90 million not in work force, UE down .5% in 56 months

[JRK]

The only thing I like about Obama is he proved progressive policies will destroy a nation.

Yeah, but will the sheep put two and two together? I'm guessing no

The sheep are being feed horse shit by the main stream media
People are hurting out there

 

[billyerock1991]

Ah, Billy? You don't get much credit for dropping a number back to about what it was to start with after your policies raised it to an obscenely high rate. Doing so while spending trillions in stimulus and QE makes you look even more pathetic. Just saying...

nice try but you don't get to say obama spent this money when all the bills except the stimulus has bush's name all over it ... can't help you can't see who spent what ... we know where and we know when and we know who spent and obama isn't it... just sayin'

So who got credit for the TARP money that Bush gave to financial institutions to keep the economy from imploding? That "cost" is added to W's side of the ledger and when the banks paid that money back with interest later on (as per agreement) that money was credited towards Barry's side of the ledger. I don't think you REALLY have a clue who spent what and where they spent it....just sayin'...

you can use all the little tricks you want ... tarp money was money not spent ... it was a loan ... it never was put into the national budget ... because it was a loan ... so it can't be considered a cost to the national debt or national budget ....fully knowing it would be paid back with interest ... that interest was used to pay down on Bush's debt ... I know you don't know who spent what ...just by your ignorance here alone ...just sayin'

 

[bianco]

'Unemployment' never runs out in Australia.

Payments for job seekers

 

[billyerock1991]

are you joking?
in 2007 we spent 2.7 trillion, the last GOP budget
in 2009 after the stimulus, Omnibus and the last 50% of tarp BHO utilized we spent 3.5 trillion
THATS 800 billion dollars
CUT? my nuts maybe

now that's what I call creative lying ... you sure try your best ... when you can only get 790 billion dollars for the stimulus, with your creative math, you come up with trillions of dollars spent by obama ... never mine Bush passed bill after bill for his wars that never was funded ... when obama took those cost of his wars and put it into one lump sum, now you say Obama spent it ... nice try with you creative spending lies ... you need a better lie then this one

you are the most un educated liberal on this message board
Nothing personal, but you have been lied to so much
here are the FACTS
In 2007 we spent 2.7 trillion
Submitted by
George W. Bush
Submitted to
109th Congress
Total revenue
$2.57 trillion
Total expenditures
$2.73 trillion
Deficit
$161 billion
2007 United States federal budget - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Debt
$8.95 trillion
Website
http://www.cbo.gov/doc.cfm?index=10014 Congressional Budget Office


2009
Submitted by
George W. Bush
Submitted to
110th Congress
Total revenue
$2.7 trillion (estimated)
$2.105 trillion (actual)[1]
Total expenditures
$3.107 trillion (estimated)
$3.518 trillion (actual)[1]
2009 United States federal budget - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Deficit
$407 billion (estimated)
$1.413 trillion (actual)[1]
Debt
$12.867455 trillion (estimated)
Website
http://www.gpoaccess.gov/USbudget/fy09/hist.html US Government Printing Office


GWB asked for 3 trillion in reality
he signed none of this
his tarp we got back
GM still owes us 25 billion +-
The omnibus add another 80 billion
L. 111–8) is an Act for the United States government that combines bills funding the ... bill. It was signed into law by President Barack Obama on March 11, 2009.
Omnibus Appropriations Act, 2009 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
of course the failed stimulus added the rest

BHO added 400-500 billion dollars to GWB base line in 2009
in 2010 that number went to 3.55 trillion with the war in Iraq ending

in 2011 that number was 3.63 trillion
2011 United States federal budget - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

in 2012 it was back to 3.53 becqause the GOP refused to sign the 3.7 BHO asked for
2012 United States federal budget - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

That is an increase of over 1 trillion dollars in spending from GWB base line and close to 5 trillion from the last GOP budget
it is here in black and white bud
Now lets also remeber the war in Iraq was over in 2011 and GM stopped raping the tax payer in 2010
that is another 200 billion that has never been cut from the base-line

Now about your un funded war?
Monies provided by the tax payer are there to protect this nation
That is in the constitution
In fact income tax began to fund a war
Taxation history of the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Now you might not like it, but the defense of this country and not wellfare are in the constitution
the un funded liability is, Medicade, wellfare, UAW. Hell the failed stimulus cost more than the war did
CBO: Eight Years of Iraq War Cost Less Than Stimulus Act | Fox News

You need to do your DD before you do this again

if you stayed away from fox news and their creative accounting we could take you serious ... this is direct from the government web site ....

The Federal government spent $2.73 trillion. Over half ($1.451 trillion) went toward Mandatory programs, such as Social Security, Medicare and Military Retirement programs. These expenditures are mandated by law, and cannot be changed without an act from Congress. Discretionary spending was $1.042 trillion, which included $594 billion in Defense and Homeland Security spending, and $448 billion for all other discretionary functions. A whopping $237 billion was spent on nothing more than paying the interest on the $8.9 trillion national debt. (Source: FY 2009 Budget shows FY 2007 Actual, Summary Tables, Table S-8, S-11)
FY 2007 Mandatory Spending:

Social Security ($581 billion) was the largest Mandatory expenditure. Health care spending was next, at $568 billion. Of this, Medicare was $371 billion and Medicaid was $197 billion. All other remaining mandatory programs cost $302 billion. These programs include Food Stamps, Unemployment Compensation, Child Nutrition, Child Tax Credits, Supplemental Security for the Blind and Disabled, Student Loans, and Retirement/Disability programs for Civil Servants, the Coast Guard and the Military.
FY 2007 Discretionary Spending:

Less than half the budget ($1.042 trillion) was Discretionary. This is the part that's negotiated between the President and Congress. Total Security Spending, which now included $34.9 billion for Homeland Security, was $671 billion. It also included $173.6 billion for the War on Terror. Non-security spending was $382 billion. The largest departments were: Health and Human Services ($67.6 billion), Education ($54.4 billion), Housing and Urban Development ($33.6 billion), Veterans Affairs ($35.7 billion), the State Department ($33.9 billion) and Agriculture ($29.7 billion). (Source: FY 2008 Budget Request, Summary Tables, Table S-3)
Military Spending:

In FY 2007, the Defense Department base budget was $498 billion. Added to that was $70 billion in supplemental security spending, which was approved during that fiscal year. The budget for FY 2008 Budget added to that an additional $103.6 billion to be spent in the remainder of that fiscal year (January - October 2007). That meant Supplemental Spending for the WoT for FY 2007 was $173.6 billion. This brought total Military spending for FY 2007 to $671.6 billion. (Source: FY 2009 Budget which shows actual spending for FY 2007, Summary Tables, Table S-2)
Budget Deficit:

Thanks to higher than expected revenues, the FY 2007 budget only had a $162 billion deficit. However, when you stop to think about it, why was there even a deficit at all? Economic growth had been steady for several years, and the stock market hit its peak of 14,164 in October of that year. The government should have been using those "fat years" to save for the future and cool the economy, not overheat it with deficit spending. In this way, expansionary fiscal policy contributed to the economic boom which soon became the Great Recession.
Continued deficit spending put downward pressure on the dollar's value, increasing the price of imports and the cost of living. At the same time, it acts as a tax on future generations, who must bear the burden of paying off our debt. This puts downward pressure on future economic growth.


not any where in this 2007 budge was allocated for no child left behind .... not any where in this 2007 budge wasn't any money allocated for bush war his emergency appropriation bills ... you can whine all you want but from the start of the wars, that bush started, the emergency appropriation bills were never put into the national budget ... by bush tagging them as emergency appropriation bill on it ... it was never, by law, put into his national budget because they are considered emergency appropriation.... it became part of the national debt when Obama put all of Bush's debts into the national debt ... those my friend are the facts that FOX noise conveniently left out for you ... so nice try with your creative fox noise propaganda ... maybe you'll pull your head out of the sand or your back side... we hope

 

[Decus]

From the Huffington Post:

"But the drop in unemployment was due largely to people giving up looking for work, which takes them out of the official labor force, so they're no longer counted as unemployed."

"The Fed has been buying $85 billion per month in bonds for the past several months to help keep interest rates low and boost the economy."

August Jobs Report: U.S. Creates 169,000 Jobs; Unemployment Rate Down To 7.3 Percent

What will this economy look like when the Fed ends their $85 billion a month support to the economy? Quite a few economists seem worried.

 

[billyerock1991]

Uhhh.. FDR lengthened the financial mess... things such as lowering taxes, not increased spending under Reagan, helped us recover from the Carter mess...

Taking money out of the economy to siphon it thru the multi levels of bureaucracy and waste to then put it back into the economy at a lesser amount does not do anything to really help the economy while it drives up the debt...

you do realize that reagan had almost two great depressions while he was in office... oh how they forget.... reagan he's are all mighty ... riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight !!!!!

Dude we created 15 million jobs during those 8 years and 25 million more after he left on his policies
Depression?

Obama vs. Reagan: Not Even Close | Blog | The Willis Report with Gerri Willis | Fox Business

nothing like a blogger for your source of information right??? nothing like fox noise creative accounting on ronie rayguns time right ???

Ronald Reagan: Accessory to Genocide

Exclusive: More than any recent U.S. president, Ronald Reagan has been lavished with honors, including his name attached to Washington’s National Airport. But the conviction of Reagan’s old ally, ex-Guatemalan dictator Rios Montt, for genocide means “Ronnie” must face history’s judgment as an accessory to the crime, reports Robert Parry.

The conviction of former Guatemalan dictator Efrain Rios Montt on charges of genocide against Mayan villagers in the 1980s has a special meaning for Americans who idolize Ronald Reagan. It means that their hero was an accessory to one of the most grievous crimes that can be committed against humanity.

The courage of the Guatemalan people and the integrity of their legal system to exact some accountability on a still-influential political figure also put U.S. democracy to shame. For decades now, Americans have tolerated human rights crimes by U.S. presidents who face little or no accountability. Usually, the history isn’t even compiled honestly.


President Ronald Reagan.

By contrast, a Guatemalan court on Friday found Rios Montt guilty of genocide and crimes against humanity and sentenced the 86-year-old ex-dictator to 80 years in prison. After the ruling, when Rios Montt rose and tried to walk out of the courtroom, Judge Yasmin Barrios shouted at him to stay put and then had security officers take him into custody.

Yet, while Guatemalans demonstrate the strength to face a dark chapter of their history, the American people remain mostly oblivious to Reagan’s central role in tens of thousands of political murders across Central America in the 1980s, including some 100,000 dead in Guatemala slaughtered by Rios Montt and other military dictators.

Indeed, Ronald Reagan – by aiding, abetting, encouraging and covering up widespread human rights crimes in El Salvador, Honduras and Nicaragua as well as Guatemala – bears greater responsibility for Central America’s horrors than does Rios Montt in his bloody 17-month rule. Reagan supported Guatemala’s brutal repression both before and after Rios Montt held power, as well as during.

Despite that history, more honors have been bestowed on Reagan than any recent president. Americans have allowed the naming of scores of government facilities in Reagan’s honor, including Washington National Airport where Reagan’s name elbowed aside that of George Washington, who led the War of Independence, oversaw the drafting of the U.S. Constitution and served as the nation’s first president.

So, as America’s former reputation as a beacon for human rights becomes a bad joke to the rest of the world, it is unthinkable within the U.S. political/media structure that Reagan would get posthumously criticized for the barbarity that he promoted. No one of importance would dare suggest that his name be stripped from National Airport and his statue removed from near the airport entrance.

But the evidence is overwhelming that the 40th president of the United States was guilty as an accessory to genocide and a wide range of other war crimes, including torture, rape, terrorism and narcotics trafficking. [See Robert Parry's Lost History.]

Green Light to Genocide

Regarding Guatemala, the documentary evidence is clear that Reagan and his top aides gave a green light to the extermination campaign against the Mayan Ixil population in the highlands even before Rios Montt came to power. Despite receiving U.S. intelligence reports revealing these atrocities, the Reagan administration also pressed ahead in an extraordinary effort to arrange military equipment, including helicopters, to make the slaughter more efficient.

“In the tortured logic of military planning documents conceived under Mr. Ríos Montt’s 17-month rule during 1982 and 1983, the entire Mayan Ixil population was a military target, children included,” the New York Times reported from Rios Montt’s trial last month. “Officers wrote that the leftist guerrillas fighting the government had succeeded in indoctrinating the impoverished Ixils and reached ‘100 percent support.’”

So, everyone was targeted in these scorched-earth campaigns that eradicated more than 600 Indian villages in the Guatemalan highlands. But documents from this period indicate that these counterinsurgency strategies predated Rios Montt. And, they received the blessing of the Reagan administration shortly after Reagan took power in 1981.

A document that I discovered in the archives of the Reagan Library in Simi Valley, California, revealed that Reagan and his national security team in 1981 agreed to supply military aid to Guatemala’s dictators so they could pursue the goal of exterminating not only “Marxist guerrillas” but people associated with their “civilian support mechanisms.”

This supportive attitude took shape in spring 1981 as President Reagan sought to relax human-rights restrictions on military aid to Guatemala that had been imposed by President Jimmy Carter and the Democratic-controlled Congress in the late 1970s. As part of that easing, Reagan’s State Department “advised our Central American embassies that it has been studying ways to restore a closer, cooperative relationship with Guatemala,” said a White House “Situation Room Checklist” dated April 8, 1981.

The document added: “State believes a number of changes have occurred which could make Guatemalan leaders more receptive to a new U.S. initiative: the Guatemalans view the new administration as more sympathetic to their problems [and] they are less suspect of the U.S. role in El Salvador,” where the Reagan administration was expanding military aid to another right-wing regime infamous for slaughtering its political opponents, including Catholic clergy.

“State has concluded that any attempt to reestablish a dialogue [with Guatemala] would require some initial, condition-free demonstration of our goodwill. However, this could not include military sales which would provoke serious U.S. public and congressional criticism. State will undertake a series of confidence building measures, free of preconditions, which minimize potential conflict with existing legislation.”

In other words, the Reagan administration was hoping that the U.S. government could get back in the good graces of the Guatemalan dictators, not that the dictators should change their ways to qualify for U.S. government help....

What the documents from the Reagan Library make clear is that the administration was not simply struggling ineffectively to rein in these massacres – as the U.S. press corps typically reported – but was fully onboard with the slaughter of people who were part of the guerrillas’ “civilian support mechanisms.”

Read more @: Ronald Reagan: Accessory to Genocide | Consortiumnews

Looking forward to when Robert Parry will put his excellent research and reporting skills into focusing on Obama and Clinton with the same zeal he utilizes in exposing the dullard and psychopath Reagan and Cheney/Bush.....

Despite the fact that many continue to honor Reagan.... even with the truth of his horrors exposed... many because of such horrors... how many will be able to say... with a straight face... that they were not aware of the crimes Obama continues to pursue on behalf of the people of the US?.... Well, on behalf of the corporate elite, but you get my meaning...

- See more at: Ronald Reagan: Accessory to Genocide | Thom Hartmann - News & info from the #1 progressive radio show

doesn't it make you republicans proud to know that you supported a murderer ???

 

[billyerock1991]

Uhhh.. FDR lengthened the financial mess... things such as lowering taxes, not increased spending under Reagan, helped us recover from the Carter mess...

Taking money out of the economy to siphon it thru the multi levels of bureaucracy and waste to then put it back into the economy at a lesser amount does not do anything to really help the economy while it drives up the debt...

you do realize that reagan had almost two great depressions while he was in office... oh how they forget.... reagan he's are all mighty ... riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight !!!!!

Dude we created 15 million jobs during those 8 years and 25 million more after he left on his policies
Depression?

Obama vs. Reagan: Not Even Close | Blog | The Willis Report with Gerri Willis | Fox Business

you sure rely on this blogger of yours for a source.... you said "15 million jobs during those 8 years and 25 million more after he left on his policies ... after I got off the floor from falling out of my chair from laughing so hard... you and your blogger seem to forget in 1992,or 93 Clinton raise all the tax cuts Reagan made .. he reversed just about every bill Reagan and bush passed for jobs ... did ya forget that one ??? you know where Newton Leroy "Newt" Gingrich said this will break the country, it will push us into debt and a recession ???? remember ??? or do you have that typical republican memory ... were you just can't remember shit, you know CRS... thats where that 25 million employees came from after reagans rein and bush... in the 1990's, Oh how these repub-lie-tards seem to forget the facts ...

 

[KissMy]

90 million?

That is alot, 30% of the population is not in the workforce

How many of that 90 million are children or retirees?

Is that some new PC math?

42% of the population is unemployed!

 

[billyerock1991]

From the Huffington Post:

"But the drop in unemployment was due largely to people giving up looking for work, which takes them out of the official labor force, so they're no longer counted as unemployed."

"The Fed has been buying $85 billion per month in bonds for the past several months to help keep interest rates low and boost the economy."

August Jobs Report: U.S. Creates 169,000 Jobs; Unemployment Rate Down To 7.3 Percent

What will this economy look like when the Fed ends their $85 billion a month support to the economy? Quite a few economists seem worried.

this is the typical bull shit that both parties use ... where was your understanding of these matters when bush had low unemployment numbers ??? we all back then knew the people had come of the unemployment rolls ... but you republicans deny that one too ??? sooooooooooooooo, what's good for the goose is good for the gander ... right??? i take no cred into "well,they came off the rolls ... as far as i'm concerned the unemployment dropped ... how much is debatable... the feds say 7.3% if you don't agree wit it go and take your argument to the feds ... you can't stand the Idea that obama has turned around the unemployment numbers with out any help from the repub-lie-tards, and thats killing you

 

[billyerock1991]

90 million?

That is alot, 30% of the population is not in the workforce

How many of that 90 million are children or retirees?

Is that some new pc math?

47% of the population is unemployed.

thats what I said ... according to the employment numbers in 2008 there was about 120 million people employed and now there are 90 miliion unemployed ??? some body is been hitting the hooch when the wrote that article ...

 

[Decus]

From the Huffington Post:

"But the drop in unemployment was due largely to people giving up looking for work, which takes them out of the official labor force, so they're no longer counted as unemployed."

"The Fed has been buying $85 billion per month in bonds for the past several months to help keep interest rates low and boost the economy."

August Jobs Report: U.S. Creates 169,000 Jobs; Unemployment Rate Down To 7.3 Percent

What will this economy look like when the Fed ends their $85 billion a month support to the economy? Quite a few economists seem worried.

this is the typical bull shit that both parties use ... where was your understanding of these matters when bush had low unemployment numbers ??? we all back then knew the people had come of the unemployment rolls ... but you republicans deny that one too ??? sooooooooooooooo, what's good for the goose is good for the gander ... right??? i take no cred into "well,they came off the rolls ... as far as i'm concerned the unemployment dropped ... how much is debatable... the feds say 7.3% if you don't agree wit it go and take your argument to the feds ... you can't stand the Idea that obama has turned around the unemployment numbers with out any help from the repub-lie-tards, and thats killing you

Please forgive me. I had no idea that the Huffington Post was a Republican media title.

 

[JRK]

nice try but you don't get to say obama spent this money when all the bills except the stimulus has bush's name all over it ... can't help you can't see who spent what ... we know where and we know when and we know who spent and obama isn't it... just sayin'

So who got credit for the TARP money that Bush gave to financial institutions to keep the economy from imploding? That "cost" is added to W's side of the ledger and when the banks paid that money back with interest later on (as per agreement) that money was credited towards Barry's side of the ledger. I don't think you REALLY have a clue who spent what and where they spent it....just sayin'...

you can use all the little tricks you want ... tarp money was money not spent ... it was a loan ... it never was put into the national budget ... because it was a loan ... so it can't be considered a cost to the national debt or national budget ....fully knowing it would be paid back with interest ... that interest was used to pay down on Bush's debt ... I know you don't know who spent what ...just by your ignorance here alone ...just sayin'

really?
you may want to take a look at this
Bailout List: Banks, Auto Companies, and More | Eye on the Bailout | ProPublica
we are right now 60 billion in the hole, including GMs and GMAC being close to 50% of that
and with out the intrest etc... that was set up under Ws watch that number would be much much higher

 

[Decus]

This from the NYT (I sincerely hope this is not another Republican sponsored news organization):

To show that the $85 billion a month spent by the Fed was tied in part to improving employment:

"To help reduce unemployment, the Fed said it would also continue monthly purchases of $85 billion in Treasury securities and mortgage-backed securities until job market conditions improved, extending a policy announced in September."

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/13/b...lus-bond-buying.html?ref=federalreservesystem

This to show the quality or lack thereof of the jobs that have been created:

"As in months past, many of the private-sector jobs created were low-paying retail and food service jobs. No construction jobs were added over all, calling into question the staying power of a housing rebound. A jump of 19,000 jobs in auto manufacturing appears to be mostly a boomerang from higher than usual layoffs during factory retooling in July. The addition of 17,000 government jobs was likewise a bounce from the nadir in public-sector employment in July, but it still puts the number of government jobs lost in recent years at 754,000."

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/07/opinion/when-jobs-are-not-plentiful.html?ref=federalreservesystem

Smoke and mirrors would be an appropriate description of this recovery.

 

[billyerock1991]

From the Huffington Post:

"But the drop in unemployment was due largely to people giving up looking for work, which takes them out of the official labor force, so they're no longer counted as unemployed."

"The Fed has been buying $85 billion per month in bonds for the past several months to help keep interest rates low and boost the economy."

August Jobs Report: U.S. Creates 169,000 Jobs; Unemployment Rate Down To 7.3 Percent

What will this economy look like when the Fed ends their $85 billion a month support to the economy? Quite a few economists seem worried.

this is the typical bull shit that both parties use ... where was your understanding of these matters when bush had low unemployment numbers ??? we all back then knew the people had come of the unemployment rolls ... but you republicans deny that one too ??? sooooooooooooooo, what's good for the goose is good for the gander ... right??? i take no cred into "well,they came off the rolls ... as far as i'm concerned the unemployment dropped ... how much is debatable... the feds say 7.3% if you don't agree wit it go and take your argument to the feds ... you can't stand the Idea that obama has turned around the unemployment numbers with out any help from the repub-lie-tards, and thats killing you

Please forgive me. I had no idea that the Huffington Post was a Republican media title.

seems you have a comprehension problem ... where did I mention party as a source ???? that's what cracks me up when you repub-lie-tars respond ... its like you're out there in right field with your minds in the clouds

P.S
I didn't deny the numbers ... I pointed out both sides does this whether its 7.3% or 15 % either way you look at it the numbers dropped ... if we are going to use the unemployment rolls, then use them for both parties ... as far as I'm concern, the norm has been in the past and now, we use the unemployment numbers... so that would say its 7.3 % .... if you don't like that, then I suggest you go to the government and make them call the people, each and every one, to find out if they have a job... that would solve your problem ... but then you would have to hire callers and we know you republicans and gubment jobs .... what more union workers to the mix to vote against us repub-lie-tards???

 

[JRK]

90 million?

That is alot, 30% of the population is not in the workforce

How many of that 90 million are children or retirees?

Is that some new pc math?

47% of the population is unemployed.

thats what I said ... according to the employment numbers in 2008 there was about 120 million people employed and now there are 90 miliion unemployed ??? some body is been hitting the hooch when the wrote that article ...

look dude
nothing personal but you need to do some serious serious research
your not doing your rep any good
People who are not counted in the work force are people who are on SS, Wellfare, or just give up looking for a job
there not counted in the UE numbers as they are in representation @ 7.4%
the problem is this number has skyrocketed under BHO

Real UE is what is called U6
U3 is what is reported

U3: Official unemployment rate per the ILO definition occurs when people are without jobs and they have actively looked for work within the past four weeks.[1]
U4: U3 + "discouraged workers", or those who have stopped looking for work because current economic conditions make them believe that no work is available for them.
U5: U4 + other "marginally attached workers", or "loosely attached workers", or those who "would like" and are able to work, but have not looked for work recently.
U6: U5 + Part-time workers who want to work full-time, but cannot due to economic reasons (underemployment).

U6 rate is any-ones guess
According to John Williams, an economist known for asserting the government reports manipulated “shadow statistics” of economic data for political purposes, the real unemployment rate for July 2013 was 23.3 percent, not the 7.4 percent reported by the Bureau of Labor Statistics.
The REAL Unemployment Rate | The Right Of Way

The BLS states it is around 14%
That number is way to low
Table A-15. Alternative measures of labor underutilization

False job-creation numbers

The House Ways and Means report Monday noted the headlines “citing last week’s jobs report as the lowest unemployment rate in years may have been technically accurate, but they are also reminders that looks can be deceiving.”

“The reality, as you dig into the latest jobs data, reveals that few are finding the full-time work they want and need, and many are forced to accept part-time employment.”

To support its argument, the committee produced the following table drawn from Bureau of Labor Statistics:



The committee linked to an article published Sunday by Associated Press economics writer Paul Wiseman that said: “So far this year, low-paying industries have provided

look at the numbers attached to this article
do some DD
you will not like what you find
your being lied too

 

[Decus]

this is the typical bull shit that both parties use ... where was your understanding of these matters when bush had low unemployment numbers ??? we all back then knew the people had come of the unemployment rolls ... but you republicans deny that one too ??? sooooooooooooooo, what's good for the goose is good for the gander ... right??? i take no cred into "well,they came off the rolls ... as far as i'm concerned the unemployment dropped ... how much is debatable... the feds say 7.3% if you don't agree wit it go and take your argument to the feds ... you can't stand the Idea that obama has turned around the unemployment numbers with out any help from the repub-lie-tards, and thats killing you

Please forgive me. I had no idea that the Huffington Post was a Republican media title.

seems you have a comprehension problem ... where did I mention party as a source ???? that's what cracks me up when you repub-lie-tars respond ... its like you're out there in right field with your minds in the clouds

P.S
I didn't deny the numbers ... I pointed out both sides does this whether its 7.3% or 15 % either way you look at it the numbers dropped ... if we are going to use the unemployment rolls, then use them for both parties ... as far as I'm concern, the norm has been in the past and now, we use the unemployment numbers... so that would say its 7.3 % .... if you don't like that, then I suggest you go to the government and make them call the people, each and every one, to find out if they have a job... that would solve your problem ... but then you would have to hire callers and we know you republicans and gubment jobs .... what more union workers to the mix to vote against us repub-lie-tards???

You questioned a source that was offered in this thread and you labeled me a Republican. I was hoping to provide you with sources that you found trustworthy. Not that it matters but I haven't voted Republican in over thirty years.

 

[JRK]

Please forgive me. I had no idea that the Huffington Post was a Republican media title.

seems you have a comprehension problem ... where did I mention party as a source ???? that's what cracks me up when you repub-lie-tars respond ... its like you're out there in right field with your minds in the clouds

P.S
I didn't deny the numbers ... I pointed out both sides does this whether its 7.3% or 15 % either way you look at it the numbers dropped ... if we are going to use the unemployment rolls, then use them for both parties ... as far as I'm concern, the norm has been in the past and now, we use the unemployment numbers... so that would say its 7.3 % .... if you don't like that, then I suggest you go to the government and make them call the people, each and every one, to find out if they have a job... that would solve your problem ... but then you would have to hire callers and we know you republicans and gubment jobs .... what more union workers to the mix to vote against us repub-lie-tards???

You questioned a source that was offered in this thread and you labeled me a Republican. I was hoping to provide you with sources that you found trustworthy. Not that it matters but I haven't voted Republican in over thirty years.

who one votes for is there business
with that stated I am not sure why any-one would vote for this type of govt
The GOP is not much better, I will agree. The amount of spin going on right now to prop up Obama would be funny if there is not so many people hurting right now

you have more people leaving "the work force" than getiting jobs
that is a net 0 in the job creation
those people end up on wellfar, medicad, etc...

I ask 1 simple question with this matter
why is ND UE rate 3%?

 

[Decus]

seems you have a comprehension problem ... where did I mention party as a source ???? that's what cracks me up when you repub-lie-tars respond ... its like you're out there in right field with your minds in the clouds

P.S
I didn't deny the numbers ... I pointed out both sides does this whether its 7.3% or 15 % either way you look at it the numbers dropped ... if we are going to use the unemployment rolls, then use them for both parties ... as far as I'm concern, the norm has been in the past and now, we use the unemployment numbers... so that would say its 7.3 % .... if you don't like that, then I suggest you go to the government and make them call the people, each and every one, to find out if they have a job... that would solve your problem ... but then you would have to hire callers and we know you republicans and gubment jobs .... what more union workers to the mix to vote against us repub-lie-tards???

You questioned a source that was offered in this thread and you labeled me a Republican. I was hoping to provide you with sources that you found trustworthy. Not that it matters but I haven't voted Republican in over thirty years.

who one votes for is there business
with that stated I am not sure why any-one would vote for this type of govt
The GOP is not much better, I will agree. The amount of spin going on right now to prop up Obama would be funny if there is not so many people hurting right now

you have more people leaving "the work force" than getiting jobs
that is a net 0 in the job creation
those people end up on wellfar, medicad, etc...

I ask 1 simple question with this matter
why is ND UE rate 3%?

Jobs. But sadly ND is not PC.

 

[KissMy]

The jobs numbers are down. The economy has not achieved escape velocity. Fed Taper will be pushed off again.

 

[JRK]

You questioned a source that was offered in this thread and you labeled me a Republican. I was hoping to provide you with sources that you found trustworthy. Not that it matters but I haven't voted Republican in over thirty years.

who one votes for is there business
with that stated I am not sure why any-one would vote for this type of govt
The GOP is not much better, I will agree. The amount of spin going on right now to prop up Obama would be funny if there is not so many people hurting right now

you have more people leaving "the work force" than getiting jobs
that is a net 0 in the job creation
those people end up on wellfar, medicad, etc...

I ask 1 simple question with this matter
why is ND UE rate 3%?

Jobs. But sadly ND is not PC.

They have jobs because they have a resource that the private sector is allowed to locate, extract, ship, refine and then sell
I was rasied in Florida. A state that has more poverty in it than you could imagine.
Why?
There is no hope for the working person. All they have is tourisim and housing. There is an abundunt amount of oil in florida as wll as Natrual gas that could be extracted, shipped, refined as well as sold. This would create a trickle down wealth event that would force those who are selling homes (condos, etc...) to retirees to pay a real wage
I left home 30 years ago because there is no hope in Florida for a person who works in the trades
The cross florida barge canal was stopped many years ago and killed any chance of industry
Simply put it does no-one any good to keep something un touched if your starving to death while protecting it
There is a common place in which industry and the enviroment can work in tandum to create wealth. BHO has not allowed this to happen sense he was elected