Just 96,000 jobs added in August as 368,000 people LEAVE the workforce in bleak empl

[Soggy in NOLA]

Adding jobs. Sounds good.

Yes, 368,000 dropping out while 96,000 jobs added is great news.

 

[rdean]

Since 2001, the country has lost 42,400 factories, including 36 percent of factories that employ more than 1,000 workers (which declined from 1,479 to 947), and 38 percent of factories that employ between 500 and 999 employees (from 3,198 to 1,972). An additional 90,000 manufacturing companies are now at risk of going out of business.

The Plight of American Manufacturing

Report: From 2001 to 2008 U.S. has lost 2.4M jobs to China - The Hill - covering Congress, Politics, Political Campaigns and Capitol Hill | TheHill.com

------------------

Just 96,000 jobs added in August as 368,000 people LEAVE the workforce in bleak empl

Yep, pretty bleak. Now we know why. Obama has a big mess to clean up. You can't "fix" what is gone. Because it's "gone". It's not there to be fixed. You have to build from the middle class out.

 

[rdean]

Can you see which way the chart was moving when Bush took over and how he turned it around? Can you also see that the crash corresponds almost exactly with the Democrat take over and the worldwide recession?

Notice: Data not available: U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics

The Democrats took over? Are you mentally retarded? Do you not realize that Bush was president until January of 2009?

Dems controlled Congress in 2006......down... down..... down..... down.

And Republicans control the house now. Besides abortion, what have they done.?

Some highlights:

Blocked the president from investigating BP

Apologized to BP

Came out with zero jobs bills

over 100 Republicans took "Stimulus" THEY VOTED AGAINST and created who know how many jobs? At least tens of thousands.

Abortion legislation

Abortion legislation

Abortion legislation

 

[007]

If all the people that have fallen out of the work force and stopped looking for a job were actually COUNTED since obama took office, as they SHOULD BE, instead of LYING and DECEIVING the numbers as the LIBROIDS do, unemployment would be 11.4%!!

There are no bigger LIARS and MORONS on the PLANET than an obamabot, leftist, democrap. Nothing but imbecilic, libroid HACKS. Only in their twisted sick alternate universe is 368,000 falling out of the work force GOOD. Sons a bitchin' IDIOTS and HACKS.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Can you see which way the chart was moving when Bush took over and how he turned it around? Can you also see that the crash corresponds almost exactly with the Democrat take over and the worldwide recession?

Notice: Data not available: U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics

The Democrats took over? Are you mentally retarded? Do you not realize that Bush was president until January of 2009?

Dems controlled Congress in 2006......down... down..... down..... down.

Okay, then if you believe the Democratic Congress caused the global recession then it shouldn't be hard for you to explain how they did it.

 

[PredFan]

Number of people going on welfare = Up
Number of people collecting food stamps = Up
Number of people living in poverty = Up
Unemployment numbers = Down

Let's see who can put these together logically.

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

Well, still, it's almost a million jobs better a number than what Obama faced when he took office.

YES!!!! That's it!!! Because the US was going to shed 700k jobs until 100% UE UNLESS YOUR GOD OBAMA WAS ELECTED TO SAVE AMAERICA..


Holy fuck, do you moppets hear yourselves? You ARE the worst parts of the Republican party, everything you claim to hate and it's like you can't even see it. UE should be WELL over 10%, but we get to count that 380k that fell off the ASS END as jobs created!!!! YAYAYYAYAYAY!!!!

Now, I dare you to just imagine if you can if that was happening under a Republican President.

They're nothing but tools. They'll "Rah! Rah! Rah!" their guys on no matter how bad they fuck up, but they 'd crucify him for the same thing if he had an R next to his name.

I just mentioned the other day in another thread how it's cracking me up how these guys bitch about welfare for big corporations while at the same time praising Obama for "saving" GM and Wall Street via corporate welfare.

 

[PredFan]

The Democrats took over? Are you mentally retarded? Do you not realize that Bush was president until January of 2009?

Dems controlled Congress in 2006......down... down..... down..... down.

Okay, then if you believe the Democratic Congress caused the global recession then it shouldn't be hard for you to explain how they did it.

The Dems didn't, nor did Bush, but both sides like to point a finger at the other for politicial gain. As to the poster, if the left thinks they can show a graph to cover when Bush happened to be the sitting POTUS than the right can be equally as deceitful and point out that the left was in charge of the purse strings.

If you guys want to continue to throw bull shit at each other, be my guest, but you are both wrong. Just sayin'.

 

[Freewill]

Can you see which way the chart was moving when Bush took over and how he turned it around? Can you also see that the crash corresponds almost exactly with the Democrat take over and the worldwide recession?

Notice: Data not available: U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics

The Democrats took over? Are you mentally retarded? Do you not realize that Bush was president until January of 2009?

The democrats took control of Congress, to the less intelligent that means the House and Senate. They ignored Bush and didn't bother with a budget. If you are trying to excuse Obama because the lie that the House has stopped all his initiatives that means that who controls the House and Senate control all laws, that is what the democrats had in 2006 and the country has paid the price ever since.

 

[Freewill]

Dems controlled Congress in 2006......down... down..... down..... down.

Okay, then if you believe the Democratic Congress caused the global recession then it shouldn't be hard for you to explain how they did it.

The Dems didn't, nor did Bush, but both sides like to point a finger at the other for politicial gain. As to the poster, if the left thinks they can show a graph to cover when Bush happened to be the sitting POTUS than the right can be equally as deceitful and point out that the left was in charge of the purse strings.

If you guys want to continue to throw bull shit at each other, be my guest, but you are both wrong. Just sayin'.

Wait a second partner. Congress does hold the purse strings what is deceitful by pointing that out?

 

[candycorn]

Adding jobs. Sounds good.

Yes, 368,000 dropping out while 96,000 jobs added is great news.

I agree.

 

[Freewill]

Well, still, it's almost a million jobs better a number than what Obama faced when he took office.

YES!!!! That's it!!! Because the US was going to shed 700k jobs until 100% UE UNLESS YOUR GOD OBAMA WAS ELECTED TO SAVE AMAERICA..


Holy fuck, do you moppets hear yourselves? You ARE the worst parts of the Republican party, everything you claim to hate and it's like you can't even see it. UE should be WELL over 10%, but we get to count that 380k that fell off the ASS END as jobs created!!!! YAYAYYAYAYAY!!!!

Now, I dare you to just imagine if you can if that was happening under a Republican President.

They're nothing but tools. They'll "Rah! Rah! Rah!" their guys on no matter how bad they fuck up, but they 'd crucify him for the same thing if he had an R next to his name.

I just mentioned the other day in another thread how it's cracking me up how these guys bitch about welfare for big corporations while at the same time praising Obama for "saving" GM and Wall Street via corporate welfare.

It is my opinion that if it were not for the Unions Obama would have done nothing. GM could have settled everything in bankruptcy court and really put it to the Unions. But the government bailed them out so they got to use your money to keep paying high Union wages. Obama was saving the UNION jobs, not jobs, UNION jobs.

 

[Freewill]

Adding jobs. Sounds good.

Yes, 368,000 dropping out while 96,000 jobs added is great news.

I agree.

Less workforce participation since 1981 and that is good news? The economy was always going to recover it was just a matter of how long it took. Obama has dragged it out longer then any president before him.

 

[PredFan]

Okay, then if you believe the Democratic Congress caused the global recession then it shouldn't be hard for you to explain how they did it.

The Dems didn't, nor did Bush, but both sides like to point a finger at the other for politicial gain. As to the poster, if the left thinks they can show a graph to cover when Bush happened to be the sitting POTUS than the right can be equally as deceitful and point out that the left was in charge of the purse strings.

If you guys want to continue to throw bull shit at each other, be my guest, but you are both wrong. Just sayin'.

Wait a second partner. Congress does hold the purse strings what is deceitful by pointing that out?

The deceitful part is blaming them for the economic collapse. It wasn't Bush and it wasn't congress.

You can't just show a graph that shows the economic collapse happened when Bush was POTUS or when Dingy Harry and Princess Pelosi were in charge and claim it proves anything. A Republican was POTUS when Roe vs Wade was cleared by the SCOTUS, does that mean that the GOP is a champion of abortion rights?

 

[Freewill]

The Dems didn't, nor did Bush, but both sides like to point a finger at the other for politicial gain. As to the poster, if the left thinks they can show a graph to cover when Bush happened to be the sitting POTUS than the right can be equally as deceitful and point out that the left was in charge of the purse strings.

If you guys want to continue to throw bull shit at each other, be my guest, but you are both wrong. Just sayin'.

Wait a second partner. Congress does hold the purse strings what is deceitful by pointing that out?

The deceitful part is blaming them for the economic collapse. It wasn't Bush and it wasn't congress.

So what then?

 

[candycorn]

Yes, 368,000 dropping out while 96,000 jobs added is great news.

I agree.

Less workforce participation since 1981 and that is good news? The economy was always going to recover it was just a matter of how long it took. Obama has dragged it out longer then any president before him.

I'm always dubious of the numbers of people who "stopped looking for work"...how do you know if I "looked for work" or not? How do I know that my assistant is looking for another job?

We added jobs for yet another week. I wish the number was higher because, contrary to popular belief, the idle rich are not the engine that drives the economy, it's the middle income Americans.

It's also incredible that any government action taken is always done in the name of the President and that the GOP congress had nothing to do with it. I guess that's par for the course...the President gets the credit/blame for what happens. I'm sure there was a thread somewhere blaming Obama for the drought.

But we've added jobs for another week according to the calculations--whatever they may be; I'd like to see how they come about that number as well.

 

[pinqy]

If all the people that have fallen out of the work force and stopped looking for a job were actually COUNTED since obama took office, as they SHOULD BE, instead of LYING and DECEIVING the numbers as the LIBROIDS do, unemployment would be 11.4%!!.

Someone retires. He has left the labor force. You're saying he should be counted as unemployed.

A high school student quits his summer job to be a full time student. You're saying he should be counted as unemployed.

A Woman becomes pregnant and decides to take a few years off to look after the baby. You're saying she should be counted as unemployed.

A married couple decides that one of them should stop looking for work, and concentrate on finishing a Masters degree. You're saying that one should be counted as unemployed.

A student, a retiree, a housewife, who was just looking for a job for extra pocket money decides it's not worth it and stops looking because they no longer want a job. You're saying she should be counted as unemployed.

A person becomes sick and is unable to work (could not take a job if offered). You're saying she should be counted as unemployed.

Should I go on with the examples? Seriously, you're saying (whether you intend to or not) that all of the above should be counted as Unemployed. And I could go on with plenty more scenarios.

Only a small percent of those no longer in the labor force quit looking due to discouaragement. 844,000 is it...people who looked for work and quit looking because they didn't think they'd find anything.

 

[tjvh]

Number of people going on welfare = Up
Number of people collecting food stamps = Up
Number of people living in poverty = Up
Unemployment numbers = Down

Let's see who can put these together logically.

But unemployment is lower...

 

[Salt Jones]

Number of people going on welfare = Up
Number of people collecting food stamps = Up
Number of people living in poverty = Up
Unemployment numbers = Down

Let's see who can put these together logically.

But unemployment is lower...

And that's all 90% of the voting public uses to gauge employment. You have alot to learn about politics and the American public.

 

[PredFan]

Wait a second partner. Congress does hold the purse strings what is deceitful by pointing that out?

The deceitful part is blaming them for the economic collapse. It wasn't Bush and it wasn't congress.

So what then?

It was a combination of a lot of things and a lot of fault. The banks, investors, politicians, greedy consumers, the home-building market, and on and on.