April Jobs report looks dismal, March numbers to be revised????

[bigrebnc1775]

Jobs are being gained. If anyone says that is not so, then stop reading that person: he is lying.

However, more job growth (much more job growth) is necessary, and that will happen with Romney.

If the gain is not more than the lose it is not a gain.

 

[Jonah]

It seems to me America faces social changes of a radical nature and all these dismal job forecasts and numbers revision say for it. Remember, in March FT published an article about broken US economic model? If not, I'll remind you, here it is – ft.com/cms/s/0/fe692804-71d0-11e11-b853-00144feab49a.html
In fine we got two thirds of population say that US economy no longer works for the majority of Americans... Of course government always fabling that everything will be straight, but they can't fool people forever... In fact they are supercharging the situation and the same time they try tackling people that everything is fine... But that is not the case. We already saw the failure to make the things right, add disappointment of those ones who got no job and here comes the revolution... And why not?

 

[Truthmatters]

OWS

is the begining.

 

[Neotrotsky]

of the end for the Democrats

 

[Truthmatters]

yeah maybe.

That would be great if it meant liberal ideas are what take over the country

 

[The T]

yeah maybe.

That would be great if it meant liberal ideas are what take over the country

Not liberal...but Statist.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Jobs are being gained. If anyone says that is not so, then stop reading that person: he is lying.

However, more job growth (much more job growth) is necessary, and that will happen with Romney.

If the gain is not more than the lose it is not a gain.

Maybe you aren't lying but just stupid and not understand numbers and their uses.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Jobs are being gained. If anyone says that is not so, then stop reading that person: he is lying.

However, more job growth (much more job growth) is necessary, and that will happen with Romney.

If the gain is not more than the lose it is not a gain.

Maybe you aren't lying but just stupid and not understand numbers and their uses.

Can you be honest and not be a troll for at least one thread?

If the gain is not more than the lose it is not a gain?

 

[edthecynic]

You can blame me all you want for your unprovoked habitual incivility rather than take responsibility for your OWN actions. You only make yourself look smaller.

towards you? I take full responsibility and I told you why. your lack of reading/comprehension skillz are legendary here, you aren't helping yourself ....stop gilding the lilly.

Your dishonesty is legendary here. You can always rationalize your unprovoked incivility but but you can never back up your claims.

And you still didn't back up your claims, but only out of spite negged me for calling you on your rationalizations.
Thank you for proving my point.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

towards you? I take full responsibility and I told you why. your lack of reading/comprehension skillz are legendary here, you aren't helping yourself ....stop gilding the lilly.

Your dishonesty is legendary here. You can always rationalize your unprovoked incivility but but you can never back up your claims.

And you still didn't back up your claims, but only out of spite negged me for calling you on your rationalizations.
Thank you for proving my point.

You never do why should anyone do it?


When are you going to show the numbers of retiring baby boomers and not those that are receiving benefits?

 

[JakeStarkey]

If the gain is not more than the lose it is not a gain.

Maybe you aren't lying but just stupid and not understand numbers and their uses.

Can you be honest and not be a troll for at least one thread?

If the gain is not more than the lose it is not a gain?

You are a dishonest troll. You have no point, and no one is going to defend your dishonesty.

On this and the Paul Ryan thread, folks finally see what an absolute wreck of a human being, morally and intellectually, you are. Just a wreck.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Maybe you aren't lying but just stupid and not understand numbers and their uses.

Can you be honest and not be a troll for at least one thread?

If the gain is not more than the lose it is not a gain?

You are a dishonest troll. You have no point, and no one is going to defend your dishonesty.

On this and the Paul Ryan thread, folks finally see what an absolute wreck of a human being, morally and intellectually, you are. Just a wreck.

What people have seen on the Ryan thread and any other thread you are in is that you are a troll that does not contribute anything of value or has merit you just troll. You can't give a logical answer and when you have a lose if there is any gain if it's not more than the lose then there is no gain.

 

[Liability]

Ir we lose a million jobs a month for a couple of months, the Obama Administration will "discover" that the unemployment figures have dropped to under 4%

 

[edthecynic]

Your dishonesty is legendary here. You can always rationalize your unprovoked incivility but but you can never back up your claims.

And you still didn't back up your claims, but only out of spite negged me for calling you on your rationalizations.
Thank you for proving my point.

You never do why should anyone do it?


When are you going to show the numbers of retiring baby boomers and not those that are receiving benefits?

I always do, but CON$ always pretend to be blind deaf and dumb.

And I linked to an AARP study that showed that 54% of Boomers had already retired by age 65. Here it is for the third time for you to ignore.

http://assets.aarp.org/rgcenter/general/approaching-65.pdf
Our new survey of boomers turning 65 indicates that as the moment of truth arrives and
boomers are faced with the decision about retirement, about half (54%) already consider themselves retired, while 46% are employed full or part time, not in the labor force for other reasons, or unemployed and looking for work.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Can you be honest and not be a troll for at least one thread?

If the gain is not more than the lose it is not a gain?

You are a dishonest troll. You have no point, and no one is going to defend your dishonesty.

On this and the Paul Ryan thread, folks finally see what an absolute wreck of a human being, morally and intellectually, you are. Just a wreck.

What people have seen on the Ryan thread and any other thread you are in is that you are a troll that does not contribute anything of value or has merit you just troll. You can't give a logical answer and when you have a lose if there is any gain if it's not more than the lose then there is no gain.

You are projecting your inadequacy onto me, yet again.

You have nothing to offer.

 

[JakeStarkey]

And you still didn't back up your claims, but only out of spite negged me for calling you on your rationalizations.
Thank you for proving my point.

You never do why should anyone do it?


When are you going to show the numbers of retiring baby boomers and not those that are receiving benefits?

I always do, but CON$ always pretend to be blind deaf and dumb.

And I linked to an AARP study that showed that 54% of Boomers had already retired by age 65. Here it is for the third time for you to ignore.

http://assets.aarp.org/rgcenter/general/approaching-65.pdf
Our new survey of boomers turning 65 indicates that as the moment of truth arrives and
boomers are faced with the decision about retirement, about half (54%) already consider themselves retired, while 46% are employed full or part time, not in the labor force for other reasons, or unemployed and looking for work.

That is exactly the problem with Bigreb. He will not confront and examine opposing arguments.

He will simply roll and troll. His posts are worthless.

 

[JRK]

And you still didn't back up your claims, but only out of spite negged me for calling you on your rationalizations.
Thank you for proving my point.

You never do why should anyone do it?


When are you going to show the numbers of retiring baby boomers and not those that are receiving benefits?

I always do, but CON$ always pretend to be blind deaf and dumb.

And I linked to an AARP study that showed that 54% of Boomers had already retired by age 65. Here it is for the third time for you to ignore.

http://assets.aarp.org/rgcenter/general/approaching-65.pdf
Our new survey of boomers turning 65 indicates that as the moment of truth arrives and
boomers are faced with the decision about retirement, about half (54%) already consider themselves retired, while 46% are employed full or part time, not in the labor force for other reasons, or unemployed and looking for work.

There are 88 million in the "not in" category
only 39 million of those are over 65 and retired, baby boomers and all
this is all this man has asked you for days
Monthly Statistical Snapshot, March 2012

BTW there is 6.3 million in the not in category looking for work, not the 6.1 that was claimed

 

[bigrebnc1775]

And you still didn't back up your claims, but only out of spite negged me for calling you on your rationalizations.
Thank you for proving my point.

You never do why should anyone do it?


When are you going to show the numbers of retiring baby boomers and not those that are receiving benefits?

I always do, but CON$ always pretend to be blind deaf and dumb.

And I linked to an AARP study that showed that 54% of Boomers had already retired by age 65. Here it is for the third time for you to ignore.

http://assets.aarp.org/rgcenter/general/approaching-65.pdf
Our new survey of boomers turning 65 indicates that as the moment of truth arrives and
boomers are faced with the decision about retirement, about half (54%) already consider themselves retired, while 46% are employed full or part time, not in the labor force for other reasons, or unemployed and looking for work.

Just reading a small portion of your link it does appear you don't read what you provide as a source

Page 2 next to last paragraph it says that 31% that have worked a full time job and retired from that job are still working which is not what you have tried to sale us that baby boomers retire when it's actually time for them too retire.
As I said that's just a portion of your source. Do you want to continue with that argument that the lose of workers from the work force is due to baby boomers retiring?

 

[edthecynic]

You never do why should anyone do it?


When are you going to show the numbers of retiring baby boomers and not those that are receiving benefits?

I always do, but CON$ always pretend to be blind deaf and dumb.

And I linked to an AARP study that showed that 54% of Boomers had already retired by age 65. Here it is for the third time for you to ignore.

http://assets.aarp.org/rgcenter/general/approaching-65.pdf
Our new survey of boomers turning 65 indicates that as the moment of truth arrives and
boomers are faced with the decision about retirement, about half (54%) already consider themselves retired, while 46% are employed full or part time, not in the labor force for other reasons, or unemployed and looking for work.

Just reading a small portion of your link it does appear you don't read what you provide as a source

Page 2 next to last paragraph it says that 31% that have worked a full time job and retired from that job are still working which is not what you have tried to sale us that baby boomers retire when it's actually time for them too retire.
As I said that's just a portion of your source. Do you want to continue with that argument that the lose of workers from the work force is due to baby boomers retiring?

Wouldn't that 31% be part of the 46%?!!!!
Why yes, yes it would. So that doesn't change the fact that 54% of Boomers are retired by age 65.

So you have 300,000 Boomers turning 65 every month and 54% of then are retired. So that's over 160,000 Boomers leaving the work force every month. That's more than the people entering the work force every month, which CON$ acknowledged back when they wanted to privatize SS but now deny, so the LPR will continue to decrease as long as the Boomers retire BUT CON$ will not admit it until a Republican becomes president and the LPR continues to decrease. Then suddenly the LPR will be meaningless Liberal spin unless the CON$ want to argue for privatizing SS again.

 

[edthecynic]

You never do why should anyone do it?


When are you going to show the numbers of retiring baby boomers and not those that are receiving benefits?

I always do, but CON$ always pretend to be blind deaf and dumb.

And I linked to an AARP study that showed that 54% of Boomers had already retired by age 65. Here it is for the third time for you to ignore.

http://assets.aarp.org/rgcenter/general/approaching-65.pdf
Our new survey of boomers turning 65 indicates that as the moment of truth arrives and
boomers are faced with the decision about retirement, about half (54%) already consider themselves retired, while 46% are employed full or part time, not in the labor force for other reasons, or unemployed and looking for work.

There are 88 million in the "not in" category
only 39 million of those are over 65 and retired, baby boomers and all
this is all this man has asked you for days
Monthly Statistical Snapshot, March 2012

BTW there is 6.3 million in the not in category looking for work, not the 6.1 that was claimed

Actually the unadjusted number is 6.041 million, so the other 82 million are not discouraged workers who have given up looking for work as CON$ would have us believe.