Political Forums

Political Forums (http://www.politicalchat.org/index.php)
-   Economy (http://www.politicalchat.org/forumdisplay.php?f=27)
-   -   Economy Adds 288,000 Jobs In June (http://www.politicalchat.org/showthread.php?t=7798)

bobabode 07-03-2014 01:11 PM

Economy Adds 288,000 Jobs In June
 
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/...rcent/?hpid=z1

Jobless rate falls to 6.1% and the DOW ticks up over 17,000.

finnbow 07-03-2014 01:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bobabode (Post 229095)
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/...rcent/?hpid=z1

Jobless rate falls to 6.1% and the DOW ticks up over 17,000.

It was entertaining hearing Limbaugh poo-poo the good economic news. I'm waiting for Whell to chime in parroting Rush's "logic" (now that the Right's economic braintrust, -5, has departed the premises.)

MrPots 07-03-2014 01:42 PM

With the unemployment rate dropping and the stock market hitting record highs, I can see where Obama is considered to be the worst president ever.

bobabode 07-03-2014 01:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by finnbow (Post 229097)
It was entertaining hearing Limbaugh poo-poo the good economic news. I'm waiting for Whell to chime in parroting Rush's "logic" (now that the Right's economic braintrust, -5, has departed the premises.)

The 'Corpulent One' is still cheering for the demise of America's economic fortunes? If the right's economic braintrust is based on goldbuggery ala Glenn Beck, they're in worse shape than even I imagined.

icenine 07-03-2014 01:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by finnbow (Post 229097)
It was entertaining hearing Limbaugh poo-poo the good economic news. I'm waiting for Whell to chime in parroting Rush's "logic" (now that the Right's economic braintrust, -5, has departed the premises.)

Is he gone again? If you miss him he in BAP extolling physical money.

Yeah Obama had nothing to do with the economy. Imagine if Bonehead would have worked with the President on some infrastruture bills...we might be down to 5.

MrPots 07-03-2014 01:51 PM

There is no telling how many amazing places this country might be right now if instead of the republicans doing everything in their power to make this country fail simply to make an examples of the president they cooperated and compromised.
.

Tom Joad 07-03-2014 02:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by icenine (Post 229101)
Imagine if Bonehead would have worked with the President on some infrastruture bills...we might be down to 5.

Yep, the Republicans have undermined him at every turn.

Compare that to Bush, who inherited a booming economy and budget surpluses as far as the eye could see from Clinton, then got virtually everything he asked for from congress, and went on to bring about the biggest economic collapse since the great depression.

merrylander 07-03-2014 02:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by finnbow (Post 229097)
It was entertaining hearing Limbaugh poo-poo the good economic news. I'm waiting for Whell to chime in parroting Rush's "logic" (now that the Right's economic braintrust, -5, has departed the premises.)

Did 5 below depart? Whatever brought that on?

piece-itpete 07-03-2014 02:48 PM

If only the Democrats would've had complete control of the Federal government when Obama was first elected. Just imagine the wonderful things they could've done.

:p

Pete

bobabode 07-03-2014 02:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by piece-itpete (Post 229119)
If only the Democrats would've had complete control of the Federal government when Obama was first elected. Just imagine the wonderful things they could've done.

:p

Pete

Fallacious reasoning alert! ;) :rolleyes:

Tom Joad 07-03-2014 03:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by piece-itpete (Post 229119)
If only the Democrats would've had complete control of the Federal government when Obama was first elected. Just imagine the wonderful things they could've done.

:p

Pete

What complete control?

They had 60 Senators with a "D" behind their name, which doesn't mean shit if a half dozen of them are voting with the far right.

It takes 60 votes to pass anything meaningful.

If there are only 60 Democrats then all the billionaires have to do is buy one of them.

In the case of Obamacare they went ahead and bought 5 or 6 just so they would have a cushion.

bobabode 07-03-2014 04:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tom Joad (Post 229134)
What complete control?

They had 60 Senators with a "D" behind their name, which doesn't mean shit if a half dozen of them are voting with the far right.

It takes 60 votes to pass anything meaningful.

If there are only 60 Democrats then all the billionaires have to do is buy one of them.

In the case of Obamacare they went ahead and bought 5 or 6 just so they would have a cushion.

I chuckle every time I hear the crazy & absurd idea that Dems are some sot of monolithic voting bloc. It boggles the mind. We Dems are notorius for being a fractious and noisy bunch who would come to blows were it not for a little wine and some smoke. Then out come the drums, guitars and the occasional banjo and it's all Kumbaya and labor protest songs. :)

Well, that's the way it is at my family reunions. :D

Fast_Eddie 07-04-2014 12:13 AM

When will this Commie President stop adding so many jobs!? He's killing the narrative!

Local Tea Hatter congressional candidate running an ad saying "unemployment is still over 10%". Looking particularly stupid today. Only marginally more than every other day.

Fast_Eddie 07-04-2014 12:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by piece-itpete (Post 229119)
If only the Democrats would've had complete control of the Federal government when Obama was first elected. Just imagine the wonderful things they could've done.

:p

Pete

It's a good point. If that had been the case, I imagine things would be a damn sight better than they are. Oh well. Maybe more Americans will realize this and it will happen someday.

Republicans had the White House and both houses of Congress for a load of years. You can see how badly they fucked up everything. We're still clawing our way out of the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression. Thank God President Obama has gotten us moving the right way again.

whell 07-04-2014 11:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fast_Eddie (Post 229194)
When will this Commie President stop adding so many jobs!? He's killing the narrative!

He's reversing a trend.

http://blogs.wsj.com/economics/2014/...LEFTTopStories

whell 07-04-2014 11:51 AM

We're still reducing the denominator:

http://cnsnews.com/news/article/ali-...bor-force-june

This means that there were 92,120,000 Americans 16 and older who not only did not have a job, but did not actively seek one in the last four weeks.

That is up 111,000 from the 92,009,000 Americans who were not participating in the labor force in April.

In June, according to BLS, the labor force participation rate for Americans was 62.8 percent, matching a 36-year low. The participation rate is the percentage of the population that either has a job or actively sought one in the last four weeks.

bobabode 07-04-2014 05:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by whell (Post 229253)
We're still reducing the denominator:

http://cnsnews.com/news/article/ali-...bor-force-june

This means that there were 92,120,000 Americans 16 and older who not only did not have a job, but did not actively seek one in the last four weeks.

That is up 111,000 from the 92,009,000 Americans who were not participating in the labor force in April.

In June, according to BLS, the labor force participation rate for Americans was 62.8 percent, matching a 36-year low. The participation rate is the percentage of the population that either has a job or actively sought one in the last four weeks.

While the figures reported may not be in dispute, your choice of outlet for your news is downright hilarious. Love the banner advert for Dinesh's latest sci-fi movie. :rolleyes:

"CNSNews.com is not funded by the government like NPR. CNSNews.com is not funded by the government like PBS.
CNSNews.com relies on individuals like you to help us report the news the liberal media distort and ignore. Please make a tax-deductible gift to CNSNews.com today. Your continued support will ensure that CNSNews.com is here reporting THE TRUTH, for a long time to come. It's fast, easy and secure."

Not funded by the gubmint but it is tax deductible 'foundation'? How ironic. :p

Tom Joad 07-04-2014 07:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by whell (Post 229253)
We're still reducing the denominator:

http://cnsnews.com/news/article/ali-...bor-force-june

This means that there were 92,120,000 Americans 16 and older who not only did not have a job, but did not actively seek one in the last four weeks.

That is up 111,000 from the 92,009,000 Americans who were not participating in the labor force in April.

In June, according to BLS, the labor force participation rate for Americans was 62.8 percent, matching a 36-year low. The participation rate is the percentage of the population that either has a job or actively sought one in the last four weeks.

Any negative aspects of the economy can be laid at your feet and the feet of those like you. You are the ones that vote in the bastards that are working to sabotage the economy in order to make Obama look bad.

Not only that you come here every day and carry the water for them by spreading their lies and propaganda.

whell 07-04-2014 07:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tom Joad (Post 229288)
Any negative aspects of the economy can be laid at your feet and the feet of those like you. You are the ones that vote in the bastards that are working to sabotage the economy in order to make Obama look bad.

Not only that you come here every day and carry the water for them by spreading their lies and propaganda.

Thanks Tom. You're always good for laugh.

bobabode 07-05-2014 01:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by whell (Post 229291)
Thanks Tom. You're always good for laugh.

As are you Mike. How's the headhunting biz working for ya?

BlueStreak 07-05-2014 03:27 AM

The guy across the street was bitching yesterday that his son, Joey, has as yet to find a job since coming home.............






...from prison, where he did 10 years for home invasion, robbery, assault and battery.
The victim involved in the attack was a 78 year old man.

Of course Obama is to blame for his lack of gainful employment.:rolleyes:

Dave

BlueStreak 07-05-2014 03:33 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by whell (Post 229253)
We're still reducing the denominator:

http://cnsnews.com/news/article/ali-...bor-force-june

This means that there were 92,120,000 Americans 16 and older who not only did not have a job, but did not actively seek one in the last four weeks.

That is up 111,000 from the 92,009,000 Americans who were not participating in the labor force in April.

In June, according to BLS, the labor force participation rate for Americans was 62.8 percent, matching a 36-year low. The participation rate is the percentage of the population that either has a job or actively sought one in the last four weeks.

So, the Republicans have been taking names off of tombstones and counting the permanently disabled and prison population as unemployed? Wouldn't surprise me at all.

Actually, I would say the underemployment issue is a more pressing issue. A whole lot of people working and not making any money in this country. Must mean we need to give another round of tax cuts to the Plutocracy and buy more defective, but horrendously expensive military junk we don't need that doesn't work right anyways?

Dave

donquixote99 07-05-2014 06:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by whell (Post 229253)
We're still reducing the denominator:

http://cnsnews.com/news/article/ali-...bor-force-june

This means that there were 92,120,000 Americans 16 and older who not only did not have a job, but did not actively seek one in the last four weeks.

That is up 111,000 from the 92,009,000 Americans who were not participating in the labor force in April.

In June, according to BLS, the labor force participation rate for Americans was 62.8 percent, matching a 36-year low. The participation rate is the percentage of the population that either has a job or actively sought one in the last four weeks.

Note that your participation rate figure starts at age 16, but has no cap on age. ALL persons 65 and over are included. That number is increasing fast, and has to be a drag on the participation rate.

From 2012 to 2013, the number of people age 65 and older in this country went from 43.1 million to 44.7 million. http://factfinder2.census.gov/faces/...xhtml?src=bkmk

The change was + 1.6 million. Divide that by 12 and you have a rate of 133,000 per month. Not all are retired, of course, but I think I just found the vast majority of the 111,000 increase your article identifies over a two-month period.

whell 07-05-2014 08:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by donquixote99 (Post 229341)
Note that your participation rate figure starts at age 16, but has no cap on age. ALL persons 65 and over are included. That number is increasing fast, and has to be a drag on the participation rate.

From 2012 to 2013, the number of people age 65 and older in this country went from 43.1 million to 44.7 million. http://factfinder2.census.gov/faces/...xhtml?src=bkmk

The change was + 1.6 million. Divide that by 12 and you have a rate of 133,000 per month. Not all are retired, of course, but I think I just found the vast majority of the 111,000 increase your article identifies over a two-month period.

Are you asserting that individuals age 65 and over are not seeking employment? In fact, the trend is that more and more older Americans are working longer as life expectancy increases.

http://www.apnorc.org/projects/Pages...etirement.aspx

http://www.carseyinstitute.unh.edu/p...er_Workers.pdf

donquixote99 07-05-2014 08:49 AM

To repeat myself, not all are retired, of course. But I say many fewer of them are seeking employment than in the younger age cohorts.

merrylander 07-05-2014 09:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by whell (Post 229342)
Are you asserting that individuals age 65 and over are not seeking employment? In fact, the trend is that more and more older Americans are working longer as life expectancy increases.

Or are working longer because the defined benefit pension is a thing of the past here.

Tom Joad 07-05-2014 09:08 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by donquixote99 (Post 229349)
To repeat myself, not all are retired, of course. But I say many fewer of them are seeking employment than in the younger age cohorts.


You're damned right.

I sure as Hell ain't lookin for no Goddamned job.

I wouldn't last long if I did get one either.

Not the way employers are treating workers these days.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ANj4Klx3v-4

bobabode 07-05-2014 09:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by whell (Post 229252)

Yes, he is. He's shrinking the government. http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/...da239&hpid=z16

piece-itpete 07-07-2014 12:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tom Joad (Post 229134)
What complete control?

They had 60 Senators with a "D" behind their name, which doesn't mean shit if a half dozen of them are voting with the far right.

It takes 60 votes to pass anything meaningful.

If there are only 60 Democrats then all the billionaires have to do is buy one of them.

In the case of Obamacare they went ahead and bought 5 or 6 just so they would have a cushion.

Tom, I'm not detecting a whiff of excuse am I? :p

Pete

merrylander 07-07-2014 01:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by piece-itpete (Post 229693)
Tom, I'm not detecting a whiff of excuse am I? :p

Pete

No excuse you are forgetting the DINO Blue Dogs.


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 11:59 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.6
Copyright ©2000 - 2026, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.