Economic Good News.....288,000 jobs added in April

[Sallow]

why are left-wing nutjobs never cynical when they need to be?


800,000 people left the job market
can left-wing nutjobs do simple math?

Where did they go?

Did they move to Israel to be with Jesus when he comes back?

 

[Geaux4it]

why are left-wing nutjobs never cynical when they need to be?


800,000 people left the job market
can left-wing nutjobs do simple math?

Where did they go?

Did they move to Israel to be with Jesus when he comes back?

Likely standing in line waiting in some kind of handout. Where Obama succeeds quite well thank you is in motivating workers to become unmotivated.

-Geaux

 

[J.E.D]

Only idiot progressives see this as good news

tapatalk post

Because private sector job growth is a bad thing to the right?

Since when.

Oh yeah..since a Democrat occupies the White House.

funny how the pattern is - democrats have control of congress, job losses occur

republicans regain control and can prevent poor democratic legislation, jobs increase

remember, it isn't the president who makes the legislation

Republicans control Congress?......

 

[francoHFW]

The problem, everyone in the WORLD but Foxbots/Pub dupes know, is the phoney crises, no jobs bill, "no compromise, un-American TP GOP"-TIME

 

[g5000]

why are left-wing nutjobs never cynical when they need to be?


800,000 people left the job market
can left-wing nutjobs do simple math?

Read:

The U.S. labor-force participation rate sank to 62.8% in April from 63.2% in March to match a 35-year low, the government reported Friday. Some 806,000 people dropped out of the labor force, according to Labor Department figures. The commissioner of the Bureau of Labor Statistics, Erica Groshen, said: "Our analysis of the household survey suggests the labor force decline was mostly due to fewer people entering the labor force than usual, rather than more people exiting the labor force."

The number is mostly due to less people entering, not people dropping out.

 

[Listening]

All else aside....if this is an increase of 288,000 jobs.

THAT IS GOOD NEWS.

If people want to credit Obama....we can argue that.

BUT IT IS STILL GOOD NEWS.

And the fact that a million people left the work force? The fact that disability is at record rates? The fact that fewer people are working today than when Bush was president? That GDP growth is flat?
You have one piece of possibly manufactured good news against a backdrop that shows the economic recovery is the worst on record.

I said nothing about those other numbers.

I am certainly no fan of Obummer.

But 288,000 new jobs is good news. It does not mean Obama sucks any less.

 

[The Rabbi]

Because private sector job growth is a bad thing to the right?

Since when.

Oh yeah..since a Democrat occupies the White House.

funny how the pattern is - democrats have control of congress, job losses occur

republicans regain control and can prevent poor democratic legislation, jobs increase

remember, it isn't the president who makes the legislation

Republicans control Congress?......

Yes. That's why Obama's programs are failing. Republicans controlling Congress are making sure of it. Don't you read posts here?

 

[thanatos144]

Is that the little prayer you say every night?

"Please lord, revise the numbers downward. Please. A men." gofortit

it was sarcasm based on what actually happens in this administration.

You don't think that the administration should give the most accurate information they have available? Even if it is "revised". Why not? Americans don't deserve accurate info?

The administration doesn't know how to give truthful accurate information,.... They always lie for [political gain at least here people didn't die.

 

[rightwinger]

funny how the pattern is - democrats have control of congress, job losses occur

republicans regain control and can prevent poor democratic legislation, jobs increase

remember, it isn't the president who makes the legislation

Republicans control Congress?......

Yes. That's why Obama's programs are failing. Republicans controlling Congress are making sure of it. Don't you read posts here?

You brag about Republicans gridlocking Congress as control?

 

[Geaux4it]

Republicans control Congress?......

Yes. That's why Obama's programs are failing. Republicans controlling Congress are making sure of it. Don't you read posts here?

You brag about Republicans gridlocking Congress as control?

While I'm no pube, I am however very happy that congress has impeded the Obama destruction tour

Yes, under Obama, it could be worse

-Geaux

 

[rightwinger]

Yes. That's why Obama's programs are failing. Republicans controlling Congress are making sure of it. Don't you read posts here?

You brag about Republicans gridlocking Congress as control?

While I'm no pube, I am however very happy that congress has impeded the Obama destruction tour

Yes, under Obama, it could be worse

-Geaux

Great strategy Republicans

During the worst economic downturn in 75 years Republicans decide to tie the hands of Congress

"Obama must fail"

 

[The Rabbi]

You brag about Republicans gridlocking Congress as control?

While I'm no pube, I am however very happy that congress has impeded the Obama destruction tour

Yes, under Obama, it could be worse

-Geaux

Great strategy Republicans

During the worst economic downturn in 75 years Republicans decide to tie the hands of Congress

"Obama must fail"

I recall the Democrats cheering for Bush to succeed. Oh wait.
Obama had plenty of opportunity to get legislation passed,and did. Now we see the results of those policies. They suck.

 

[rightwinger]

While I'm no pube, I am however very happy that congress has impeded the Obama destruction tour

Yes, under Obama, it could be worse

-Geaux

Great strategy Republicans

During the worst economic downturn in 75 years Republicans decide to tie the hands of Congress

"Obama must fail"

I recall the Democrats cheering for Bush to succeed. Oh wait.
Obama had plenty of opportunity to get legislation passed,and did. Now we see the results of those policies. They suck.

Actually, Democrats did cheer for Bush to succeed

He had 80% approval after 9-11 and Democrats gave him anything he said he needed to fight terrorism

 

[The Rabbi]

Great strategy Republicans

During the worst economic downturn in 75 years Republicans decide to tie the hands of Congress

"Obama must fail"

I recall the Democrats cheering for Bush to succeed. Oh wait.
Obama had plenty of opportunity to get legislation passed,and did. Now we see the results of those policies. They suck.

Actually, Democrats did cheer for Bush to succeed

He had 80% approval after 9-11 and Democrats gave him anything he said he needed to fight terrorism

And after the war in Iraq became unpopular because it couldn't be won before the commercial break? Yeah, that didnt go so well.
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UJm62zcQAhs]Harry Reid - The War Is Lost - YouTube[/ame]

 

[rightwinger]

I recall the Democrats cheering for Bush to succeed. Oh wait.
Obama had plenty of opportunity to get legislation passed,and did. Now we see the results of those policies. They suck.

Actually, Democrats did cheer for Bush to succeed

He had 80% approval after 9-11 and Democrats gave him anything he said he needed to fight terrorism

And after the war in Iraq became unpopular because it couldn't be won before the commercial break? Yeah, that didnt go so well.
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UJm62zcQAhs]Harry Reid - The War Is Lost - YouTube[/ame]

What Reid said was that if we continued on our current track the war was lost

He was right

http://mediamatters.org/research/2007/04/20/media-outlets-reported-that-reid-said-iraq-war/138667

Media outlets reported that Reid said Iraq war "is lost," but failed to note his further comments

 

[Toro]

You know the economy is improving when the Right tries to take credit for it.

It isn't improving.....We had a almost zero GDP growth. That isn't a good thing.

It likely will be revised lower to a negative number

-Geaux

It almost certainly will not be.

Please site any other example when nonfarm payrolls had a +250k print and were revised to negative.

Thanks

 

[edthecynic]

I recall the Democrats cheering for Bush to succeed. Oh wait.
Obama had plenty of opportunity to get legislation passed,and did. Now we see the results of those policies. They suck.

Actually, Democrats did cheer for Bush to succeed

He had 80% approval after 9-11 and Democrats gave him anything he said he needed to fight terrorism

And after the war in Iraq became unpopular because it couldn't be won before the commercial break? Yeah, that didnt go so well.
[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UJm62zcQAhs"]Harry Reid - The War Is Lost - YouTube[/ame]

Of course when a Right-winger, like Lt. Col. Ralph Peters, says the exact same thing, he is a heroic patriot!

http://www.usmessageboard.com/polit...eters-barack-obama-is-an-outright-coward.html

On November 2, 2006, he wrote in USA Today: "Iraq is failing. No honest observer can conclude otherwise. Even six months ago, there was hope. Now the chances for a democratic, unified Iraq are dwindling fast (...) Iraq could have turned out differently. It didn't. And we must be honest about it. We owe that much to our troops. They don't face the mere forfeiture of a few congressional seats but the loss of their lives. Our military is now being employed for political purposes. It's unworthy of our nation

 

[Geaux4it]

It isn't improving.....We had a almost zero GDP growth. That isn't a good thing.

It likely will be revised lower to a negative number

-Geaux

It almost certainly will not be.

Please site any other example when nonfarm payrolls had a +250k print and were revised to negative.

Thanks

As requested

-Geaux

=======================================================

Why the first-quarter GDP may get even uglier

Yesterday we learned that the US. economy came to a standstill during the first quarter. Now some analysts are saying it actually shrank.

The government’s official reading of domestic growth clocked in at a puny annual rate of 0.1 percent, falling short of even the most modest expectations. That number is a preliminary estimate based on incomplete data and will be revised twice more.

After the release, many economists wrote off the number as a fluke and predicted the data would be adjusted upward.

That was yesterday. Today the Census Bureau released new data on construction spending that were weaker than not only the consensus forecast but also the government’s estimates in its calculations of the nation’s gross domestic product. Ben Herzon of Macroeconomic Advisers said core construction -- which doesn’t include residential improvements and federal spending -- was soft in March, while the numbers for the first two months of the year were revised lower.

The rest of the article is here:

Why the first-quarter GDP may get even uglier

 

[Toro]

It likely will be revised lower to a negative number

-Geaux

It almost certainly will not be.

Please site any other example when nonfarm payrolls had a +250k print and were revised to negative.

Thanks

As requested

-Geaux

=======================================================

Why the first-quarter GDP may get even uglier

Yesterday we learned that the US. economy came to a standstill during the first quarter. Now some analysts are saying it actually shrank.

The government’s official reading of domestic growth clocked in at a puny annual rate of 0.1 percent, falling short of even the most modest expectations. That number is a preliminary estimate based on incomplete data and will be revised twice more.

After the release, many economists wrote off the number as a fluke and predicted the data would be adjusted upward.

That was yesterday. Today the Census Bureau released new data on construction spending that were weaker than not only the consensus forecast but also the government’s estimates in its calculations of the nation’s gross domestic product. Ben Herzon of Macroeconomic Advisers said core construction -- which doesn’t include residential improvements and federal spending -- was soft in March, while the numbers for the first two months of the year were revised lower.

The rest of the article is here:

Why the first-quarter GDP may get even uglier

That's not what I requested. I asked for a single example where what you claim will happen has happened in the past. It may have, I just don't know.

 

[pinqy]

It almost certainly will not be.

Please site any other example when nonfarm payrolls had a +250k print and were revised to negative.

Thanks

As requested

-Geaux

=======================================================

Why the first-quarter GDP may get even uglier

Yesterday we learned that the US. economy came to a standstill during the first quarter. Now some analysts are saying it actually shrank.

The government’s official reading of domestic growth clocked in at a puny annual rate of 0.1 percent, falling short of even the most modest expectations. That number is a preliminary estimate based on incomplete data and will be revised twice more.

After the release, many economists wrote off the number as a fluke and predicted the data would be adjusted upward.

That was yesterday. Today the Census Bureau released new data on construction spending that were weaker than not only the consensus forecast but also the government’s estimates in its calculations of the nation’s gross domestic product. Ben Herzon of Macroeconomic Advisers said core construction -- which doesn’t include residential improvements and federal spending -- was soft in March, while the numbers for the first two months of the year were revised lower.

The rest of the article is here:

Why the first-quarter GDP may get even uglier

That's not what I requested. I asked for a single example where what you claim will happen has happened in the past. It may have, I just don't know.

To be fair, Toro, he was talking about GDP change being revised to negative. You switched it to jobs