US economy creates 243,000 jobs in January

Conservative · Feb 7, 2012

zgoldsmith23 said:
Someone who better aligned with my views; not Newt, Ron, Rick, or Mittens.

Karl Marx? One of these days you are going to look back and wonder how liberalism made such a fool out of you

zgoldsmith23 · Feb 7, 2012

Conservative said:
Karl Marx? One of these days you are going to look back and wonder how liberalism made such a fool out of you

Did I say Marx? Not even close.

I'd prefer a Clinton-style Moderate-Democrat with more Liberal / Libertarian social stances.

Sheik Yerbuti · Feb 7, 2012

Conservative said:
Karl Marx? One of these days you are going to look back and wonder how liberalism made such a fool out of you

It's a shame you can't discuss politics without calling people names.

eace

Sheik Yerbuti · Feb 7, 2012

zgoldsmith23 said:
Did I say Marx? Not even close.

I'd prefer a Clinton-style Moderate-Democrat with more Liberal / Libertarian social stances.

To some on the right, anyone to the left of Rush Limbaugh is Karl Marx.

zgoldsmith23 · Feb 7, 2012

Sheik Yerbuti said:
To some on the right, anyone to the left of Rush Limbaugh is Karl Marx.

Well their first names both have four letters and last names both have one "a" in them... Rush is a Marxist!!

Sorry - I'm trying to use Conservative's logic.

Conservative · Feb 7, 2012

zgoldsmith23 said:
Did I say Marx? Not even close.

I'd prefer a Clinton-style Moderate-Democrat with more Liberal / Libertarian social stances.

So why would you support four more years of Obama? The choice is going to be a Moderate Romney, a former Governor with outside business successes including making money on the Olympics and the empty suit Obama who believes it is the government's role to be the parents he apparently never had

zgoldsmith23 · Feb 7, 2012

Conservative said:
So why would you support four more years of Obama? The choice is going to be a Moderate Romney, a former Governor with outside business successes including making money on the Olympics and the empty suit Obama who believes it is the government's role to be the parents he apparently never had

He's pro-life. He is also a devout Mormon.

misterman · Feb 7, 2012

Conservative said:
Just as I thought, you cannot admit when you are wrong. The results today are worse than Bush's and I gave you the categories. Carry on, making a fool of yourself.

Nope. I posted what I posted.

Conservative · Feb 7, 2012

zgoldsmith23 said:
He's pro-life. He is also a devout Mormon.

So you are anti life and have no problem killing a baby? What does being a Morman have to do with anything? He governed the state of MA which is predominantly Catholic

pbrauer · Feb 7, 2012

Conservative said:
So why would you support four more years of Obama? The choice is going to be a Moderate Romney, a former Governor with outside business successes including making money on the Olympics and the empty suit Obama who believes it is the government's role to be the parents he apparently never had

Why would anyone want to vote for Romney who sucked the blood out of companies with leveraged buyouts?

Conservative · Feb 7, 2012

pbrauer said:
Why would anyone want to vote for Romney who sucked the blood out of companies with leveraged buyouts?

Because he actually saved jobs and we need someone with business experience to paydown the 5.7 trillion he will inherit from Obama in debt. What did Romney do that Obama didn't do when he took over GM/Chrysler when he caused the closing of dealerships all over the country. The one thing he didn't do was sell an American asset to Italy, Chrysler to Fiat

zgoldsmith23 · Feb 7, 2012

Conservative said:
So you are anti life and have no problem killing a baby? What does being a Morman have to do with anything? He governed the state of MA which is predominantly Catholic

Yes - I hate life. Nope - I hate babies. :roll:

My ideal candidate would be an atheist / anti-theist.

pbrauer · Feb 8, 2012

Conservative said:
Come on, Pete, you are smarter than this. 1.059 million in January

Conservative said:
So what matters to a liberal is the 8.3% unemployment rate because it is going down, not the 1.059 million discouraged workers that weren't counted or the individuals that dropped out of the labor force? Thanks for confirming what i always knew, liberals lack compassion and only want to advance a leftwing political agenda.

Sorry Con, but the 1.059 million discouraged workers is wrong.

What’s Behind the Unemployment Rate Drop? - Real Time Economics - WSJ

"Today’s jobs report carries good news on both fronts. The unemployment rate fell, and the employment-population ratio rose. That means the improvement in the labor market is real — people actually found jobs.

The employment gain wasn’t immediately obvious to some observers because of a quirk in this month’s report. Every January, the Labor Department readjusts its data to account for changes in the population. The tweaks are especially significant in years like this one that take into account a new decennial census.

This year, the population adjustment makes it look like the employment-population ratio didn’t change from December to January. In reality, the ratio improved by 0.3 percentage points. The gains were just masked by the population adjustments.

Here’s what happened: According to the Census Bureau, the civilian population grew by 1.5 million people in 2011. But the growth wasn’t distributed evenly. Most of the growth came among people 55 and older and, to a lesser degree, by people 16-24 years old. Both groups are less likely to work than people in their mid-20s to early 50s. So the share of the population that’s working is actually lower than previously believed. Taking that into account, the employment-population ratio went up. The unemployment rate wasn’t affected.

“There was not a big increase in discouraged workers,” economist Betsey Stevenson commented on Twitter. “What happened was Census found a bunch of old people we had assumed died.”

The adjustments had other effects, as well. They made drop in the number of unemployed look smaller than it really was, and the rise in the number of employed look bigger. And because the Labor Department doesn’t readjust its historical data to account for the new calculations, it isn’t possible to compare January’s figures on employment, unemployment and similar measures to those from earlier months."

misterman · Feb 8, 2012

Conservative said:
Because he actually saved jobs and we need someone with business experience to paydown the 5.7 trillion he will inherit from Obama in debt. What did Romney do that Obama didn't do when he took over GM/Chrysler when he caused the closing of dealerships all over the country. The one thing he didn't do was sell an American asset to Italy, Chrysler to Fiat

You're a one trick pony.

Conservative · Feb 8, 2012

pbrauer said:
Sorry Con, but the 1.059 million discouraged workers is wrong.

What’s Behind the Unemployment Rate Drop? - Real Time Economics - WSJ

"Today’s jobs report carries good news on both fronts. The unemployment rate fell, and the employment-population ratio rose. That means the improvement in the labor market is real — people actually found jobs.

The employment gain wasn’t immediately obvious to some observers because of a quirk in this month’s report. Every January, the Labor Department readjusts its data to account for changes in the population. The tweaks are especially significant in years like this one that take into account a new decennial census.

This year, the population adjustment makes it look like the employment-population ratio didn’t change from December to January. In reality, the ratio improved by 0.3 percentage points. The gains were just masked by the population adjustments.

Here’s what happened: According to the Census Bureau, the civilian population grew by 1.5 million people in 2011. But the growth wasn’t distributed evenly. Most of the growth came among people 55 and older and, to a lesser degree, by people 16-24 years old. Both groups are less likely to work than people in their mid-20s to early 50s. So the share of the population that’s working is actually lower than previously believed. Taking that into account, the employment-population ratio went up. The unemployment rate wasn’t affected.

“There was not a big increase in discouraged workers,” economist Betsey Stevenson commented on Twitter. “What happened was Census found a bunch of old people we had assumed died.”

The adjustments had other effects, as well. They made drop in the number of unemployed look smaller than it really was, and the rise in the number of employed look bigger. And because the Labor Department doesn’t readjust its historical data to account for the new calculations, it isn’t possible to compare January’s figures on employment, unemployment and similar measures to those from earlier months."

What a surprise that you left out the final statement

The adjustments had other effects, as well. They made drop in the number of unemployed look smaller than it really was, and the rise in the number of employed look bigger. And because the Labor Department doesn’t readjust its historical data to account for the new calculations, it isn’t possible to compare January’s figures on employment, unemployment and similar measures to those from earlier months."

So tell me then why you and other obama supporters are taking credit for the unemployment numbers? With all that increase why are there still more unemployed today than when obama took office, fewer employed, and little growth in the civilian labor force?

Sheik Yerbuti · Feb 8, 2012

Conservative said:
With all that increase why are there still more unemployed today than when obama took office, fewer employed, and little growth in the civilian labor force?

Because the Great Bush Recession sacrificed 8 million jobs to the Conservative gods.

Conservative · Feb 8, 2012

Sheik Yerbuti said:
Because the Great Bush Recession sacrificed 8 million jobs to the Conservative gods.

yep, keep going through life blaming someone else for your own failures. let's see how that works out for you

misterman · Feb 8, 2012

Conservative said:
yep, keep going through life blaming someone else for your own failures. let's see how that works out for you

If you're one of 8 million who lose their jobs in a massive financial collapse that you had nothing to do with, it's your own failure?

Conservative · Feb 8, 2012

misterman said:
If you're one of 8 million who lose their jobs in a massive financial collapse that you had nothing to do with, it's your own failure?

"your" president was elected to solve the problem and turn the economy around. Three years later the results are what they are, a failure, but results don't matter to his supporters because he has a good smile and can sing. Isn't it amazing that we generated the January numbers with a "do nothing" Congress? He has been in office three years and the numbers are worse than when he took office yet that doesn't matter? Keep buying the media and Obama rhetoric because blaming others is all they do

Sheik Yerbuti · Feb 8, 2012

Conservative said:
yep, keep going through life blaming someone else for your own failures. let's see how that works out for you

Your strawman aside, the Great Bush Recession is not a failure of Obama.

Sheik Yerbuti · Feb 8, 2012

Conservative said:
"your" president was elected to solve the problem and turn the economy around. Three years later the results are what they are, a failure, but results don't matter to his supporters because he has a good smile and can sing. Isn't it amazing that we generated the January numbers with a "do nothing" Congress? He has been in office three years and the numbers are worse than when he took office yet that doesn't matter? Keep buying the media and Obama rhetoric because blaming others is all they do

That's bull****. At the time Obama was elected, it wasn't even announced yet by the NBER that we were in a recession, so how could Obama hava been elected to fix something which was not yet declared?

Conservative · Feb 8, 2012

Sheik Yerbuti said:
Your strawman aside, the Great Bush Recession is not a failure of Obama.

The recession, no, the recovery or lack of one yes

Conservative · Feb 8, 2012

Sheik Yerbuti said:
That's bull****. At the time Obama was elected, it wasn't even announced yet by the NBER that we were in a recession, so how could Obama hava been elected to fix something which was not yet declared?

What a surprise, another lie? The recession began in December 2007 and ended in June 2009 according to NBER

The National Bureau of Economic Research

misterman · Feb 8, 2012

Conservative said:
"your" president was elected to solve the problem and turn the economy around. Three years later the results are what they are, a failure, but results don't matter to his supporters because he has a good smile and can sing. Isn't it amazing that we generated the January numbers with a "do nothing" Congress? He has been in office three years and the numbers are worse than when he took office yet that doesn't matter? Keep buying the media and Obama rhetoric because blaming others is all they do

Thanks for completely not answering my question, again.

Conservative · Feb 8, 2012

misterman said:
Thanks for completely not answering my question, again.

no problem, just a reminder there is an ignore feature, use it

US economy creates 243,000 jobs in January

Conservative

zgoldsmith23

Antichrist

Sheik Yerbuti

Sheik Yerbuti

zgoldsmith23

Antichrist

Conservative

zgoldsmith23

Antichrist

misterman

Conservative

pbrauer

Conservative

zgoldsmith23

Antichrist

pbrauer

misterman

Conservative

Sheik Yerbuti

Conservative

misterman

Conservative

Sheik Yerbuti

Sheik Yerbuti

Conservative

Conservative

misterman

Conservative