Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 05-03-2014, 12:08 PM
 
Location: Texas
14,975 posts, read 16,453,455 times
Reputation: 4586

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by ChuteTheMall View Post
The Democrats took majorities in both the House and the Senate following the 2006 election, and Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid soon thereafter became Speaker of the House and Senate Majority leader, respectively.
Obama was elected in 2008, took office in 2009, while the Democrats still held both houses of Congress
In 2010, the GOP won the majority in the House, effective in 2011.

Those are undeniable facts, Jason.
Before you call someone a liar over the Internet, check your facts.
Check you gut before you ever dare to attempt such foolishness in person.
Jason didn't say any of this was not the case.

You said supermajorities, which would imply a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 05-03-2014, 12:11 PM
 
Location: Ohio
24,621 posts, read 19,152,432 times
Reputation: 21738
Quote:
Originally Posted by afoigrokerkok View Post
Jobless Claims May 1 - Business Insider

They have risen for two weeks in a row now. The number of claims reported last week was 24,000 more than the consensus forecast.
I don't pay much attention to jobless claims.

They fluctuate wildly for any number of reasons.

What you really want to see is the BLS Mass Lay-Offs.

BLS 2013 Sequestration Information


On March 1, 2013, President Obama ordered into effect the across-the-board spending cuts (commonly referred to as sequestration) required by the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act, as amended. Under the order, the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) must cut its current budget by more than $30 million, 5 percent of the current 2013 appropriation, by September 30, 2013. In order to achieve these savings and protect core programs, the BLS is taking the steps listed below:
  1. Eliminate the Measuring Green Jobs products.
    The BLS produces data on employment by industry and occupation for businesses that produce green goods and services. The BLS also conducts special employer surveys to provide data on the occupations and wages of jobs related to green technologies and practices, as well as develops and disseminates career information related to green jobs.
  2. Eliminate the Mass Layoff Statistics program.
    The Mass Layoff Statistics program provides information that identifies, describes, and tracks the effects of major job cutbacks in the economy.
  3. Eliminate the International Labor Comparisons program.
    The International Labor Comparisons (ILC) program adjusts foreign data to a common framework of concepts, definitions, and classifications to facilitate data comparisons between the United States and other countries. ILC data are used to assess United States economic performance relative to other countries, as well as to evaluate the competitive position of the United States in international markets.
  4. Freeze hiring and curtail spending.
    The quality and quantity of some BLS data likely will be diminished, as fewer resources are available to collect and review data or to perform data analysis. This may result in lower response rates, fewer published estimates, and a loss of detail in some data series. The reduced funding level also may result in a decline in customer service, as fewer Federal and State staff will be accessible to respond to data inquiries from the public, other Federal government agencies, and Congress.
BLS 2013 Sequestration Information

Oooops...


Obama Solves Mass-Layoff Problem by Laying Off Mass-Layoff Statistics Guys at BLS


John Ransom | Jun 22, 2013


Obama Solves Mass-Layoff Problem by Laying Off Mass-Layoff Statistics Guys at BLS - John Ransom - Townhall Finance Conservative Columnists and Financial Commentary - Page full

Logically, then, the next step to hide a failing economy would be to change the way you calculate GDP so that it is over-inflated.....

Getting Creative With the G.D.P

This week, the bureau is doing something about it. It plans to give a greater economic weighting to the creation of many types of intellectual property — from books to movies to music to biotech drugs. The economy won’t change overnight, but the numbers will. Going all the way back to 1929, the G.D.P. will look bigger.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/28/yo...-gdp.html?_r=0

[emphasis mine]

Uh....ooops....

That's from the New York Times.....just so the Liberal hack pukes don't go into a tizzy.

What you don't know will kill you....

Mircea
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-03-2014, 12:15 PM
 
Location: Texas
14,975 posts, read 16,453,455 times
Reputation: 4586
The recent increase in jobless claims is a bad omen for the May report. The data is derived from info taken during a "survey week" each month, which is the week of the 12th.

Enjoy this while it lasts.

BTW - 288K is a good number, as are the upward revisions for previous months. But 288K isn't nearly enough to cause the UE rate to fall so substantially (though there are two separate surveys for new jobs and UE). Interestingly, this report showed that labor force participation fell by more than 800,000. Still celebrating?

Last edited by afoigrokerkok; 05-03-2014 at 12:33 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-03-2014, 12:19 PM
 
32,019 posts, read 36,763,165 times
Reputation: 13290
Default Unemployment is actually going down

Quote:
Originally Posted by afoigrokerkok View Post
Jobless Claims May 1 - Business Insider

They have risen for two weeks in a row now. The number of claims reported last week was 24,000 more than the consensus forecast.
Unemployment is actually going down.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-03-2014, 12:35 PM
 
Location: Texas
14,975 posts, read 16,453,455 times
Reputation: 4586
Quote:
Originally Posted by arjay57 View Post
Unemployment is actually going down.
Yippee! The unemployment rate is going down! Whoopie!

O-BAM-A! O-BAM-A!

I guess it doesn't matter if 2 million people a month start dropping out of the labor force.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-03-2014, 02:27 PM
 
Location: SE Arizona - FINALLY! :D
20,460 posts, read 26,319,675 times
Reputation: 7627
Quote:
Originally Posted by BentBow View Post
The USA has been averaging 1.5 million first time filers a month for the past 5 years.
Then they boast about creating 116,000 jobs a month.


Now you know as well as I if they were replacing the 1.5 million + the 116,000 they would be boasting a job creation of 1.6 million a month not 116,000
They don't NEED to "boast" that.
Intelligent and educated people ALREADY understand what those numbers mean.
It's just the willfully stupid and uneducated people who don't.

There has NEVER EVER been a year in at least the last half-century where the monthly jobs total has surpassed the yearly first time filers total - EVER, not under Obama, not under Reagan, not under ANYONE. The only time when it MIGHT of happened is under FDR during WWII - when huge numbers of mean were serving in the military and factories were busing cranking out war goods.

Anyone with any common sense whatsoever should know that that fact alone undermines your entire premise.

This has been explained to you many, many, many times - so clearly you just don't WANT to understand.
There is NO excuse for deliberate ignorance - NONE.

Reagan rarely got the first-time filers under 300,000/week - and didn't manage it AT ALL until his last 18 months - and even then he NEVER got it below 280,000/week. Meanwhile, his monthly jobs numbers were typically well under 300,000/month - so apparently there was no net job gain under Reagan - with his average month "losing" (according your your silly calculation process) around 700,000 jobs nearly month.


http://www.tradingeconomics.com/unit...jobless-claims

http://www.tradingeconomics.com/unit...-farm-payrolls

Ken

Last edited by LordBalfor; 05-03-2014 at 02:42 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 09:08 PM.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top