Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Then why is the unemployment rate 1.3 % higher than when he took office?
Or, as I suspect, this is the part where you loose $100 at the casino, then win $20 and when you get home you tell your wife you won $20, ignoring the fact hat YOU ALSO LOST $100?
Or, as I suspect, this is the part where you loose $100 at the casino, then win $20 and when you get home you tell your wife you won $20, ignoring the fact hat YOU ALSO LOST $100?
Actually, this is a pretty good analogy to our job situation.
We lost $100 at black jack, but then won $40 in the slots. Democrats talk about how we are down $60, but that's not as bad as being down $100. And Republicans talk about how we lost $100 at black jack and now need to sell our house to lower our costs to afford the bill.
Then why is the unemployment rate 1.3 % higher than when he took office?
If you're going to attack the guy at least get your dates and numbers correct.
The Recovery Act was passed in Feb of 2009. That month, unemployment was 8.2. In May of this year it was 9.1. So, if you want to attack him, 0.9% is a more accurate number.
Course, none of you has ever shown how the Recovery Act "caused" unemployment to go up, but hey, that's on you now isn't it?
Shit Obama himself never mentions our monthly loses, only our gains despite it still be a HUGE loss
So what became of the on-going Stimulus program after all? In the private sector, 18 months of steady job gains! Those are all Democratic Party created gains. The Republicans virtually universally said, "No!" to any further job gains!
ADP Employment Report
The Party of Abraham Lincoln even famously, took away Santa Clause, the Schedule M in the U. S. Internal Revenue Code. That was the "Make Work Pay," refundable tax credit.
The Republican Party was created at about the same time as Simon Legree: And it shows. Their newly elected, Party of Herbert Hoover state and local people: Are taking even new state and local government jobs away!
"Crow, James Crow: Shaken, Not Stirred!"
(Party of Lincoln Treat Santa Clause to A Liberian Movement kind of status!)
you should read the actual reports instead of basing your post on the summary.
BTW, you are severly misleading by saying 'steady jobs gains', when your own source called it simply 'employment gains'. Steady certainly does not apply if you read the actual report.
EDIT: also, the press release specifies that the '18 months of empolyment gains' was for the service-providing sector only...
...not overall employment.employment in the service-providing sector rose by 130,000 in June, nearly three times faster than in May, marking 18 consecutive months of employment gains.
Shit Obama himself never mentions our monthly loses, only our gains despite it still be a HUGE loss
Why should he? If we lose 50,000 and gain 100,000, why focus on the 50,000 lost?
Obama was inaugurated in January, not February. And in January, the unemployment rate was 7.8%. Now, let's do the math.... 9.1% - 7.8% = +1.3% jump in unemployment - post stimulus.
So, how has he accomplished net job creation? Sounds like he's created net job loss.
Every month more jobs are lost than gained, but if you only go off people being hired, not laid off/fired then I guess it's all gains?
Shit Obama himself never mentions our monthly loses, only our gains despite it still be a HUGE loss
Why should he? If we lose 50,000 and gain 100,000, why focus on the 50,000 lost?
If you lost 50,000 and gained 100,000, the unemployment rate wouldn't be rising. But hey, don't let that bother you.
So what became of the on-going Stimulus program after all? In the private sector, 18 months of steady job gains! Those are all Democratic Party created gains. The Republicans virtually universally said, "No!" to any further job gains!
ADP Employment Report
The Party of Abraham Lincoln even famously, took away Santa Clause, the Schedule M in the U. S. Internal Revenue Code. That was the "Make Work Pay," refundable tax credit.
The Republican Party was created at about the same time as Simon Legree: And it shows. Their newly elected, Party of Herbert Hoover state and local people: Are taking even new state and local government jobs away!
"Crow, James Crow: Shaken, Not Stirred!"
(Party of Lincoln Treat Santa Clause to A Liberian Movement kind of status!)
you should read the actual reports instead of basing your post on the summary.
BTW, you are severly misleading by saying 'steady jobs gains', when your own source called it simply 'employment gains'. Steady certainly does not apply if you read the actual report.
EDIT: also, the press release specifies that the '18 months of empolyment gains' was for the service-providing sector only...
...not overall employment.employment in the service-providing sector rose by 130,000 in June, nearly three times faster than in May, marking 18 consecutive months of employment gains.
and this was different from the Bush era in what way?
I guess it is not Obama's economy after all?
Why should he? If we lose 50,000 and gain 100,000, why focus on the 50,000 lost?
If you lost 50,000 and gained 100,000, the unemployment rate wouldn't be rising. But hey, don't let that bother you.
Again, this could be due to an increase in the population. I believe we need to add 150,000 a month just to break even with population growth. So if we are adding 50,000 only, then the unemployment rate would go up, but, it would not be accurate to say we are losing jobs.
Uhm, yes it is. His policies haven't netted one private sector job. Period. And in that respect, he is vastly different from Bush.
If you lost 50,000 and gained 100,000, the unemployment rate wouldn't be rising. But hey, don't let that bother you.
Again, this could be due to an increase in the population. I believe we need to add 150,000 a month just to break even with population growth. So if we are adding 50,000 only, then the unemployment rate would go up, but, it would not be accurate to say we are losing jobs.
Well, maybe.. I think that's a stretch though. Anyhoo... jobs creation has to out pace population growth as well. The bottom line here, the economy is NOT creating employment, rather employment is decreasing.
Every month more jobs are lost than gained, but if you only go off people being hired, not laid off/fired then I guess it's all gains?
Again how is this different from the Bush era for the most part?
They all play games with the numbers just like with inflation, generally excluding the 2 things that raise the most and everyone needs. Food and energy.
Why should he? If we lose 50,000 and gain 100,000, why focus on the 50,000 lost?
If you lost 50,000 and gained 100,000, the unemployment rate wouldn't be rising. But hey, don't let that bother you.
Again, this could be due to an increase in the population. I believe we need to add 150,000 a month just to break even with population growth. So if we are adding 50,000 only, then the unemployment rate would go up, but, it would not be accurate to say we are losing jobs.
Again, this could be due to an increase in the population. I believe we need to add 150,000 a month just to break even with population growth. So if we are adding 50,000 only, then the unemployment rate would go up, but, it would not be accurate to say we are losing jobs.
Well, maybe.. I think that's a stretch though. Anyhoo... jobs creation has to out pace population growth as well. The bottom line here, the economy is NOT creating employment, rather employment is decreasing.
It's not a stretch at all. I double checked the number and we need to add roughly 125,000 jobs per month to keep pace with population. This is pretty commonly accepted by anyone not working at Cato or Heritage. As such, any month we add less we have the chance of unemployment going up. This does NOT mean employment is decreasing. It means we are growing. Employment IS increasing. Just not at the pace we need.
Well, maybe.. I think that's a stretch though. Anyhoo... jobs creation has to out pace population growth as well. The bottom line here, the economy is NOT creating employment, rather employment is decreasing.
It's not a stretch at all. I double checked the number and we need to add roughly 125,000 jobs per month to keep pace with population. This is pretty commonly accepted by anyone not working at Cato or Heritage. As such, any month we add less we have the chance of unemployment going up. This does NOT mean employment is decreasing. It means we are growing. Employment IS increasing. Just not at the pace we need.
WHO THE FUCK CARES! You're point is lost because unless it JUST STARTED when Obama became president every, single fucking, president, in, history, of , the , world, has, had this "problem" too.
It's not as if all these "new people" all of a sudden couldn't start a business. Aww fuck it, nm... Get back to blowing Obama. I mean now its people are having babies! is causing the problem, LOL! More of the population has a collage education than at anytime in the history of the world and now its population growth thats keepin Obama down! Havent we slowed WAY down on makin babbies? Maybe there is something to 18 million illegals being in the US! Lol, this is pathetic.
So what became of the on-going Stimulus program after all? In the private sector, 18 months of steady job gains! Those are all Democratic Party created gains. The Republicans virtually universally said, "No!" to any further job gains!
ADP Employment Report
The Party of Abraham Lincoln even famously, took away Santa Clause, the Schedule M in the U. S. Internal Revenue Code. That was the "Make Work Pay," refundable tax credit.
The Republican Party was created at about the same time as Simon Legree: And it shows. Their newly elected, Party of Herbert Hoover state and local people: Are taking even new state and local government jobs away!
"Crow, James Crow: Shaken, Not Stirred!"
(Party of Lincoln Treat Santa Clause to A Liberian Movement kind of status!)
