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.
Trump's great success - no 4,5 or 6% growth....but hey, no economic Armagadon because he didn't go with all the extra nutty proposals he was throwing out during the campaign!
Round of applause please!
If you were a government worker in our nation's capital, sure, you did great under Obama, the rest of us? Not so much.Trump rode a wave of unprecedented job growth- a trajectory which commenced under Obama’s second term in office- but his dumbfck base wants to run with it. LOL!
Classic stuff. You couldn’t make this up.
That's essentially a poll, it's hard to tell what to make of it, it will likely be revised over the next several months.Liberals, did your eyes just miss the part where the report said that "Over the month, the number of unemployed persons decreased by 387,000 to 5.8 million"? Did you get that? The number of UNemployed people DEcreased by 387,000. That's a really good thing, right? Right?
And did you just miss the part that said 103,000 LESS Americans were employed in April? And over the last two months - a whopping 304,000 jobs were lost.
Employment Situation Summary Table A. Household data, seasonally adjusted
No...you only look at data that suits your political agenda.
Pathetic.
If you are going to bother debating, at least have the guts to look at ALL the stats - not just the ones you like.
This number is a hard count rather than an estimate from a survey, and it shows solid gains.
No. What matters is real disposable income. You have conflicting results from the surveys taken by the labor department. One shows job gains.That's essentially a poll, it's hard to tell what to make of it, it will likely be revised over the next several months.Liberals, did your eyes just miss the part where the report said that "Over the month, the number of unemployed persons decreased by 387,000 to 5.8 million"? Did you get that? The number of UNemployed people DEcreased by 387,000. That's a really good thing, right? Right?
And did you just miss the part that said 103,000 LESS Americans were employed in April? And over the last two months - a whopping 304,000 jobs were lost.
Employment Situation Summary Table A. Household data, seasonally adjusted
No...you only look at data that suits your political agenda.
Pathetic.
If you are going to bother debating, at least have the guts to look at ALL the stats - not just the ones you like.
This number is a hard count rather than an estimate from a survey, and it shows solid gains.
Of course it's a poll. And so is the Establishment Survey. How do you think they figure out the numbers - a Ouija board? Yes, they could be revised downwards/upwards - and so could the Establishment Data.
Obviously the total number of employees will rise...the population is rising every day...obviously the number of employed (outside of a jobs recession) will rise almost every day. That means nothing. You will not find a respected investor - IMO - on Wall Street that gives a fuck about the number of people employed.
What matter FAR more is the Employment to Population Ratio.
Notice: Data not available: U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics
That has been flat for months (basically) and is still WAY lower then it was before the GR.
But the fact remains that over the last two months, the very survey that determines the official unemployment rate, says that there are 304,000 LESS people employed in America?
Employment Situation Summary Table A. Household data, seasonally adjusted
Now is this good news?
Yes or no, please?
No. What matters is real disposable income. You have conflicting results from the surveys taken by the labor department. One shows job gains.That's essentially a poll, it's hard to tell what to make of it, it will likely be revised over the next several months.Liberals, did your eyes just miss the part where the report said that "Over the month, the number of unemployed persons decreased by 387,000 to 5.8 million"? Did you get that? The number of UNemployed people DEcreased by 387,000. That's a really good thing, right? Right?
And did you just miss the part that said 103,000 LESS Americans were employed in April? And over the last two months - a whopping 304,000 jobs were lost.
Employment Situation Summary Table A. Household data, seasonally adjusted
No...you only look at data that suits your political agenda.
Pathetic.
If you are going to bother debating, at least have the guts to look at ALL the stats - not just the ones you like.
This number is a hard count rather than an estimate from a survey, and it shows solid gains.
Of course it's a poll. And so is the Establishment Survey. How do you think they figure out the numbers - a Ouija board? Yes, they could be revised downwards/upwards - and so could the Establishment Data.
Obviously the total number of employees will rise...the population is rising every day...obviously the number of employed (outside of a jobs recession) will rise almost every day. That means nothing. You will not find a respected investor - IMO - on Wall Street that gives a fuck about the number of people employed.
What matter FAR more is the Employment to Population Ratio.
Notice: Data not available: U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics
That has been flat for months (basically) and is still WAY lower then it was before the GR.
But the fact remains that over the last two months, the very survey that determines the official unemployment rate, says that there are 304,000 LESS people employed in America?
Employment Situation Summary Table A. Household data, seasonally adjusted
Now is this good news?
Yes or no, please?
And the other shows a reduction in the number of employed. Conflicts in data happen from time to time and are generally resolved once the revisions come in. With the strong 3.2% Real GDP do you have any evidence that a bunch of people lost their jobs and then went on a spending spree? What is the point you are trying to make?
If you were a government worker in our nation's capital, sure, you did great under Obama, the rest of us? Not so much.Trump rode a wave of unprecedented job growth- a trajectory which commenced under Obama’s second term in office- but his dumbfck base wants to run with it. LOL!
Classic stuff. You couldn’t make this up.
Today’s ceremony, however, has very special meaning. Because today we are not merely transferring power from one Administration to another, or from one party to another – but we are transferring power from Washington, D.C. and giving it back to you, the American People.
For too long, a small group in our nation’s Capital has reaped the rewards of government while the people have borne the cost.
Washington flourished – but the people did not share in its wealth.
Politicians prospered – but the jobs left, and the factories closed.
The establishment protected itself, but not the citizens of our country.
Their victories have not been your victories; their triumphs have not been your triumphs; and while they celebrated in our nation’s Capital, there was little to celebrate for struggling families all across our land.
That all changes – starting right here, and right now, because this moment is your moment: it belongs to you.
~ President Trump's First Inaugural Address
No. What matters is real disposable income. You have conflicting results from the surveys taken by the labor department. One shows job gains.That's essentially a poll, it's hard to tell what to make of it, it will likely be revised over the next several months.Liberals, did your eyes just miss the part where the report said that "Over the month, the number of unemployed persons decreased by 387,000 to 5.8 million"? Did you get that? The number of UNemployed people DEcreased by 387,000. That's a really good thing, right? Right?
And did you just miss the part that said 103,000 LESS Americans were employed in April? And over the last two months - a whopping 304,000 jobs were lost.
Employment Situation Summary Table A. Household data, seasonally adjusted
No...you only look at data that suits your political agenda.
Pathetic.
If you are going to bother debating, at least have the guts to look at ALL the stats - not just the ones you like.
This number is a hard count rather than an estimate from a survey, and it shows solid gains.
Of course it's a poll. And so is the Establishment Survey. How do you think they figure out the numbers - a Ouija board? Yes, they could be revised downwards/upwards - and so could the Establishment Data.
Obviously the total number of employees will rise...the population is rising every day...obviously the number of employed (outside of a jobs recession) will rise almost every day. That means nothing. You will not find a respected investor - IMO - on Wall Street that gives a fuck about the number of people employed.
What matter FAR more is the Employment to Population Ratio.
Notice: Data not available: U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics
That has been flat for months (basically) and is still WAY lower then it was before the GR.
But the fact remains that over the last two months, the very survey that determines the official unemployment rate, says that there are 304,000 LESS people employed in America?
Employment Situation Summary Table A. Household data, seasonally adjusted
Now is this good news?
Yes or no, please?
And the other shows a reduction in the number of employed. Conflicts in data happen from time to time and are generally resolved once the revisions come in. With the strong 3.2% Real GDP do you have any evidence that a bunch of people lost their jobs and then went on a spending spree? What is the point you are trying to make?
Nobody is ignoring it, it's just that the gains in income were not there. Compare Obama's last two years:If you were a government worker in our nation's capital, sure, you did great under Obama, the rest of us? Not so much.Trump rode a wave of unprecedented job growth- a trajectory which commenced under Obama’s second term in office- but his dumbfck base wants to run with it. LOL!
Classic stuff. You couldn’t make this up.
Today’s ceremony, however, has very special meaning. Because today we are not merely transferring power from one Administration to another, or from one party to another – but we are transferring power from Washington, D.C. and giving it back to you, the American People.
For too long, a small group in our nation’s Capital has reaped the rewards of government while the people have borne the cost.
Washington flourished – but the people did not share in its wealth.
Politicians prospered – but the jobs left, and the factories closed.
The establishment protected itself, but not the citizens of our country.
Their victories have not been your victories; their triumphs have not been your triumphs; and while they celebrated in our nation’s Capital, there was little to celebrate for struggling families all across our land.
That all changes – starting right here, and right now, because this moment is your moment: it belongs to you.
~ President Trump's First Inaugural Address
Sure, let’s just completely overlook the fact that Obama’s second term in office presided over record levels of private sector job growth.
Thank you. I take you used to post under DA60 until you were banned?No. What matters is real disposable income. You have conflicting results from the surveys taken by the labor department. One shows job gains.That's essentially a poll, it's hard to tell what to make of it, it will likely be revised over the next several months.Liberals, did your eyes just miss the part where the report said that "Over the month, the number of unemployed persons decreased by 387,000 to 5.8 million"? Did you get that? The number of UNemployed people DEcreased by 387,000. That's a really good thing, right? Right?
And did you just miss the part that said 103,000 LESS Americans were employed in April? And over the last two months - a whopping 304,000 jobs were lost.
Employment Situation Summary Table A. Household data, seasonally adjusted
No...you only look at data that suits your political agenda.
Pathetic.
If you are going to bother debating, at least have the guts to look at ALL the stats - not just the ones you like.
This number is a hard count rather than an estimate from a survey, and it shows solid gains.
Of course it's a poll. And so is the Establishment Survey. How do you think they figure out the numbers - a Ouija board? Yes, they could be revised downwards/upwards - and so could the Establishment Data.
Obviously the total number of employees will rise...the population is rising every day...obviously the number of employed (outside of a jobs recession) will rise almost every day. That means nothing. You will not find a respected investor - IMO - on Wall Street that gives a fuck about the number of people employed.
What matter FAR more is the Employment to Population Ratio.
Notice: Data not available: U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics
That has been flat for months (basically) and is still WAY lower then it was before the GR.
But the fact remains that over the last two months, the very survey that determines the official unemployment rate, says that there are 304,000 LESS people employed in America?
Employment Situation Summary Table A. Household data, seasonally adjusted
Now is this good news?
Yes or no, please?
And the other shows a reduction in the number of employed. Conflicts in data happen from time to time and are generally resolved once the revisions come in. With the strong 3.2% Real GDP do you have any evidence that a bunch of people lost their jobs and then went on a spending spree? What is the point you are trying to make?
And in answer to your question before - here is a link to another chat forum I was on where I was knocking Obama.
Jobs Report: U.S. Economy Added Just 142,000 Jobs In August, Unemployment Down To 6.1 - Page 3
Thank you. I take you used to post under DA60 until you were banned?No. What matters is real disposable income. You have conflicting results from the surveys taken by the labor department. One shows job gains.That's essentially a poll, it's hard to tell what to make of it, it will likely be revised over the next several months.And did you just miss the part that said 103,000 LESS Americans were employed in April? And over the last two months - a whopping 304,000 jobs were lost.
Employment Situation Summary Table A. Household data, seasonally adjusted
No...you only look at data that suits your political agenda.
Pathetic.
If you are going to bother debating, at least have the guts to look at ALL the stats - not just the ones you like.
This number is a hard count rather than an estimate from a survey, and it shows solid gains.
Of course it's a poll. And so is the Establishment Survey. How do you think they figure out the numbers - a Ouija board? Yes, they could be revised downwards/upwards - and so could the Establishment Data.
Obviously the total number of employees will rise...the population is rising every day...obviously the number of employed (outside of a jobs recession) will rise almost every day. That means nothing. You will not find a respected investor - IMO - on Wall Street that gives a fuck about the number of people employed.
What matter FAR more is the Employment to Population Ratio.
Notice: Data not available: U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics
That has been flat for months (basically) and is still WAY lower then it was before the GR.
But the fact remains that over the last two months, the very survey that determines the official unemployment rate, says that there are 304,000 LESS people employed in America?
Employment Situation Summary Table A. Household data, seasonally adjusted
Now is this good news?
Yes or no, please?
And the other shows a reduction in the number of employed. Conflicts in data happen from time to time and are generally resolved once the revisions come in. With the strong 3.2% Real GDP do you have any evidence that a bunch of people lost their jobs and then went on a spending spree? What is the point you are trying to make?
And in answer to your question before - here is a link to another chat forum I was on where I was knocking Obama.
Jobs Report: U.S. Economy Added Just 142,000 Jobs In August, Unemployment Down To 6.1 - Page 3
Why were you banned?
It's not "ignoring" data to recognize that it can be revised, that is simply the facts. You have one survey showing job gains and another showing job loss, in an economy that is 70% consumer spending I simply find the survey that shows job gains a bit more compelling. Which do you think is more likely that a bunch of people lost jobs and then went out and spend more money, or that folks got jobs and then felt comfortable spending more money.No. What matters is real disposable income. You have conflicting results from the surveys taken by the labor department. One shows job gains.That's essentially a poll, it's hard to tell what to make of it, it will likely be revised over the next several months.Liberals, did your eyes just miss the part where the report said that "Over the month, the number of unemployed persons decreased by 387,000 to 5.8 million"? Did you get that? The number of UNemployed people DEcreased by 387,000. That's a really good thing, right? Right?
And did you just miss the part that said 103,000 LESS Americans were employed in April? And over the last two months - a whopping 304,000 jobs were lost.
Employment Situation Summary Table A. Household data, seasonally adjusted
No...you only look at data that suits your political agenda.
Pathetic.
If you are going to bother debating, at least have the guts to look at ALL the stats - not just the ones you like.
This number is a hard count rather than an estimate from a survey, and it shows solid gains.
Of course it's a poll. And so is the Establishment Survey. How do you think they figure out the numbers - a Ouija board? Yes, they could be revised downwards/upwards - and so could the Establishment Data.
Obviously the total number of employees will rise...the population is rising every day...obviously the number of employed (outside of a jobs recession) will rise almost every day. That means nothing. You will not find a respected investor - IMO - on Wall Street that gives a fuck about the number of people employed.
What matter FAR more is the Employment to Population Ratio.
Notice: Data not available: U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics
That has been flat for months (basically) and is still WAY lower then it was before the GR.
But the fact remains that over the last two months, the very survey that determines the official unemployment rate, says that there are 304,000 LESS people employed in America?
Employment Situation Summary Table A. Household data, seasonally adjusted
Now is this good news?
Yes or no, please?
And the other shows a reduction in the number of employed. Conflicts in data happen from time to time and are generally resolved once the revisions come in. With the strong 3.2% Real GDP do you have any evidence that a bunch of people lost their jobs and then went on a spending spree? What is the point you are trying to make?
The GDP is revised as well. So if you are going to ignore data because 'it can be revised' - then you have to avoid the GDP rise as well. You cannot have it both ways...
We have mixed results and looking at the strong GDP and consumer spending, I simply lean more toward the positive number, a perfectly rational position to hold, given the information available....You cannot brag about the unemployment rate and then turn around and ignore the survey it is based on (Household Survey)...not without being a hypocrite on this.
I hope you have a better experience here, you really dig into the numbers, I like reading your posts.Thank you. I take you used to post under DA60 until you were banned?No. What matters is real disposable income. You have conflicting results from the surveys taken by the labor department. One shows job gains.That's essentially a poll, it's hard to tell what to make of it, it will likely be revised over the next several months.
This number is a hard count rather than an estimate from a survey, and it shows solid gains.
Of course it's a poll. And so is the Establishment Survey. How do you think they figure out the numbers - a Ouija board? Yes, they could be revised downwards/upwards - and so could the Establishment Data.
Obviously the total number of employees will rise...the population is rising every day...obviously the number of employed (outside of a jobs recession) will rise almost every day. That means nothing. You will not find a respected investor - IMO - on Wall Street that gives a fuck about the number of people employed.
What matter FAR more is the Employment to Population Ratio.
Notice: Data not available: U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics
That has been flat for months (basically) and is still WAY lower then it was before the GR.
But the fact remains that over the last two months, the very survey that determines the official unemployment rate, says that there are 304,000 LESS people employed in America?
Employment Situation Summary Table A. Household data, seasonally adjusted
Now is this good news?
Yes or no, please?
And the other shows a reduction in the number of employed. Conflicts in data happen from time to time and are generally resolved once the revisions come in. With the strong 3.2% Real GDP do you have any evidence that a bunch of people lost their jobs and then went on a spending spree? What is the point you are trying to make?
And in answer to your question before - here is a link to another chat forum I was on where I was knocking Obama.
Jobs Report: U.S. Economy Added Just 142,000 Jobs In August, Unemployment Down To 6.1 - Page 3
Why were you banned?
You are welcome.
I got banned because I got tired of following the - IMO - ridiculous rules over there.
So I finally figured, I am going to push it until they ban me.
I did and then they did.
I hope you have a better experience here, you really dig into the numbers, I like reading your posts.Thank you. I take you used to post under DA60 until you were banned?No. What matters is real disposable income. You have conflicting results from the surveys taken by the labor department. One shows job gains.Of course it's a poll. And so is the Establishment Survey. How do you think they figure out the numbers - a Ouija board? Yes, they could be revised downwards/upwards - and so could the Establishment Data.
Obviously the total number of employees will rise...the population is rising every day...obviously the number of employed (outside of a jobs recession) will rise almost every day. That means nothing. You will not find a respected investor - IMO - on Wall Street that gives a fuck about the number of people employed.
What matter FAR more is the Employment to Population Ratio.
Notice: Data not available: U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics
That has been flat for months (basically) and is still WAY lower then it was before the GR.
But the fact remains that over the last two months, the very survey that determines the official unemployment rate, says that there are 304,000 LESS people employed in America?
Employment Situation Summary Table A. Household data, seasonally adjusted
Now is this good news?
Yes or no, please?
And the other shows a reduction in the number of employed. Conflicts in data happen from time to time and are generally resolved once the revisions come in. With the strong 3.2% Real GDP do you have any evidence that a bunch of people lost their jobs and then went on a spending spree? What is the point you are trying to make?
And in answer to your question before - here is a link to another chat forum I was on where I was knocking Obama.
Jobs Report: U.S. Economy Added Just 142,000 Jobs In August, Unemployment Down To 6.1 - Page 3
Why were you banned?
You are welcome.
I got banned because I got tired of following the - IMO - ridiculous rules over there.
So I finally figured, I am going to push it until they ban me.
I did and then they did.
