Initial jobless claims increase ""unexpectedly""

[RIJIMMY]

go to the Wrentham outlets this Saturday at 11am. You wont get a parking space . Then go home and google "1930s depression" and compare
You have no idea how incredibly good we have it despite Obama telling how catastrophic things are and how we are experienceing the worst recession since the depression. this is all an organized sham to redistribute wealth, demonize capilatism and slam through legislation that benefits the democrats base and puts the non tax paying majority in permanent control of the votes making it impossible for hard working people to control their tax dollars. Amen.

[PaulS]

Originally Posted by RIJIMMY

go to the Wrentham outlets this Saturday at 11am. You wont get a parking space . Then go home and google "1930s depression" and compare
You have no idea how incredibly good we have it despite Obama telling how catastrophic things are and how we are experienceing the worst recession since the depression. this is all an organized sham to redistribute wealth, demonize capilatism and slam through legislation that benefits the democrats base and puts the non tax paying majority in permanent control of the votes making it impossible for hard working people to control their tax dollars. Amen.

At least I got my laugh for the day (redistribue wealth demonize capitalism ect. ). 12 months ago, our financial system was on the edge of ruin and we were in the worse economic situation since the great depression - certainly not as bad. However, how bad would it have been if the safety net put in place over the last 50 years not been there?

[PaulS]

Just stole this graph

[scottw]

Originally Posted by PaulS

Just stole this graph

the graph states "job lost" on the Bush Side then / "job growth" on the Obama side....the graph is for "job loss" and during the down turn the loss was greatest and eventually you start to run out of jobs to lose...there is no "job growth" represented by the graph, only fewer jobs lost per month(with the exception of 1 month) on the Obama side...this is very disingenuous...the jobs lost per month on the JoBama side are in addition to the jobs lost previously, not an increase in the number of jobs "job growth"...but a glance at the graph would make you think (if you are the Hopey Change type)there's an increase in employment "job growth" and things are on the upswing...we're just shedding jobs at a slower rate....

14. That's how many "rallies" we had in the Great Depression. Real unemployment 21.7%. Federal government spent 334 billion in the first 2 months of 2010 (an all time record), it took in 105 billion. Foreclosures hit all time record in Feb. Moody's warns of the loss of AAA credit rating over debt. Greece teetering on collapse, followed by almost the entire western world.

If you think this is over just wait and see.

have you checked oil prices lately?

[PaulS]

Originally Posted by scottw

the graph states "job lost" on the Bush Side then / "job growth" on the Obama side. - this is very disingenuous...

Couldn't totally follow what you are saying but if the left side of the graph is measuring a different stat that the right side and using the job loss/job growth heading to represent the right and left side, I totally agree that the it is disingenous.

The fact remains that the economy was in a free fall and has started to stablize. Are we out of the woods yet, of course not.

I work in the insurance industry and the insurance companies were hurt by their insured companies laying off people. So if you insured company x in 2009 and it had 5,000 ees in 1/09, by 12/09 they had 4,500 ees. Most insurers are now forecasting enrollment will be flat in 2010 b/c their insureds have stopped laying people off and have slightly starting hiring people back.

[JohnnyD]

Originally Posted by scottw

the graph states "job lost" on the Bush Side then / "job growth" on the Obama side...

The graph states "job lost" below the 0 line and "job growth" above the 0 line. Or are you made at how the graph is titled?

Bush had 800,000 jobs lost in his last month and some of you people are bitching over a report of under 100,000 lost?? So when there was positive job growth, that wasn't to Obama's credit, but the job losses are?

You can't have your cake and eat it too. At least be consistent. If you're going to relate the jobs situation directly to the Dems policies, then that relation is made to all conditions.

If you don't like it, I know someone looking for a roommate in Costa Rica.

[spence]

Originally Posted by JohnnyD

The graph states "job lost" below the 0 line and "job growth" above the 0 line. Or are you made at how the graph is titled?

He's just upset that Obama is on the right...and that he lacks the power to reverse the direction of time.

-spence

[buckman]

Originally Posted by JohnnyD

The graph states "job lost" below the 0 line and "job growth" above the 0 line. Or are you made at how the graph is titled?

Bush had 800,000 jobs lost in his last month and some of you people are bitching over a report of under 100,000 lost?? So when there was positive job growth, that wasn't to Obama's credit, but the job losses are?

You can't have your cake and eat it too. At least be consistent. If you're going to relate the jobs situation directly to the Dems policies, then that relation is made to all conditions.

If you don't like it, I know someone looking for a roommate in Costa Rica.

The jobs created under Obama are goverment jobs. They cost us all more and infringe on our freedoms at worse. Other jobs created through the "stimulas" bill are only funded for a couple of years

I also credit the predicted election of Obama for Bush's last few months of job losses.

[scottw]

Originally Posted by JohnnyD

The graph states "job lost" below the 0 line and "job growth" above the 0 line.no it doesn't , it says "jobs lost vertically and Job Loss/Job Growth above horizontally, are you looking at some other graph?Or are you made at how the graph is titled? both

Bush had 800,000 jobs lost in his last month and some of you people are bitching over a report of under 100,000 lost?? yes, especially if it's your job!!!! So when there was positive job growthit's not positive job growth, it's fewer jobs lost...there's a difference, that wasn't to Obama's credit, but the job losses are? just think of all the jobs he must have saved!!!!

You can't have your cake and eat it too. At least be consistent. you first If you're going to relate the jobs situation directly to the Dems policies, then that relation is made to all conditions.

If you don't like it, I know someone looking for a roommate in Costa Rica.

why don't the communists just move to one of the many communist utopias around the world that would be more than happy to provide oppression instead of ruining this fine country?

[spence]

Originally Posted by scottw

why don't the communists just move to one of the many communist utopias around the world that would be more than happy to provide oppression instead of ruining this fine country?

Why the Obama economics plan is working - BusinessWeek.com- msnbc.com

-spence

[JohnnyD]

Originally Posted by scottw

no it doesn't , it says "jobs lost vertically and Job Loss/Job Growth above horizontally, are you looking at some other graph?

Do you know how to read a graph? That big text at the top in bold, is called the Title. The left side starting at top goes from +100,000 down to 0 then far down into the negatives where jobs lost peaked close to -800,000 during Bush's last month.

There were only two months on that graph that had actual job growth. Dec -07 under Bush and Nov-09 under Obama.

If the words were reversed and said Job Growth / Job Loss (or was removed entirely) no meaning of the graph would change.

Maybe this'll help:

[scottw]

Originally Posted by PaulS

At least I got my laugh for the day (redistribue wealth demonize capitalism ect. ). 12 months ago, our financial system was on the edge of ruin and we were in the worse economic situation since the great depression - certainly not as bad. However, how bad would it have been if the safety net put in place over the last 50 years not been there?

keep bouncing up and down on that safety net with a big grin... because your great grandchildren will be paying outrageous taxes to pay for the safety nets that you cheer today........you do know that all of the "safety nets" put in place are operating only due to deficit spending....right???? as in....there's no money for them???? Social Security is paying out more than it is taking in this year....wait....where's all the money they've collected since early last century to pay these retirees back their contributions......and all of the unfunded obligations that are currently bankrupting us at the state and federal level? what will you do when the "safety net" checks stop coming ?????

[PaulS]

Originally Posted by scottw

keep bouncing up and down on that safety net with a big grin... because your great grandchildren will be paying outrageous taxes to pay for the safety nets that you cheer today.. what will you do when the "safety net" checks stop coming ?????

Actually, it won't effect me at all. I know that I pay more in taxes than the vast, vast majority of the public.

My cheering of the safety net has to do with my compassion for people less fortunate than myself.

[scottw]

Originally Posted by PaulS

Actually, it won't effect me at all. I know that I pay more in taxes than the vast, vast majority of the public.

My cheering of the safety net has to do with my compassion for people less fortunate than myself.

I guess if you define your compassion as your willingness to blindly pay arbitrary taxes to support and perpetuate failed programs that keep others mired in poverty and generationally begging at the government trough, it explains a lot....

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by PaulS

Actually, it won't effect me at all. I know that I pay more in taxes than the vast, vast majority of the public.

My cheering of the safety net has to do with my compassion for people less fortunate than myself.

The safety net is not equated to your compassion. It is forced on everyone including those that have desire to be part of it. Your compassionate donation is indistinguishable from that forced from others who hate it. Your compassion is truly dinguished, in voluntary donations outside of the tax system.

[spence]

Originally Posted by detbuch

The safety net is not equated to your compassion. It is forced on everyone including those that have desire to be part of it. Your compassionate donation is indistinguishable from that forced from others who hate it. Your compassion is truly dinguished, in voluntary donations outside of the tax system.

Are there better options to keep the beggars off ones lawn?

-spence

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by spence

Are there better options to keep the beggars off ones lawn?

-spence

Are you compassionate, or do you just want to keep the beggars off your lawn? If you're compassionate, offer the beggars a sandwich. If your too offended by their presence, have the government force the rest of us to feed them and get them off your lawn.

[justplugit]

Originally Posted by spence

Are there better options to keep the beggars off ones lawn?

-spence

Yup. While there will always be people who are mentaly ill and need medical attention, anyone can get involved with volunteering helping with the many homeless programs and donating their time to mentoring.

"Give a man a fish, he'll eat for a day, teach a man to fish he will eat for a life time."

[RIJIMMY]

Originally Posted by PaulS

At least I got my laugh for the day (redistribue wealth demonize capitalism ect. ). 12 months ago, our financial system was on the edge of ruin and we were in the worse economic situation since the great depression - certainly not as bad. However, how bad would it have been if the safety net put in place over the last 50 years not been there?

12 months ago, you still couldnt get a parking spot at the outlet mall.
You should be laughing at how gullible you, and most Americans are.

The debt created by Obama is far more detrimental to this country than the recent economic crisis.

[PaulS]

Originally Posted by RIJIMMY

12 months ago, you still couldnt get a parking spot at the outlet mall.
You should be laughing at how gullible you, and most Americans are.

The debt created by Obama is far more detrimental to this country than the recent economic crisis.

Yup, your the smart one and Bush did not quickly take a surplus and turn it into a deficit

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by PaulS

Yup, your the smart one and Bush did not quickly take a surplus and turn it into a deficit

The "surplus" was already reduced by half during the last half of Clinton's term due to the burst of the dot.com bubble. The decline merely continued during the first half of Bush's first term before the economy rebounded and roared again until the housing "bubble" (which expanded due to pre-Bush policies) exploded.