Unemployment falls to 8.3%

[Listening]

I like how Time Magazine equals "the Democrats" now.

I think we know who is swimming in the kool aid. Maybe someone with throw you a life preserver.

Subtle differences

Great arguments !

You just bowl me over.

I will forgo posting Gibbs suggestions on Meet The Press that the house was in play (and Pelosi's subsequent denial) in 2009.

This was intended to add to your "vision".

Well, Nostradamos.....good luck with that "improving" economy.

 

[pinqy]

Point is...the workforce has shrunk.

It' at its highest level since feb 2009.

Series Id: LNS11300000
Seasonally Adjusted
Series title: (Seas) Labor Force Participation Rate
Labor force status: Civilian labor force participation rate
Type of data: Percent or rate
Age: 16 years and over

Really?

Yes. I said LEVEL. And you show Ratio. There's a difference

 

[Full-Auto]

It' at its highest level since feb 2009.

Series Id: LNS11300000
Seasonally Adjusted
Series title: (Seas) Labor Force Participation Rate
Labor force status: Civilian labor force participation rate
Type of data: Percent or rate
Age: 16 years and over

Really?

Yes. I said LEVEL. And you show Ratio. There's a difference

How about not playing games at all and post net job numbers................ Not surveys or guestimates. Hard employment numbers.

 

[The T]

It' at its highest level since feb 2009.

Series Id: LNS11300000
Seasonally Adjusted
Series title: (Seas) Labor Force Participation Rate
Labor force status: Civilian labor force participation rate
Type of data: Percent or rate
Age: 16 years and over

Really?

Yes. I said LEVEL. And you show Ratio. There's a difference

You are in denial. Sad.

 

[saveliberty]

I like how you'll deny there are actually more people in need of a job pinqy. How dare we rip the mask off huh?

Most of these folks need two jobs and they still will have a lower standard of living.

 

[JakeStarkey]

People are in needs of jobs, yes.

People are doing better than in the last two to three years, yes.

 

[Article 15]

I like how Time Magazine equals "the Democrats" now.

I think we know who is swimming in the kool aid. Maybe someone with throw you a life preserver.

Subtle differences

Great arguments !

You just bowl me over.

I will forgo posting Gibbs suggestions on Meet The Press that the house was in play (and Pelosi's subsequent denial) in 2009.

This was intended to add to your "vision".

Well, Nostradamos.....good luck with that "improving" economy.

Great arguments?

You've already been bowled over, dude.

I'm not going to defend positions that aren't my own.

 

[Listening]

People are in needs of jobs, yes.

People are doing better than in the last two to three years, yes.

Maybe/maybe not.....

Not that I think Obama has much to do with it either way....I just get sick of seeing Chris come all over his keyboard everytime the unemployment numbers drop a tenth of a percentage point (because it means government might keep getting bigger and he will be selling more houses to government lackeys who will be using our tax dollars to pay for them).

What people really need is HOPE. And that comes from a strong leader. That was what Reagan provided...backbone (he wasn't all that super conservative).

Obama is spineless and he instills little in the way of confidence in people. Sadly neither do any of the GOP potentials.

 

[Listening]

I like how Time Magazine equals "the Democrats" now.

I think we know who is swimming in the kool aid. Maybe someone with throw you a life preserver.

Subtle differences

Great arguments !

You just bowl me over.

I will forgo posting Gibbs suggestions on Meet The Press that the house was in play (and Pelosi's subsequent denial) in 2009.

This was intended to add to your "vision".

Well, Nostradamos.....good luck with that "improving" economy.

Great arguments?

You've already been bowled over, dude.

I'm not going to defend positions that aren't my own.

Yes, I've noticed you don't defend anything.

In fact, I haven't seen a rational argument from you since I've been on this board.

So if you don't defend anything...how am I bowled over ?

Don't hurt yourself trying to figure it out.

 

[JakeStarkey]

People are in needs of jobs, yes.

People are doing better than in the last two to three years, yes.

Maybe/maybe not.....

Not that I think Obama has much to do with it either way....I just get sick of seeing Chris come all over his keyboard everytime the unemployment numbers drop a tenth of a percentage point (because it means government might keep getting bigger and he will be selling more houses to government lackeys who will be using our tax dollars to pay for them).

What people really need is HOPE. And that comes from a strong leader. That was what Reagan provided...backbone (he wasn't all that super conservative).

Obama is spineless and he instills little in the way of confidence in people. Sadly neither do any of the GOP potentials.

Lot of truth to that. The far rw also wets itself every time the rate goes up. I mean The T starts hyperventilating!

Whoever is elected needs to lead strongly.

 

[Article 15]

Great arguments !

You just bowl me over.

I will forgo posting Gibbs suggestions on Meet The Press that the house was in play (and Pelosi's subsequent denial) in 2009.

This was intended to add to your "vision".

Well, Nostradamos.....good luck with that "improving" economy.

Great arguments?

You've already been bowled over, dude.

I'm not going to defend positions that aren't my own.

Yes, I've noticed you don't defend anything.

In fact, I haven't seen a rational argument from you since I've been on this board.

So if you don't defend anything...how am I bowled over ?

Don't hurt yourself trying to figure it out.

Well gee ... you claimed things haven't gotten better yet it's been shown to that we've gone from losing 700k jobs a month and 5% GDP loss a quarter when Obama took over to 23 months of job growth and 9 quarters of GDP growth.

I also caught you talking out of both sides of your mouth in back-to-back posts.

And now you're annoyed because I won't defend a position that I have never taken; that the GOP was dead as a party after 2008.

So yeah, you've been bowled over and I'm getting a kick out you flailing around over it.

 

[Listening]

Great arguments?

You've already been bowled over, dude.

I'm not going to defend positions that aren't my own.

Yes, I've noticed you don't defend anything.

In fact, I haven't seen a rational argument from you since I've been on this board.

So if you don't defend anything...how am I bowled over ?

Don't hurt yourself trying to figure it out.

Well gee ... you claimed things haven't gotten better yet it's been shown to that we've gone from losing 700k jobs a month and 5% GDP loss a quarter when Obama took over to 23 months of job growth and 9 quarters of GDP growth.

I also caught you talking out of both sides of your mouth in back-to-back posts.

And now you're annoyed because I won't defend a position that I have never taken; that the GOP was dead as a party after 2008.

So yeah, you've been bowled over and I'm getting a kick out you flailing around over it.

More strawmen ?

Like I said...not once.

 

[Article 15]

Yes, I've noticed you don't defend anything.

In fact, I haven't seen a rational argument from you since I've been on this board.

So if you don't defend anything...how am I bowled over ?

Don't hurt yourself trying to figure it out.

Well gee ... you claimed things haven't gotten better yet it's been shown to that we've gone from losing 700k jobs a month and 5% GDP loss a quarter when Obama took over to 23 months of job growth and 9 quarters of GDP growth.

I also caught you talking out of both sides of your mouth in back-to-back posts.

And now you're annoyed because I won't defend a position that I have never taken; that the GOP was dead as a party after 2008.

So yeah, you've been bowled over and I'm getting a kick out you flailing around over it.

More strawmen ?

Like I said...not once.

"More strawmen" says the guy who expected me defend "the pundits" who declared the GOP after the 2008 election.



What a maroon!

 

[Article 15]

BTW

I think that unless that economy takes a noticeable turn south Obama wins reelection in a lot closer of a race than 2008, the Dems gain a small number of seats in the House, and the Senate flips to the GOP because the Dems are defending many more seats than the GOP this cycle with some of them being seats they won in purple/red states based on the anti-war/Bush sentiment of 2006.

 

[Listening]

Well gee ... you claimed things haven't gotten better yet it's been shown to that we've gone from losing 700k jobs a month and 5% GDP loss a quarter when Obama took over to 23 months of job growth and 9 quarters of GDP growth.

I also caught you talking out of both sides of your mouth in back-to-back posts.

And now you're annoyed because I won't defend a position that I have never taken; that the GOP was dead as a party after 2008.

So yeah, you've been bowled over and I'm getting a kick out you flailing around over it.

More strawmen ?

Like I said...not once.

"More strawmen" says the guy who expected me defend "the pundits" who declared the GOP after the 2008 election.



What a maroon!

Making up more stuff....you are good at that.

I said maybe you should be a strategist. The dems didn't see it coming and deined it when it fist became apparent they were in trouble.

They needed your "insights". To bad you didn't share them.

I am sure you have evidence you expected the defeat. There is plenty of evidence the party, in general, got blindsided.

 

[edthecynic]

Point is...the workforce has shrunk.

It' at its highest level since feb 2009.

Series Id: LNS11300000
Seasonally Adjusted
Series title: (Seas) Labor Force Participation Rate
Labor force status: Civilian labor force participation rate
Type of data: Percent or rate
Age: 16 years and over

Really?

Really! That chart is NOT the size of the labor force! It is the ratio of the labor force to the population and only shows that the GROWING labor force is GROWING more slowly than the population is growing. Only CON$ervative assholes think that a baby should be counted as part of the labor force as soon as it is born!!!

Record 1.2 Million People Fall Out Of Labor Force In One Month, Labor Force Participation Rate Tumbles To Fresh 30 Year Low | ZeroHedge
So as the labor force increased from 153.9 million to 154.4 million, the non institutional population increased by 242.3 million meaning, those not in the labor force surged from 86.7 million to 87.9 million.

 

[Listening]

BTW

I think that unless that economy takes a noticeable turn south Obama wins reelection in a lot closer of a race than 2008, the Dems gain a small number of seats in the House, and the Senate flips to the GOP because the Dems are defending many more seats than the GOP this cycle with some of them being seats they won in purple/red states based on the anti-war/Bush sentiment of 2006.

A rational statement.

I would agree with everything.

Mainly because I believe the stable of GOP candidates is weak. If they were stronger....I think the GOP wins.

If Obama develops a backbone in the next six months...it will only help his case.

 

[Article 15]

More strawmen ?

Like I said...not once.

"More strawmen" says the guy who expected me defend "the pundits" who declared the GOP after the 2008 election.



What a maroon!

Making up more stuff....you are good at that.

I said maybe you should be a strategist. The dems didn't see it coming and deined it when it fist became apparent they were in trouble.

They needed your "insights". To bad you didn't share them.

I am sure you have evidence you expected the defeat. There is plenty of evidence the party, in general, got blindsided.

The earliest I can find myself commenting on the 2010 election here is July 2009:

Last time I checked one party rule in our system was called a controlled government.

We have a controlled gov't because the American population voted them in.

I disagree the American population voted them in. The majority did not have a list of suitable candidates to choose. And given the failures of the GOP, Obama wins by default and so do Democrats in Congress. Now we've got a President who is perpetuating many of the same failed policies that Bush introduced and is implementing some of the worst policies in our nation's history.

Oh they voted them in and it was backlash from the last time we had a controlled government. Granted it wasn't near as strong a majority as the Dems have now but it didn't stop the GOP from fuggin' things up good and solid themselves. The GOP failed.

Given enough time with this majority the Dems are going to go the same route. Obama and co. are in the middle of it right now burning up political capital with gasoline. As it stands I think the Dems are going to lose several seats in the House in 2010. The Senate is another story because of the 6 year term and they just started taking seats in 2006 so it will be a bit longer until you see a real swing there. IF (a big if) Obama gets reelected he's going to be facing a much slimmer majority if one at all in 2012.

Of course this rests on the GOP getting their collective heads out of their asses but I think they will manage. I do think that taking a hardline against the Sotomayor nomination is going to hurt the GOP overall ... like I said it's a foregone conclusion. There's gotta be a better fight to pick than this one.

Ball's in your court now to find a post where I say the GOP is dead as a party like "the pundits" did.

Have fun with all that.

 

[saveliberty]

BTW

I think that unless that economy takes a noticeable turn south Obama wins reelection in a lot closer of a race than 2008, the Dems gain a small number of seats in the House, and the Senate flips to the GOP because the Dems are defending many more seats than the GOP this cycle with some of them being seats they won in purple/red states based on the anti-war/Bush sentiment of 2006.

Very probable outcome Article.

 

[Article 15]

BTW

I think that unless that economy takes a noticeable turn south Obama wins reelection in a lot closer of a race than 2008, the Dems gain a small number of seats in the House, and the Senate flips to the GOP because the Dems are defending many more seats than the GOP this cycle with some of them being seats they won in purple/red states based on the anti-war/Bush sentiment of 2006.

A rational statement.

I would agree with everything.

Mainly because I believe the stable of GOP candidates is weak. If they were stronger....I think the GOP wins.

If Obama develops a backbone in the next six months...it will only help his case.

I should note that I am anticipating a Romney nomination in this prediction.

If Newt is nominated I expect Obama to have a larger margin of victory and down ticket elections to swing more Democratic.