ARMAGEDDON...Jobless claims plunge to 222,000, second-lowest mark in decades

[AntonToo]

So much for the left's predictions the economy would crash if Trump was elected. Liberals look increasingly stupid with each passing day.

It's true there were SOME predictions like that BASED ON WHAT TRUMP PROMISED DURING CAMPAIGN, but never actually came through on (drastic tariff wars and higher interest rates).


And do you want to recall what predictions the right was making about Obama economy? You fools can't aknowledge growth under Obama TO THIS DAY.

Faced with Trump's huge success, you deflect to Obama.

...said the can't-face-Obama-success asshole.

What you call Trump's "huge success" looks awfully a lot like what you called Obama's "DISASTER!!". Hence the NEED to bring up Obama.

Trump is more successful than Obama, that's what this thread proves. Tissue?

Idiot, how the fuck is he more successful?

Did he perhaps pull us out of a Great Recession and send us on a path to stable growth?

DOW

 

[Meathead]

So much for the left's predictions the economy would crash if Trump was elected. Liberals look increasingly stupid with each passing day.

It's true there were SOME predictions like that BASED ON WHAT TRUMP PROMISED DURING CAMPAIGN, but never actually came through on (drastic tariff wars and higher interest rates).


And do you want to recall what predictions the right was making about Obama economy? You fools can't aknowledge growth under Obama TO THIS DAY.

Faced with Trump's huge success, you deflect to Obama.

...said the can't-face-Obama-success asshole.

What you call Trump's "huge success" looks awfully a lot like what you called Obama's "DISASTER!!". Hence the NEED to bring up Obama.

Trump is more successful than Obama, that's what this thread proves. Tissue?

Obama was a catagorically unsuccessful president.

Does anyone remember Hope&Change?

 

[Thinker101]

So much for the left's predictions the economy would crash if Trump was elected. Liberals look increasingly stupid with each passing day.

It's true there were SOME predictions like that BASED ON WHAT TRUMP PROMISED DURING CAMPAIGN, but never actually came through on (drastic tariff wars and higher interest rates).


And do you want to recall what predictions the right was making about Obama economy? You fools can't aknowledge growth under Obama TO THIS DAY.

Faced with Trump's huge success, you deflect to Obama.

...said the can't-face-Obama-success asshole.

What you call Trump's "huge success" looks awfully a lot like what you called Obama's "DISASTER!!". Hence the NEED to bring up Obama.

Trump is more successful than Obama, that's what this thread proves. Tissue?

Obama was a catagorically unsuccessful president.

Does anyone remember Hope&Change?

More like a disaster of a President.

 

[NightFox]

So much for the left's predictions the economy would crash if Trump was elected. Liberals look increasingly stupid with each passing day.

Don't count your chickens just yet , we are very late in the expansion stage of the business cycle and there's a good chance that we'll see a recession before Trump's first term is up, especially now that monetary policy is tightening and the fed is unwinding its balance sheet.

Until then I'll continue to mock the left.

Personally ... I hope the "until then" is way down the road.

 

[AntonToo]

So much for the left's predictions the economy would crash if Trump was elected. Liberals look increasingly stupid with each passing day.

It's true there were SOME predictions like that BASED ON WHAT TRUMP PROMISED DURING CAMPAIGN, but never actually came through on (drastic tariff wars and higher interest rates).


And do you want to recall what predictions the right was making about Obama economy? You fools can't aknowledge growth under Obama TO THIS DAY.

Faced with Trump's huge success, you deflect to Obama.

...said the can't-face-Obama-success asshole.

What you call Trump's "huge success" looks awfully a lot like what you called Obama's "DISASTER!!". Hence the NEED to bring up Obama.

Trump is more successful than Obama, that's what this thread proves. Tissue?

Obama was a catagorically unsuccessful president.

Does anyone remember Hope&Change?

lol what CATEGORY would that be? It's not economic data, so...ranking by historians maybe?

Trump worst president ever, Obama in top 10

 

[Meathead]

It's true there were SOME predictions like that BASED ON WHAT TRUMP PROMISED DURING CAMPAIGN, but never actually came through on (drastic tariff wars and higher interest rates).


And do you want to recall what predictions the right was making about Obama economy? You fools can't aknowledge growth under Obama TO THIS DAY.

Faced with Trump's huge success, you deflect to Obama.

...said the can't-face-Obama-success asshole.

What you call Trump's "huge success" looks awfully a lot like what you called Obama's "DISASTER!!". Hence the NEED to bring up Obama.

Trump is more successful than Obama, that's what this thread proves. Tissue?

Obama was a catagorically unsuccessful president.

Does anyone remember Hope&Change?

More like a disaster of a President.

No, to be fair Obama was not a disaster of a president, he was a man who lacked whatever conviction he might have once had. He was a dindunuffin presiden even though he had almost absolute power before the wonders of democracy kicked in.

He was a marginal president at best.

 

[Thinker101]

It's true there were SOME predictions like that BASED ON WHAT TRUMP PROMISED DURING CAMPAIGN, but never actually came through on (drastic tariff wars and higher interest rates).


And do you want to recall what predictions the right was making about Obama economy? You fools can't aknowledge growth under Obama TO THIS DAY.

Faced with Trump's huge success, you deflect to Obama.

...said the can't-face-Obama-success asshole.

What you call Trump's "huge success" looks awfully a lot like what you called Obama's "DISASTER!!". Hence the NEED to bring up Obama.

Trump is more successful than Obama, that's what this thread proves. Tissue?

Obama was a catagorically unsuccessful president.

Does anyone remember Hope&Change?

lol what CATEGORY would that be? It's not economic data, so...ranking by historians maybe?

Trump worst president ever, Obama in top 10

History will not be kind to Obama....maybe the courts too.

 

[AntonToo]

Faced with Trump's huge success, you deflect to Obama.

...said the can't-face-Obama-success asshole.

What you call Trump's "huge success" looks awfully a lot like what you called Obama's "DISASTER!!". Hence the NEED to bring up Obama.

Trump is more successful than Obama, that's what this thread proves. Tissue?

Obama was a catagorically unsuccessful president.

Does anyone remember Hope&Change?

lol what CATEGORY would that be? It's not economic data, so...ranking by historians maybe?

Trump worst president ever, Obama in top 10

History will not be kind to Obama....maybe the courts too.

Yea yea, keep hoping and wishing.

 

[Thinker101]

...said the can't-face-Obama-success asshole.

What you call Trump's "huge success" looks awfully a lot like what you called Obama's "DISASTER!!". Hence the NEED to bring up Obama.

Trump is more successful than Obama, that's what this thread proves. Tissue?

Obama was a catagorically unsuccessful president.

Does anyone remember Hope&Change?

lol what CATEGORY would that be? It's not economic data, so...ranking by historians maybe?

Trump worst president ever, Obama in top 10

History will not be kind to Obama....maybe the courts too.

Yea yea, keep hoping and wishing.

Only hoping and wishing these days would be at the Obama and Clinton households.

 

[hadit]

I'm sure you have a link supporting your assertion.

Simple math will reveal your lies about employment

U.S. National Debt Clock : Real Time

US Population 327 million
US Workforce 155 million

Leaving 172 million NOT WORKING

Really!!! Simple math from a simple mind.

172 million are not working......the numbers are what they are

Trump's employment numbers are a disgrace....the worst in history

Okay, if you want to use 172 million, at what age should a person start working...age 5, 6, 10. And at what age are they considered not a person, 80, 90.

Don't look at me...

I was happy using U3 definition of employment

It was Trump who explained that those numbers were fake and that you needed to include students, housewives and retirees in your employment numbers

Trump proclaimed Obama's economy "a disaster" because more people were out of the workforce than any time in history

That would make the Trump economy "A DISASTER"

It would mean he inherited a disaster.

 

[BluesLegend]

So much for the left's predictions the economy would crash if Trump was elected. Liberals look increasingly stupid with each passing day.

It's true there were SOME predictions like that BASED ON WHAT TRUMP PROMISED DURING CAMPAIGN, but never actually came through on (drastic tariff wars and higher interest rates).


And do you want to recall what predictions the right was making about Obama economy? You fools can't aknowledge growth under Obama TO THIS DAY.

Faced with Trump's huge success, you deflect to Obama.

...said the can't-face-Obama-success asshole.

What you call Trump's "huge success" looks awfully a lot like what you called Obama's "DISASTER!!". Hence the NEED to bring up Obama.

Trump is more successful than Obama, that's what this thread proves. Tissue?

Idiot, how the fuck is he more successful?

Did he perhaps pull us out of a Great Recession and send us on a path to stable growth?

DOW

Just relax snowflakes while team Trump cleans up Obama's mess.

 

[Dschrute3]

Folks who make a real effort to work, will work. The jobs are there. Good on Trump.

IMHO it's not quite that simple, we have a problem with structural unemployment, that is the skills available in the domestic labor force don't match the skills demanded by employers, so yeah there are jobs available but the labor force isn't able to supply sufficient numbers of workers with the skills wanted/needed and the education system isn't doing an effective enough job to remedy that.

The current remedy is to import the skills needed (immigration) or export the demand (off-shore), which is far from ideal.

Nah, folks who really wanna work, will work. The jobs are there.

Actually not, for example: if you're an engineer or a doctor there are plenty of jobs available but if you're a unemployed bank teller you don't have the skills to be an engineer or a doctor and there aren't a whole lot of openings for bank tellers, thus you're structurally unemployed, the fix is to re-train for some other line of work that is in demand but that's neither easy or quick (nor usually cheap).

In the meantime those people end up either under employed or without work.

Sounds like a lot of excuses for not working hard. If you want work, it's there. You just have to go out and get it.

 

[The Sage of Main Street]

So much for the left's predictions the economy would crash if Trump was elected. Liberals look increasingly stupid with each passing day.

It's true there were SOME predictions like that BASED ON WHAT TRUMP PROMISED DURING CAMPAIGN, but never actually came through on (drastic tariff wars and higher interest rates).


And do you want to recall what predictions the right was making about Obama economy? You fools can't aknowledge growth under Obama TO THIS DAY.

Faced with Trump's huge success, you deflect to Obama.

...said the can't-face-Obama-success asshole.

What you call Trump's "huge success" looks awfully a lot like what you called Obama's "DISASTER!!". Hence the NEED to bring up Obama.

Trump is more successful than Obama, that's what this thread proves. Tissue?

Obama was a catagorically unsuccessful president.

Does anyone remember Hope&Change?

Hype & Chains

 

[del]

Such BAD NEWS!

JUST AWFUL!

"New applications for unemployment benefits dropped 7,000 to 222,000 in the second full week of February, the Department of Labor reported Thursday, the second-lowest mark of the recovery and a good sign for the economy.

Forecasters had expected new jobless claims to remain steady at an ultra-low 230,000. Lower claims are good news because they mean fewer people are getting laid off.

Thursday's mark is the lowest since the early 1970s, setting aside the week of January 13, when claims touched as low as 216,000."



Jobless claims plunge to 222,000, second-lowest mark in decades

imagine how good it would be if we didn't have a short eyed, stubby fingered fuckwit for president?

sad!

 

[OnePercenter]

When Mexicans get all the welfare that blacks are receiving, they will ALSO not wantt o do those jobs.

...then Progs will have to start importing a NEW NEW underclass.....maybe affected chinese.

The government spends 50% more on corporate welfare than on social welfare. There is your welfare statement.

 

[OnePercenter]

Progs,

How, specifically is it bad that unemployment claims are near a 40 year low?

When people are working and earning a PAYCHECK...that INCOME IS TAXED.

So...not only does to government REDUCE their WELFARE SPENDING ON EVERY PERSON WHO US EMPLYED.....THE GOVERNMENT COLLECTS TAXES....

So they save on the SPENDING SIDE and they ADD TAX REVENUE.

How is that bad?

I hear ya, but don't bother. Communists/Democrats need more folks in poverty and fully dependent on Government. A happy prosperous populace doesn't help advance their Agenda. They need mass discontent. So no matter what you say, this is bad news for them. They need the economy to collapse. That's what they hope for everyday. But hey, nice try at attempting to reason wth em.

Keeping workers poor only helps employers.

 

[OnePercenter]

Such BAD NEWS!

JUST AWFUL!

"New applications for unemployment benefits dropped 7,000 to 222,000 in the second full week of February, the Department of Labor reported Thursday, the second-lowest mark of the recovery and a good sign for the economy.

Forecasters had expected new jobless claims to remain steady at an ultra-low 230,000. Lower claims are good news because they mean fewer people are getting laid off.

Thursday's mark is the lowest since the early 1970s, setting aside the week of January 13, when claims touched as low as 216,000."



Jobless claims plunge to 222,000, second-lowest mark in decades

We have 172 million Americans not working

What fake numbers are you using?

Dupe. You really need to quit using the Russian Times for your information, comrade. From the US BLS..

"In January, the unemployment rate was 4.1 percent for the fourth consecutive month. The number of unemployed persons, at 6.7 million, changed little over the month."

Employment Situation Summary

Now for a lesson in math: Which is bigger?

1.) 6.7 million

2.) 172 million

<insert Jeopardy theme here>

LOL

Everyone KNOWS those numbers are fake.....Trump himself told us so

He said the only number that matters is the Labor Participation Rate
Why is it dropping under Trump?

172 million people are not working

Give it up, dumbass. You people have lost what little credibility you might have had at one time.

Nobody's buying it any more.

The numbers don't lie

172 million Americans are not working.....most in history

Does that include the underemployed or the seven million Americans that have to work more than one job to make ends meet?

 

[Harpy Eagle]

Such BAD NEWS!

JUST AWFUL!

"New applications for unemployment benefits dropped 7,000 to 222,000 in the second full week of February, the Department of Labor reported Thursday, the second-lowest mark of the recovery and a good sign for the economy.

Forecasters had expected new jobless claims to remain steady at an ultra-low 230,000. Lower claims are good news because they mean fewer people are getting laid off.

Thursday's mark is the lowest since the early 1970s, setting aside the week of January 13, when claims touched as low as 216,000."



Jobless claims plunge to 222,000, second-lowest mark in decades

We have 172 million Americans not working

What fake numbers are you using?

Dupe. You really need to quit using the Russian Times for your information, comrade. From the US BLS..

"In January, the unemployment rate was 4.1 percent for the fourth consecutive month. The number of unemployed persons, at 6.7 million, changed little over the month."

Employment Situation Summary

Now for a lesson in math: Which is bigger?

1.) 6.7 million

2.) 172 million

<insert Jeopardy theme here>

This will blow your mind, but both numbers are correct. The 172 million includes all children and retired folks, stay at home parents, as we as the “unemployed”.

Not all children, just the ones age 16 or over and it doesn't include the unemployed, the unemployed are considered part of the labor force because they are actively trying to sell their labor (i.e. they've looked for work within the last 4 weeks).

The number represents the part of the population age 16 or older that are no longer participating in the labor force because they are not actively trying to sell their labor (haven't looked for work within the last 4 weeks), the more people that fall into this category the lower the LFPR.

Yes, I know what the LFPR is. Too many people misuse it to try and show a weak economy, but a lower LFPR can also be the sign of a strong economy in which people have the financial security to retire, not work as teens and have one spouse stay home.

 

[TheMoreYouKnow]

Tomato picking in Alabama matters!

 

[Two Thumbs]

Such BAD NEWS!

JUST AWFUL!

"New applications for unemployment benefits dropped 7,000 to 222,000 in the second full week of February, the Department of Labor reported Thursday, the second-lowest mark of the recovery and a good sign for the economy.

Forecasters had expected new jobless claims to remain steady at an ultra-low 230,000. Lower claims are good news because they mean fewer people are getting laid off.

Thursday's mark is the lowest since the early 1970s, setting aside the week of January 13, when claims touched as low as 216,000."



Jobless claims plunge to 222,000, second-lowest mark in decades

We are all doomed.

soon enough there will be more jobs than people to fill them, like under RR and people will be demanding extra benefits and higher pay.

DOOOMED