Actually it was realistic.
Less people are applying for benefits because of several reasons. None of them are written in stone.
If you take into account that fewer people are working than the last 37 years, initial claims statistics means several things.....and not all of them are good like you want to assume. You're trying to pull a jem out of a pile of shit and pass it off as being reflective of the pile of shit.
To shed some light on your delusions ... first and foremost, tracking initial jobless claims is an indicator of the health of the job market. Secondly, there are more people working today than ever before (
Bureau of Labor Statistics Data) not "fewer than the last 37 years." And lastly, you haven't answered the question ... who's waiting on line to file for unemployment benifits? Between fewer people filing since 15 years ago ... being able to file on the ObamaNet ... being able to file on their ObamaPhone .... where are these
"long" lines of which you speak?
Tracking initial claims isn't the only indication of the health of the job market.....especially when you're doing your best to ignore indications that tell a totally different story. Like labor participation.
If employment agencies are being flooded with people trying to take advantage of benefits, and the government is taking it's sweet time addressing those claims....its fair to assume that that fewer initial claims are making it through the process. It's like the Veteran's administration slowing down the process or the IRS not handing refunds efficiently. Slow down the process and the numbers go down along with it. So a drop in initial claims means little or nothing if the system is overtaxed with claims or new regulations are slowing down the process. Working in the government for as many years as I have makes this a very real possibility. Especially if you have a White House bunging up the process with thousands of hard to understand regulations.
Record Corp profits, lowest sustained tax burden on the "job creators", lowest share of labor costs EVER recorded, but Gov't is doing something wrong?
PERHAPS IT'S THE "JOB CREATORS" WHO NEED TO STEP UP AND GIVE US SOMETHING FOR THE TRILLIONS IN TAX CUTS??? Just saying!
So why does so many of Obama's friend owe taxes?
Al Sharpton owes millions. The CEO for General Electric was working for the current administration and paid nothing. Anyone who does favors for Obama gets huge breaks on their taxes. Obama has paid trillions of dollars into the bond market.
Why don't you ***** to Obama, because he's causing this......
Weird, you mean people owe taxes and others don't have a tax burden? Weird, what does the GOP plan to do in Congress about this? Oh right they want to give the ":job creators" MORE tax breaks, lol
Obama causing? You think Obama is solely responsible for the 8+ million private sector jobs created under him the past 6+ years? Doubling the stock market and cutting the deficit by 2/3rds and getting US back near where Ronnie Reagan cut US in revenues, 17%+ of GDP from the 15% Dubya took US to? Not as good as the nearly 20-% Cater/Clinton had US at, but much better right?
Nah, I don't give Obama all the credit for that, he's simply leading US without the laissez faire BS the GOP tries!
What do you mean.."he's simply leading US without the laissez faire BS the GOP tries!"
So let's dissect that statement...
Obama is leading the US right?
He is doing so "without the
laissez-faire:" ...."
without" means NOT doing what? "
Laissez-faire?"
The definition of "
Laissez-faire"... an economic system in which transactions between private parties are free from
government interference such as
regulations,
privileges,
tariffs, and
subsidies. The phrase laissez-faire is
French and literally means "let [them] do," but it broadly implies "let it be," "let them do as they will," or "leave it alone."
So you are showing why LIPs are so dumb!
Using your statement Obama not using "laissez-faire" means OBAMA IS USING..."rules,regulations,etc. interfering with private parties."
Which is TRUE! Obama's administration has
Data collected by researchers at George Mason University’s Mercatus Center shows that the
Code of Federal Regulations, where all rules and regulations are detailed, has ballooned from 71,224 pages in 1975 to 174,545 pages last year.
More “major rules,” those with an annual economic impact exceeding $100 million, were enacted in 2010 than in any year dating back to at least 1997, according to the CRS.
And over Obama’s first three years in office, the
Code of Federal Regulations increased by 7.4 percent, according to data compiled by the Chamber of Commerce. In comparison, the regulatory code grew by 4.4 percent during Bush’s first term.
“All incentives are to regulate more,” said Susan Dudley, the director of George Washington University’s Regulatory Studies Center.
REGULATION NATION Obama oversees expansion of the regulatory state TheHill
NOW do you understand your statement? Obama IS LEADING the country with more rules and regulations then any other President in history and
this adds up to an annual total waste of $1,863,000,000,000! That's 1.8 Trillion dollars WASTED!
U.S. Regulatory Costs: More than GDP of Canada, Australia
Households pay nearly $15,000 per year for regulation
Today, the Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI) released the latest edition of its annual report, “Ten Thousand Commandments: An Annual Snapshot of the Regulatory State,” which surveys the costs and burdens imposed by federal regulations. Authored by Wayne Crews, CEI’s Vice President for Policy, the report compiles government and private data on the number and cost of regulations, as well as the agencies that issue them.
“The picture painted by this indispensable report is a bleak one, as it shows the federal regulatory bureaucracy growing larger year after year,” said CRS President and CEO Karen Kerrigan. “The costs of burdensome rules and bureaucracy are hidden from view, but they are brutally apparent for small business owners and their workers, who forfeit an ever-increasing share of their paychecks to regulation. And don’t forget the dispirited entrepreneur, who, when faced with a mountain of regulation and red tape, decides that starting a new business or introducing a new technology just isn’t worth it.”
Download the full report
HERE.
Key findings from the CEI report include the following:
- Costs for Americans to comply with federal regulations reached $1.863 trillion in 2013, which is more than the GDP of Canada or Australia. In fact, if U.S. regulation were a country, it would have the 10th largest economy worldwide, ranked between India and Italy.
The Center for Regulatory Solutions U.S. Regulatory Costs More than GDP of Canada Australia
