productive things. But it's more productive than having those unemployed people do absolutely nothing and basically just be excluded from the economy.


Yeah, I understand that hiring ditch diggers isn't desirable and all but how would have these people be unemployed instead be any better for the economy?
 
2012-09-07 01:57:35 PM

BojanglesPaladin: WhyteRaven74: On the day Obama took office unemployment was rapidly increasing. And hey why not blame the private sector? Or is the private sector utterly blameless in everything?

Interesting that you would respond to a statement of fact with an attempt to shift blame. I have not said a word about "Fault"

I am simply stating the fact that Obama has not generated a sunstantial change in the unemployment rate during his term. He said he would. He has not.

Do YOU consider the current unemployment rate to be a 'success story' for Obama?


This all depends on the counterfactual. Obama was indeed wrong about whether ARRA would be enough, and about the early economic forecasts.

Figuring out what U3 would be if there was no ARRA or PPACA, and if we were at war with Iran, is no easy task.
 
2012-09-07 01:57:45 PM

Rwa2play: wxboy: ferretman: 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.

It's a false growth though.

Do you think most people know and/or care? They just look at the number reported.

It's him moving the goalposts because the number critics are shooting for is not in their favor.


Have we ever used those "other" numbers, with regards to GWBush or Clinton or Bush I or Reagan? If not, it seems like using the "other" numbers would be moving the goalposts.
 
2012-09-07 01:57:51 PM

DamnYankees: CPennypacker: It dipped all the way to 10 in October of 2009. its up from 10. Are you suggesting that between the end of January and the end of October 2009, Obama drafted legislation, passed it, and it took full effect, dropping the unemployment rate by another 1.7%? Or do realistic assessments of what actually happened not matter when you're herping?

You have your "ups" and "downs" flipped.


blargh you know what i meant
 
2012-09-07 01:58:03 PM

Mrtraveler01: how would have these people be unemployed instead be any better for the economy?


It wouldn't. We're saying the opposite.
 
2012-09-07 01:58:21 PM

tenpoundsofcheese: The labor participation percentage is the lowest in 30 years.


Isn't that because more and more people are retiring?
 
2012-09-07 01:58:41 PM

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 MONTH under the previous administration.


FTFY
 
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