The Obameconomy rocks!
Dave the Clueless
U.S. employment growth ground to a halt in June, with employers hiring the
fewest number of workers in nine months, dampening hopes the economy was
on the cusp of regaining momentum after stumbling in recent months.
Nonfarm payrolls rose only 18,000, the weakest reading since September,
the Labor Department said on Friday, well below economists' expectations
for a 90,000 rise.
Many economists raised their forecasts on Thursday after a
stronger-than-expected reading on U.S. private hiring from payrolls
processor ADP, and they expected gains of anywhere between 125,000 and
175,000.
The unemployment rate climbed to 9.2 percent, the highest since December,
from 9.1 percent in May.
The government revised April and May payrolls to show 44,000 fewer jobs
created than previously reported. The report shattered expectations that
the economy was starting to accelerate after a soft patch in the first
half of the year.
The private sector added 57,000, accounting for all the jobs created, with
government employment shrinking 39,000 because of fiscal problems at local
and state governments.
__________
Special note to Jerry, who is notably deficient in his ability to
recognize the abject failure of his deity to do anything to actually help
the economy:
"The economy needs to create between 125,000 and 150,000 new jobs a month
just to absorb new labor force entrants."
To simplify: Unemployment is growing. Obama's trillion dollar kickback to
public and private unions has run out of steam. We're more fucked now than
ever.
-------
A liberal's idea of being a bad-ass is to say vicious things to a
conservative public figure who can't afford to strike back.
---�
RecGroups : the community-oriented newsreader : www.recgroups.com
Beldin the Sorcerer
"Dave the Clueless" <frac...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:t4cje8x...@recgroups.com...
firing back.
Which metric do you want to use?
June Sales, Jobs Data Easily Top Forecasts
By SCOTT STODDARD, INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY
Retailers posted stronger-than-expected sales in June as warm weather,
falling gasoline prices and discounts lured shoppers. Meanwhile, improved
jobs data raised hopes that the economy is emerging from a soft patch.
Sales at stores open for more than a year climbed 7.2% vs. a year ago on
broad-based gains led by luxury retailers, discounters and teen clothing
chains, Retail Metrics said. The market researcher had expected same-store
sales to rise 5.6%.
"The primary factor is that we saw discounts deeper and wider across the
retail spectrum than in any month this year," including discounts of 40%-50%
at some stores, said Retail Metrics head Ken Perkins
Falling gasoline prices and better weather also contributed to the
unexpectedly strong performance, he said. But analysts expect sales growth
to slow as retailers end big discounts aimed at clearing out bloated
inventories of summer goods.
"I think in July we may see a bit of a lull," he said.
New claims for jobless benefits fell by 14,000 in the week ended July 2 to
418,000, a seven-week low, the Labor Department said Thursday. Still, claims
above 400,000 suggest employers are more inclined to fire than hire.
ADP Employer Services said Thursday that companies hired 157,000 in June,
more than double forecasts, and well above May's disappointing 36,000.
VegasJerry
> http://www.cnbc.com/id/43682730
>
> U.S. employment growth ground to a halt in June, with employers hiring the
> fewest number of workers in nine months, dampening hopes the economy was
> on the cusp of regaining momentum after stumbling in recent months.
Many large companies tried hiring more, but complained that they needed
better trained people. Meanwhile, Republicans are against spending any
money on training. That money is needed for the rich in the form of tax
cuts.
> Nonfarm payrolls rose only 18,000, the weakest reading since September,
> the Labor Department said on Friday, well below economists' expectations
> for a 90,000 rise.
So the economy continue to improve (regardless of those here that keep
saying the economy is crashing).
> Many economists raised their forecasts on Thursday after a
> stronger-than-expected reading on U.S. private hiring from payrolls
> processor ADP, and they expected gains of anywhere between 125,000 and
> 175,000.
That must have pissed you off.
> The unemployment rate climbed to 9.2 percent, the highest since December,
> from 9.1 percent in May.
Indicating more people are looking for the work that's obviously there.
> The government revised April and May payrolls to show 44,000 fewer jobs
> created than previously reported. The report shattered expectations that
> the economy was starting to accelerate after a soft patch in the first
> half of the year.
Note "accelerate." That�s for the dimwits that still believe the economy
is crashing. The economy continues to improve in spite of Republicans
efforts to make it worse than what they left it.
> The private sector added 57,000, accounting for all the jobs created, with
> government employment shrinking 39,000 because of fiscal problems at local
> and state governments.
> __________
>
> Special note to Jerry, who is notably deficient in his ability to
> recognize the abject failure of his deity to do anything to actually help
> the economy:
WHA! HA~HA! You STILL say the economy is failing? How embarrassing for you.
> "The economy needs to create between 125,000 and 150,000 new jobs a month
> just to absorb new labor force entrants."
>
> To simplify: Unemployment is growing.
Umployment number is up because more people are looking (you still have no
clue as to what the Unemployment Number actually means. It's why it's
enjoyable making fun of you).
> Obama's trillion dollar kickback to public and private unions has run out of
steam.
Now you're just desperate.
> We're more fucked now than ever.
Heh! YOU'RE more fucked now than ever. YOU still think the economy is
falling and hide the fact the Republicans have no clue as to how to speed
it up. But then, they're the ones that drove it in the ditch.
Jerry (LMAO@Y) 'n Vegas
-----�
* kill-files, watch-lists, favorites, and more.. www.recgroups.com
Alim Nassor
> On Jul 8 2011 6:09 AM, Dave the Clueless wrote:
>
> >http://www.cnbc.com/id/43682730
>
> > U.S. employment growth ground to a halt in June, with employers hiring the
> > fewest number of workers in nine months, dampening hopes the economy was
> > on the cusp of regaining momentum after stumbling in recent months.
>
> Many large companies tried hiring more, but complained that they needed
> better trained people. Meanwhile, Republicans are against spending any
> money on training. That money is needed for the rich in the form of tax
> cuts.
>
> > Nonfarm payrolls rose only 18,000, the weakest reading since September,
> > the Labor Department said on Friday, well below economists' expectations
> > for a 90,000 rise.
>
> So the economy continue to improve (regardless of those here that keep
> saying the economy is crashing).
LOL Jerry, 18,000 jobs is statistically meaningless when you are
working off a base of 130 million or so.
>
> > Many economists raised their forecasts on Thursday after a
> > stronger-than-expected reading on U.S. private hiring from payrolls
> > processor ADP, and they expected gains of anywhere between 125,000 and
> > 175,000.
>
> That must have pissed you off.
Can you even READ? These numbers were what was expected. What
actually happened was almost zero. Idiot.
>
> > The unemployment rate climbed to 9.2 percent, the highest since December,
> > from 9.1 percent in May.
>
> Indicating more people are looking for the work that's obviously there.
BWHAHAHAHA So jobs that are obviously there + people looking for
them = higher unemployment. LOL
>
> > The government revised April and May payrolls to show 44,000 fewer jobs
> > created than previously reported. The report shattered expectations that
> > the economy was starting to accelerate after a soft patch in the first
> > half of the year.
>
> Note "accelerate." That s for the dimwits that still believe the economy
> is crashing. The economy continues to improve in spite of Republicans
> efforts to make it worse than what they left it.
>
Note Jerry, you still can't read. This is how the word "accelerate"
was used. "The report shattered expectations that
> > the economy was starting to accelerate after a soft patch in the first half of the year."
ROFL. Idiot.
> > The private sector added 57,000, accounting for all the jobs created, with
> > government employment shrinking 39,000 because of fiscal problems at local
> > and state governments.
> > __________
>
> > Special note to Jerry, who is notably deficient in his ability to
> > recognize the abject failure of his deity to do anything to actually help
> > the economy:
>
> WHA! HA~HA! You STILL say the economy is failing? How embarrassing for you.
>
> > "The economy needs to create between 125,000 and 150,000 new jobs a month
> > just to absorb new labor force entrants."
>
> > To simplify: Unemployment is growing.
>
> Umployment number is up because more people are looking (you still have no
> clue as to what the Unemployment Number actually means. It's why it's
> enjoyable making fun of you).
ROFL. Yeah Jerry more people are looking all the time because of
layoffs and people enetering the workforce for the first time. That
why Dave TRIED to explain to you that just to keep up with people
entering the work force, you know high school and college grads,
there needs to be between 125,000 and 150,000 new jobs a month. And
that aint hapenning.
Truthseeker
> Heh! YOU'RE more fucked now than ever. YOU still think the economy is
> falling and hide the fact the Republicans have no clue as to how to speed
> it up. But then, they're the ones that drove it in the ditch.
Who does Jerry remind us of? Oh, yeah, "Baghdad Bob" in the early days
of the Iraq war.
--
Truthseeker
Hollis2
The only good news in the jobs market so far is that over the past eight
months, federal, state and local governments have cut a combined 238,000
positions.
_____________________________________________________________________
Vic Vaselino
> layoffs and people enetering the workforce for the first time. That
> why Dave TRIED to explain to you that just to keep up with people
> entering the work force, you know high school and college grads,
> there needs to be between 125,000 and 150,000 new jobs a month. And
> that aint hapenning.
Perhaps these job seekers should move to the countries where the jobs
are.
-------
Clave
news:t4cje8x...@recgroups.com...
<...>
> To oversimplify: Unemployment is growing. Obama's trillion dollar
^
FYP
> kickback to public and private unions has run out of steam. We're
> more fucked now than ever.
What's your gripe? This is what the GOP has wanted all along.
Blaming Obama for not doing enough has to be balanced by the second half of
the equation, as opposed to which alternatives?
We had the alternative of doing nothing, or the alternative of letting the
Republicans continue with more and more of the same "fuck-you I've got mine"
economic policies that crashed the train in the first place.
So where are all those Republican job-creation bills? Still trying to sell
that horseshit about tax cuts for the rich creating jobs when there's
absolutely no historical evidence that it does?
Jim
Dave the Clueless
> So where are all those Republican job-creation bills? Still trying to sell
> that horseshit about tax cuts for the rich creating jobs when there's
> absolutely no historical evidence that it does?
>
> Jim
Other than the unprecedented success of that policy under Reagan, you
mean. The amazingly successful, almost overnight incredible turnaround in
our economy when Reagan did that. Other than that, you mean.
-------
A liberal's idea of being a bad-ass is to say vicious things to a
conservative public figure who can't afford to strike back.
______________________________________________________________________
Clave
> On Jul 8 2011 4:23 PM, Clave wrote:
>
>> So where are all those Republican job-creation bills? Still trying to
>> sell
>> that horseshit about tax cuts for the rich creating jobs when there's
>> absolutely no historical evidence that it does?
>
That's bullshit, you know.
Reagan's numbers were completely in line with historical averages both in
the US and other industrialized countries. There's no evidence that
trickle-down has any positive effect on anything but the bank accounts of
the people whose taxes get cut.
(Not to mention the 11 times he raised taxes to stave off the recession his
initial tax cuts would have caused.)
Jim
Bea Foroni
> Other than the unprecedented success of that policy under Reagan, you
> mean. The amazingly successful, almost overnight incredible turnaround in
> our economy when Reagan did that. Other than that, you mean.
>
Wow! I thought I was there, but I didn't see that.
I saw unprecidented military spending, including the support of Al-
Quida. The balloning deficit that caused America to become a debtor
nation. The begining of the great divide between rich and poor. The
deepening dependence of workers on Federal money to finance the
military build up. The denial of AIDS. And the S&L Crisis. All of
which has cost this nation.
bub
wrote:
>
>The only good news in the jobs market so far is that over the past eight
>months, federal, state and local governments have cut a combined 238,000
>positions.
"The government revised April and May payrolls to show 44,000 fewer
jobs created than previously reported."
maybe if they spend another 800 billion on those jobs
hope and change
VegasJerry
Was he right too? Or is that because you're weren't able to address that,
either?
>
>
>
> --
> Truthseeker
---
VegasJerry
> On Jul 8, 10:27 am, "VegasJerry" <jerr...@cox.net> wrote:
> > On Jul 8 2011 6:09 AM, Dave the Clueless wrote:
> >
> > >http://www.cnbc.com/id/43682730
> >
> > > U.S. employment growth ground to a halt in June, with employers hiring
the
> > > fewest number of workers in nine months, dampening hopes the economy was
> > > on the cusp of regaining momentum after stumbling in recent months.
> >
> > Many large companies tried hiring more, but complained that they needed
> > better trained people. Meanwhile, Republicans are against spending any
> > money on training. That money is needed for the rich in the form of tax
> > cuts.
> >
> > > Nonfarm payrolls rose only 18,000, the weakest reading since September,
> > > the Labor Department said on Friday, well below economists' expectations
> > > for a 90,000 rise.
> >
> > So the economy continue to improve (regardless of those here that keep
> > saying the economy is crashing).
>
> LOL Jerry, 18,000 jobs is statistically meaningless when you are
> working off a base of 130 million or so.
Yet the economy continues to imporove. So what would you call losing
18,000 jobs? And if the GDP were going down; and retail sales were going
down?
> > > Many economists raised their forecasts on Thursday after a
> > > stronger-than-expected reading on U.S. private hiring from payrolls
> > > processor ADP, and they expected gains of anywhere between 125,000 and
> > > 175,000.
> >
> > That must have pissed you off.
>
> Can you even READ? These numbers were what was expected.
Yet the economy continues to imporve. What would you call it if there were
huge job loses?
> What actually happened was almost zero. Idiot.
You can't bring yourself to admit the economy is actually still improving,
can you? It sticks in your craw doesn't it? It would make you gag. The
Republican politicians admit the economy is improving; slow, but it is,
actually, improving. Economists admit the economy it's improving. Yet you
still try maintaining the economy is failing. You just can't bring
yourself to admit you're wrong.
Go on; do it. Write it right here. Give it a try. I'll bet you can't do
it. Write it out:
"The economy is actually improving."
This is so funny. I KNOW you can't do it……..
> > > The unemployment rate climbed to 9.2 percent, the highest since December,
> > > from 9.1 percent in May.
> >
> > Indicating more people are looking for the work that's obviously there.
> BWHAHAHAHA So jobs that are obviously there + people looking for
> them = higher unemployment. LOL
Like I said, you actually don't know what that unemployment number means.
Go ahead; write it out. Try explaining what that unemployment number
actually means. I know you won't be able to because I called you out on it.
> > > The government revised April and May payrolls to show 44,000 fewer jobs
> > > created than previously reported. The report shattered expectations that
> > > the economy was starting to accelerate after a soft patch in the first
> > > half of the year.
> >
> > Note "accelerate." That s for the dimwits that still believe the economy
> > is crashing. The economy continues to improve in spite of Republicans
> > efforts to make it worse than what they left it.
> >
>
> Note Jerry, you still can't read. This is how the word "accelerate"
> was used. "The report shattered expectations that
> > > the economy was starting to accelerate after a soft patch in the first
half of the year."
>
> ROFL. Idiot.
Laughter of the fool. You can't admit the economy is improving and you
have no clue what the Unemployment Number actually means. You're truly a
fool and an embarrasment to the other wing-nuts here.
> > > The private sector added 57,000, accounting for all the jobs created,
with
> > > government employment shrinking 39,000 because of fiscal problems at
local
> > > and state governments.
> > > __________
> >
> > > Special note to Jerry, who is notably deficient in his ability to
> > > recognize the abject failure of his deity to do anything to actually help
> > > the economy:
> >
> > WHA! HA~HA! You STILL say the economy is failing? How embarrassing for you.
See that? You actually couldn't respond because you actually don't know.
> > > "The economy needs to create between 125,000 and 150,000 new jobs a month
> > > just to absorb new labor force entrants."
> >
> > > To simplify: Unemployment is growing.
> >
> > Umployment number is up because more people are looking (you still have no
> > clue as to what the Unemployment Number actually means. It's why it's
> > enjoyable making fun of you).
> ROFL.
Yes I am. And your next statement proves me right:
> Yeah Jerry more people are looking all the time because of
> layoffs and people enetering the workforce for the first time. That
> why Dave TRIED to explain to you that just to keep up with people
> entering the work force, you know high school and college grads,
> there needs to be between 125,000 and 150,000 new jobs a month. And
> that aint hapenning.
See that? You actually don't know. How did Bill says it? "You're an
economic illiterate."
Looking forward to your explanations and that backing-up sounds you make.
Jerry 'n Vegas
> >
> > > Obama's trillion dollar kickback to public and private unions has run
out of
> >
> > steam.
> >
> > Now you're just desperate.
> >
> > > We're more fucked now than ever.
> >
> > Heh! YOU'RE more fucked now than ever. YOU still think the economy is
> > falling and hide the fact the Republicans have no clue as to how to speed
> > it up. But then, they're the ones that drove it in the ditch.
> >
> > Jerry (LMAO@Y) 'n Vegas
> >
---
: the next generation of web-newsreaders : http://www.recgroups.com
bub
<BeaF...@msn.com> wrote:
> I saw unprecidented military spending, including the support of Al-
>Quida. The balloning deficit that caused America to become a debtor
>nation. The begining of the great divide between rich and poor. The
>deepening dependence of workers on Federal money to finance the
>military build up. The denial of AIDS. And the S&L Crisis. All of
>which has cost this nation.
damn democrat congress
VegasJerry
> On Jul 8 2011 4:23 PM, Clave wrote:
>
> > So where are all those Republican job-creation bills? Still trying to
sell
> > that horseshit about tax cuts for the rich creating jobs when there's
> > absolutely no historical evidence that it does?
> >
> > Jim
>
> Other than the unprecedented success of that policy under Reagan, you
> mean. The amazingly successful, almost overnight incredible turnaround in
> our economy when Reagan did that. Other than that, you mean.
Where he trippled the national debt? WHA! HA~HA! You let me cut taxes and
borrow trillions and I'll look good to. Bush double the national debt by
doing the very same thing.
>
> -------
> A liberal's idea of being a bad-ass is to say vicious things to a
> conservative public figure who can't afford to strike back.
----
Alim Nassor
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
There's no use arguing with you Jerry. Yout hink you are the keeper
of the KNOWLEDGE and no one ese knows anything.
I do have one question for you.
Does it sound like a kazoo when you whistle zippity do da with your
head up Obama's ass?
Go ahead and declare that you won. You wouldn't know the difference
anyway.
TruthSeeker
> On Jul 8 2011 9:43 AM, Truthseeker wrote:
>
>> On 7/8/11 9:27 AM, VegasJerry wrote:
>>
>>> Heh! YOU'RE more fucked now than ever. YOU still think the economy is
>>> falling and hide the fact the Republicans have no clue as to how to speed
>>> it up. But then, they're the ones that drove it in the ditch.
>>
>> Who does Jerry remind us of? Oh, yeah, "Baghdad Bob" in the early days
>> of the Iraq war.
>
> Was he right too? Or is that because you're weren't able to address that,
> either?
Oh, my Gawd!!! Do you REALLY not know who Baghdad Bob was? The guy who
kept announcing every day in 2003 how badly the U.S. invaders were being
beaten and how they'd never get into Baghdad, that their bodies were
piling up at the gates?
http://www.cfif.org/htdocs/freedomline/current/in_our_opinion/baghdad_bob.htm
http://politicalhumor.about.com/library/jokes/bljoke-iraqinfominister.htm
Thank you, Jerry, you just made my day.
--
TruthSeeker
Pepe Papon
<frac...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>Nonfarm payrolls rose only 18,000, the weakest reading since September,
>the Labor Department said on Friday, well below economists' expectations
>for a 90,000 rise.
How does this compare with the 800,000 jobs per month being *lost*
when Obama took office?
>Many economists raised their forecasts on Thursday after a
>stronger-than-expected reading on U.S. private hiring from payrolls
>processor ADP, and they expected gains of anywhere between 125,000 and
>175,000.
And you think this is bad economic news?
Pepe Papon
wrote:
And let's not forget that Reagan's deficit spending was what provided
the economic stimulus.
Pepe Papon
<BeaF...@msn.com> wrote:
"Homeless" became part of the lexicon during the Reagan years. And
don't forget that ketchup is a vegetable!
Dave the Clueless
Yeah, because Friday, when reality came into play, things went right to
shit.
-------
A liberal's idea of being a bad-ass is to say vicious things to a
conservative public figure who can't afford to strike back.
----
VegasJerry
<I>It's been 2.5 years of Obama/Reid policies ... and they demonstrably have
failed to turn the economy around.</i>
> > > > Heh! YOU'RE more fucked now than ever. YOU still think the economy is
> > > > falling and hide the fact the Republicans have no clue as to how to
speed
> > > > it up. But then, they're the ones that drove it in the ditch.
> >
> > > > Jerry (LMAO@Y) 'n Vegas
> There's no use arguing with you Jerry.
I know. You couldn’t admit to the fact the economy is actually improving.
And you obviously couldn't explain what the Unemployment Number actually
means.
> Yout hink you are the keeper
> of the KNOWLEDGE and no one ese knows anything.
Now you're making up a position for me. I showed you didn't know.
> I do have one question for you.
>
> Does it sound like a kazoo when you whistle zippity do da with your
> head up Obama's ass?
>
> Go ahead and declare that you won.
I won. You refuse to admit the economy is actually improving.
Jerry 'n Vegas
> You wouldn't know the difference
> anyway.
_______________________________________________________________________
looking for a better newsgroup-reader? - www.recgroups.com
VegasJerry
> VegasJerry wrote:
> > On Jul 8 2011 9:43 AM, Truthseeker wrote:
> >
> >> On 7/8/11 9:27 AM, VegasJerry wrote:
> >>
> >>> Heh! YOU'RE more fucked now than ever. YOU still think the economy is
> >>> falling and hide the fact the Republicans have no clue as to how to speed
> >>> it up. But then, they're the ones that drove it in the ditch.
> >>
> >> Who does Jerry remind us of? Oh, yeah, "Baghdad Bob" in the early days
> >> of the Iraq war.
> >
> > Was he right too? Or is that because you're weren't able to address that,
> > either?
>
>
> Oh, my Gawd!!!
Oh, oh; Mr. Seeker of Truth appears to be shitting himself…..
> Do you REALLY not know who Baghdad Bob was?
Yes, I know who he was. Is this your way of dodging the thread?
> The guy who
> kept announcing every day in 2003 how badly the U.S. invaders were being
> beaten and how they'd never get into Baghdad, that their bodies were
> piling up at the gates?
>
> http://www.cfif.org/htdocs/freedomline/current/in_our_opinion/baghdad_bob.htm
> http://politicalhumor.about.com/library/jokes/bljoke-iraqinfominister.htm
>
>
> Thank you, Jerry, you just made my day.
You didn't need me. You dodged the thread; made up a position for me; then
argued that made-up position. You do that all the time.....
Jerry 'n Vegas
_______________________________________________________________________
VegasJerry
> On Jul 9 2011 6:19 AM, Pepe Papon wrote:
>
> > On Fri, 08 Jul 2011 06:09:17 -0700, "Dave the Clueless"
> > <frac...@comcast.net> wrote:
> >
> > >
> > >Nonfarm payrolls rose only 18,000, the weakest reading since September,
> > >the Labor Department said on Friday, well below economists' expectations
> > >for a 90,000 rise.
> >
> > How does this compare with the 800,000 jobs per month being *lost*
> > when Obama took office?
> >
> > >Many economists raised their forecasts on Thursday after a
> > >stronger-than-expected reading on U.S. private hiring from payrolls
> > >processor ADP, and they expected gains of anywhere between 125,000 and
> > >175,000.
> >
> > And you think this is bad economic news?
>
> Yeah, because Friday, when reality came into play, things went right to
> shit.
They did? It happened when the numbers came out? Not before? Not during? I
must have missed it. What when to shit? You can use your own mangled words
to explain.......
Jerry (astounded) 'n Vegas
>
> -------
> A liberal's idea of being a bad-ass is to say vicious things to a
> conservative public figure who can't afford to strike back.
--------
Alim Nassor
>
> - Show quoted text -
I'll try this one more time. LOL I guess I like arguing with a
stump.
Why don't you find ONE news story that puts a rosy glow on the jobs
report, like you have been trying to do.
Here, I got some excerpts from a story in the WSJ that contradicts
what you say about it.
Here's Jerry.
"Indicating more people are looking for the work that's obviously
there."
Here's the WSJ.
"Sometimes the jobless rate can rise because people re-enter the
workforce..... unfortunately that wasn't the case in June.
The number of people in the labor force dropped last month, while the
number of people employed tumbled,
and the number of unemployed increased.
Hey Jerry, How about that. You shot your mouth off without knowing
what the hell you were talking about.
Heres more from Jerry.
"Umployment number is up because more people are looking (you still
have no
clue as to what the Unemployment Number actually means. It's why it's
enjoyable making fun of you).
Here's more from the WSJ directly contradicting you.
The unemployment rate increased to 9.2% in June.... but it would have
been much worse if the recession had not pushed so many people out of
the workforce.
The share of the population in the job market called the labor-force
participation rate, fell to 64.1percent last month, the lowest level
since 1984"
If the participation rate was still the same percentage as it was at
the beggining of the recession, the unemployment rate would be over
11%.
Also Jerry, the U6 rate, the underemployed rate, shot up from 15.8%
to 16.4% last month.
So Jerry, who doesn't know what they are talking about?
Go practice your kazoo.
VegasJerry
> I'll try this one more time. LOL I guess I like arguing with a
> stump.
It appears to be the only way you'll win an argument.
> Why don't you find ONE news story that puts a rosy glow on the jobs
> report, like you have been trying to do.
Why don't you quit dodging and admit the economy is improving?
Jerry 'n Vegas
-------
Alim Nassor
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Dodging the facts noted, Jerry. I win. Whee!!! this is easy!!
TruthSeeker
> On Jul 8 2011 8:55 PM, TruthSeeker wrote:
>> Thank you, Jerry, you just made my day.
> You didn't need me. You dodged the thread; made up a position for me; then
> argued that made-up position. You do that all the time.....
And now we know what happened to Baghdad Bob: he moved to Nevada and
changed his name to Jerry.
--
TruthSeeker
Pepe Papon
<frac...@comcast.net> wrote:
>On Jul 9 2011 6:19 AM, Pepe Papon wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 08 Jul 2011 06:09:17 -0700, "Dave the Clueless"
>> <frac...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >Nonfarm payrolls rose only 18,000, the weakest reading since September,
>> >the Labor Department said on Friday, well below economists' expectations
>> >for a 90,000 rise.
>>
>> How does this compare with the 800,000 jobs per month being *lost*
>> when Obama took office?
Non-response noted.
>> >Many economists raised their forecasts on Thursday after a
>> >stronger-than-expected reading on U.S. private hiring from payrolls
>> >processor ADP, and they expected gains of anywhere between 125,000 and
>> >175,000.
>>
>> And you think this is bad economic news?
>
>Yeah, because Friday, when reality came into play, things went right to
>shit.
So, in your world, a positive economic forecast is bad economic news.
Gotcha.
VegasJerry
---- cut & paste ----
> You dodged the thread; made up a position for me; then
> argued that made-up position. You do that all the time.....
---- end cut & paste ----
>
>
>
> --
> TruthSeeker
Alim Nassor
> On Sat, 09 Jul 2011 05:23:55 -0700, "Dave the Clueless"
>
No Pepe, The forecast was wrong. That's the point. They
overestimated by almost 10 times the actual number of jobs.
Dave the Clueless
A positive forecast followed in less than 24 hours by a dismal reality is
the shit world Obama et al has stuck us with. Forecast all you want,
reality trumps. And the Obameconomy is shit in reality.
-------
A liberal's idea of being a bad-ass is to say vicious things to a
conservative public figure who can't afford to strike back.
-----
Dave the Clueless
> On Jul 9 2011 5:23 AM, Dave the Clueless wrote:
>
> > On Jul 9 2011 6:19 AM, Pepe Papon wrote:
> >
> > > On Fri, 08 Jul 2011 06:09:17 -0700, "Dave the Clueless"
> > > <frac...@comcast.net> wrote:
> > >
> > > >
> > > >Nonfarm payrolls rose only 18,000, the weakest reading since September,
> > > >the Labor Department said on Friday, well below economists' expectations
> > > >for a 90,000 rise.
> > >
> > > How does this compare with the 800,000 jobs per month being *lost*
> > > when Obama took office?
> > >
> > > >Many economists raised their forecasts on Thursday after a
> > > >stronger-than-expected reading on U.S. private hiring from payrolls
> > > >processor ADP, and they expected gains of anywhere between 125,000 and
> > > >175,000.
> > >
> > > And you think this is bad economic news?
> >
> > Yeah, because Friday, when reality came into play, things went right to
> > shit.
>
> They did? It happened when the numbers came out? Not before? Not during? I
> must have missed it. What when to shit? You can use your own mangled words
> to explain.......
>
Unemployment 9.2%. Is that simple enough for you? 9.2%. Shit. Shit shit
fucking shit. A shit economy. Total shit.
>
> Jerry (astounded) 'n Vegas
>
>
>
>
>
> >
> > -------
> > A liberal's idea of being a bad-ass is to say vicious things to a
> > conservative public figure who can't afford to strike back.
-------
A liberal's idea of being a bad-ass is to say vicious things to a
conservative public figure who can't afford to strike back.
______________________________________________________________________
Pepe Papon
I see. I didn't know what day the article was written.
Lab Rat
> I'll try this one more time. LOL I guess I like arguing with a
> stump.
When you argue with an idiot, chances are he's doing the same.
______________________________________________________________________
susan
"Dave the Clueless"
>
>> They did? It happened when the numbers came out? Not before? Not during?
>> I
>> must have missed it. What when to shit? You can use your own mangled
>> words
>> to explain.......
> > Jerry (astounded) 'n Vegas
I guess we have to add Geithner to the list of who Jerry is smarter than.
susan
"Dave the Clueless"
Or in the words of obama - paraphrased here
"ha ha ha - I guess those jobs weren't really shovel ready ha ha ha"
Alim Nassor
>
> - Show quoted text -
Ouch, LOL
VegasJerry
Like I said, you simply don't know what that number means. Employment
increased some 18,000 jobs. The larger Unemploymnet number indicates more
people looking. Actual unemployment is more like 16.2%. Do you understand
that? Do you know what that number represents?
Jerry
>
> >
> > Jerry (astounded) 'n Vegas
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > >
> > > -------
> > > A liberal's idea of being a bad-ass is to say vicious things to a
> > > conservative public figure who can't afford to strike back.
>
>
> -------
> A liberal's idea of being a bad-ass is to say vicious things to a
> conservative public figure who can't afford to strike back.
_____________________________________________________________________
VegasJerry
You? "Guessing" something? Without the ability to even state what?
No shocker here...........
VegasJerry
______________________________________________________________________
Alim Nassor
>
>
> Like I said, you simply don't know what that number means. Employment
> increased some 18,000 jobs. The larger Unemploymnet number indicates more
> people looking. Actual unemployment is more like 16.2%. Do you understand
> that? Do you know what that number represents?
From the WSJ. directly contradicting you Jerry.
VegasJerry
> On Jul 11, 4:28 pm, "VegasJerry" <jerr...@cox.net> wrote:
> >
> >
> > Like I said, you simply don't know what that number means. Employment
> > increased some 18,000 jobs. The larger Unemployment number indicates more
> > people looking. Actual unemployment is more like 16.2%. Do you understand
> > that? Do you know what that number represents?
>
>
> From the WSJ. directly contradicting you Jerry.
Wrong, but gee, another Rupert Murdoch newspaper. How's that one in
England doing? Oh, wait, he's so embarrassed, he's shut it down.
> "Sometimes the jobless rate can rise because people re-enter the
> workforce.....
Yea, that sounds like something Rupert would force his people to say. Try
guessing what he meant by that.
> unfortunately that wasn't the case in June.
> The number of people in the labor force dropped last month, while the
> number of people employed tumbled,
> and the number of unemployed increased.
"The number of unemployed increased." And the unemployed are who? And how
is that number reached? Hello? Let me ask the question, one more time.
I'll cut & past it from above:
> The larger Unemployment number indicates more people looking.
> Actual unemployment is more like 16.2%. Do you understand
> that? Do you know what that number represents?
Jerry 'n Vegas
Alim Nassor
Jerry, just between you and I, I'll stick with believing the WSJ over
you.
Alim Nassor
>
> > On Jul 11, 4:28 pm, "VegasJerry" <jerr...@cox.net> wrote:
>
> > > Like I said, you simply don't know what that number means. Employment
> > > increased some 18,000 jobs. The larger Unemployment number indicates more
> > > people looking. Actual unemployment is more like 16.2%. Do you understand
> > > that? Do you know what that number represents?
>
> > From the WSJ. directly contradicting you Jerry.
>
> Wrong, but gee, another Rupert Murdoch newspaper. How's that one in
> England doing? Oh, wait, he's so embarrassed, he's shut it down.
Yeah, Jerry, it's all a conspiracy against YOU!!
>
> > "Sometimes the jobless rate can rise because people re-enter the
> > workforce.....
>
> Yea, that sounds like something Rupert would force his people to say. Try
> guessing what he meant by that.
>
Gee Jerry, it was the SAME THING you said. Are you part of the
conspiracy againt you too?
> > unfortunately that wasn't the case in June.
> > The number of people in the labor force dropped last month, while the
> > number of people employed tumbled,
> > and the number of unemployed increased.
>
> "The number of unemployed increased." And the unemployed are who? And how
> is that number reached? Hello? Let me ask the question, one more time.
> I'll cut & past it from above:
>
Jerry,, the numbers are available to anyone who wants to look. Why
don't you try it instead of pulling shit out of your ass again.
> > The larger Unemployment number indicates more people looking.
> > Actual unemployment is more like 16.2%. Do you understand
> > that? Do you know what that number represents?
Yeah, Jerry. I know. what the number represents. But in this
instance, you are wrong. More people not looking is NOT what caused
unemployment to go up.
Steam
>
> > The larger Unemployment number indicates more people looking.
> > Actual unemployment is more like 16.2%. Do you understand
> > that? Do you know what that number represents?
>
> Jerry 'n Vegas
Why do you think more people are looking? Because they lost their jobs
and cannot find another one yet, and new people entering the workforce,
how could you possibly construe more people looking as a good thing? Now
you'll say I';m making ujp a position for you probably, but you keep
repeating that. It's like you are from Mars or something
--------
Clave
news:f49se8x...@recgroups.com...
> On Jul 11 2011 2:29 PM, Alim Nassor wrote:
>
>> On Jul 11, 4:28 pm, "VegasJerry" <jerr...@cox.net> wrote:
>> >
>> >
>> > Like I said, you simply don't know what that number means. Employment
>> > increased some 18,000 jobs. The larger Unemployment number indicates
>> > more
>> > people looking. Actual unemployment is more like 16.2%. Do you
>> > understand
>> > that? Do you know what that number represents?
>>
>>
>> From the WSJ. directly contradicting you Jerry.
>
> Wrong, but gee, another Rupert Murdoch newspaper. How's that one in
> England doing? Oh, wait, he's so embarrassed, he's shut it down.
Only long enough to wash it off and sell it again.
Jim
Alim Nassor
Just for you Jerry, I went to the Bureau of Labor Statistics to check
on your Rupert Murdoch conspiracy theory. I though they might have
you on their "Must Pull Wool Over Eyes" list, but your picture wasn't
there.
But here are the statistics that you can't seem to wrap your head
around.
Seasonally adjusted Labor Participation Rate:
May 2011 64.2%
June 2011 64.1%
See Jerry? The labor force SHRANK last month, despite your claims
that more people are looking?
Number Employed
May 2011 139,799
June 2011 139,334
See Jerry? The number of people working went down.
http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.t01.htm
Do you trust the BLS?
Alim Nassor
>
> - Show quoted text -
Forgot, before any nits have a fit, those numbers for the employed
were in "thousands".
Beldin the Sorcerer
>
>> On Jul 11, 4:28 pm, "VegasJerry" <jerr...@cox.net> wrote:
>> >
>> >
>> > Like I said, you simply don't know what that number means. Employment
>> > increased some 18,000 jobs. The larger Unemployment number indicates
>> > more
>> > people looking. Actual unemployment is more like 16.2%. Do you
>> > understand
>> > that? Do you know what that number represents?
>>
>>
>> From the WSJ. directly contradicting you Jerry.
>
> Wrong, but gee, another Rupert Murdoch newspaper. How's that one in
> England doing? Oh, wait, he's so embarrassed, he's shut it down.
>
scandal sheet
Beldin the Sorcerer
> Yet the economy continues to improve....................
>
All it's done is stall, sputter, and stumble
Your moronic pronouncements notwithstanding