Obamagas to drop below $2 a gallon nationwide

[rightwinger]

You ignored this one too. How come Americans households are making less money with this alleged low unemployment rate than they were in 2009 when the unemployment rate was much higher? Thank you President Obama....screw us some more, please!

Household wealth is up $30 Trillion since Obama took office

Looks like we need some redistribution of wealth .....I don't see many Republicans running on the issue

Who's household? Anyone here who is seeing big gains in their wealth since 2009, raise your hands.

Only Conservatives lost money under Obama...they did it out of spite

Just so they could bitch and moan about him.

How else can they claim the economy bombed?

 

[Faun]

With each post you reveal yourself as yet another moron who takes this thread seriously
Sucker born every minute

Who is next?

"Seriously" for this thread was never a consideration. I mean, really now. To assert Obama is responsible for lower gas prices would be as ridiculous as asserting Hitler is responsible for world peace. The two are simply not interchangeable, nor conceivable, nor amusing (at least to anyone above mild-retardation). Perhaps you can give it another whirl on your next attempt at being witty? Just food for thought. If you're capable of an independent thought, vs. cutting and pasting cartoons, etc. Thanks!

Of course Obama is responsible for the price of Obamagas...that is what Presidents do

Clinton gave us 99 cent gas
Bush gave us $4 a gallon gas

Obama gives us $1.83 Obamagas

Nixon gave us 32-cent gas. You sticking with stupidity?

Nixon is dead and I paid 28 cents

Thanks. On a different note, as a new guy here, I am going to investigate my options as a registered user and look into an ignore feature in my preferences to block out idiots. If you don't hear from me again, you'll know I was successful in finding that option. Merry Christmas.

Just remember, the posters you put on ignore can still see your posts ... so while you won't be able to see it, they'll still be making fun of what you write.

 

[MarcATL]

What does that have to do with $1.87 Obamagas?

Just answering your question...I already addressed the price of gas earlier...you're the one posting all the rosy rigged numbers that don't equate to the reality of life in America. Wait, don't tell me, you aren't in America, you're inside the Oz-like land of the Beltway, right?

Your attempts to deflect attention away from $1.87 Obamagas are noted

The deflection is yours...I've already stated how my wallet loves it, but other folks may not due to job/business loss as a result of the low price of oil....but like most partisan hacks, you choose to ignore it.

So you're arguing FOR higher gas prices?

Sent from my SM-N910T using Tapatalk

No, I am simply pointing out that silver linings can contain dark clouds.

Which is what exactly? Spell out the dark cloud you're referring to.

Sent from my SM-N910T using Tapatalk

 

[Dan Daly]

Just answering your question...I already addressed the price of gas earlier...you're the one posting all the rosy rigged numbers that don't equate to the reality of life in America. Wait, don't tell me, you aren't in America, you're inside the Oz-like land of the Beltway, right?

Your attempts to deflect attention away from $1.87 Obamagas are noted

The deflection is yours...I've already stated how my wallet loves it, but other folks may not due to job/business loss as a result of the low price of oil....but like most partisan hacks, you choose to ignore it.

So you're arguing FOR higher gas prices?

Sent from my SM-N910T using Tapatalk

No, I am simply pointing out that silver linings can contain dark clouds.

Which is what exactly? Spell out the dark cloud you're referring to.

Sent from my SM-N910T using Tapatalk

Are you really this dense...or are you just having a hard time following because you are on some tiny device?

Low price of gas....good for me...silver lining. Low price of oil, caused job loss in domestic oil production industry...dark cloud.

 

[MarcATL]

Your attempts to deflect attention away from $1.87 Obamagas are noted

The deflection is yours...I've already stated how my wallet loves it, but other folks may not due to job/business loss as a result of the low price of oil....but like most partisan hacks, you choose to ignore it.

So you're arguing FOR higher gas prices?

Sent from my SM-N910T using Tapatalk

No, I am simply pointing out that silver linings can contain dark clouds.

Which is what exactly? Spell out the dark cloud you're referring to.

Sent from my SM-N910T using Tapatalk

Are you really this dense...or are you just having a hard time following because you are on some tiny device?

Low price of gas....good for me...silver lining. Low price of oil, caused job loss in domestic oil production industry...dark cloud.

How many middle class workers has your dark cloud affected negatively? Thanks for answering BTW.

Sent from my SM-N910T using Tapatalk

 

[Dan Daly]

The deflection is yours...I've already stated how my wallet loves it, but other folks may not due to job/business loss as a result of the low price of oil....but like most partisan hacks, you choose to ignore it.

So you're arguing FOR higher gas prices?

Sent from my SM-N910T using Tapatalk

No, I am simply pointing out that silver linings can contain dark clouds.

Which is what exactly? Spell out the dark cloud you're referring to.

Sent from my SM-N910T using Tapatalk

Are you really this dense...or are you just having a hard time following because you are on some tiny device?

Low price of gas....good for me...silver lining. Low price of oil, caused job loss in domestic oil production industry...dark cloud.

How many middle class workers has your dark cloud affected negatively? Thanks for answering BTW.

Sent from my SM-N910T using Tapatalk

Dunno, since I am not into categorizing people. What "class" would you consider all those folks who work in the oil production industry...mainly the rough necks and others doing the grunt work who are the first to get laid off? How about the folks who work in all the supporting industries? I think I posted a graph showing the decline in rig count...over the last year or so...what do you suppose all the folks who worked on or worked for companies supporting those rigs are doing right now?

Edit: here's the url to the image with the rig count graph -
http://static4.businessinsider.com/image/558d8657ecad047748daa49f-1200-900/oil-rig-chart-6-26-15.png

 

[Faun]

While I simply loved buying gas for a 1.71 yesterday, I also know how many people are now out of work because of the low prices...both from the industry and the industries that supply them. More people on unemployment and welfare and more kids having to do without, but hey, at least they don't have to spend as much on gas, right?

You sound like a conservative. Here, in reality...

Lowest number of Americans receiving unemployment benefits in 14 years

... and that was a year ago when the unemployment rate was 5.7%.

There were 18 milion people out of work who wanted a job when Bush left office. Today, with a civilian noninstitutional population growth of 17 million, there are 14 million out of work but wanting a job.

You people who are either blinded by your partisan blinders and attempt to categorize everyone else through them amuse me.

Fact: The lower price of oil has decreased the rig-count and the number of shale-oil producers in the US because at these prices, they cannot make a profit or service their debt (some of these businesses run on nothing but rolling over debt). This has resulted in layoffs and job loss in the industry. It's not rocket science.

Fact: When an industry like oil/gas takes a hit, all those who provide goods and services to those industries also take a hit. Duh, again, not rocket scienct.

Fact: Those who loose their employment resulting from these price levels can either try to wait it out using savings and/or unemployment benefits, or try finding employment in other industries. Some will also start taking food-stamps and other assistance like WIC

Fact: The vast majority of the jobs "created" in this "recovery" have been part-time or menial service industry jobs. (You want fries with that, dude?) The jobs being lost were "boom" jobs that were relatively well-paying.

What is unfactual or politically partisan about those above facts?

Idiocrats, meet em everywhere.

Say what?? Since the beginning of 2010 when the job recovery began, we've gained over 11 million jobs. Part time Jobs decreased over that same period by 300,000 jobs, so where the fuck do you come up with saying "the vast majority" of those jobs were "part time??"

But I did get a good laugh at you blindly posting nonsensical partisan talking points right after accusing others of being blinded by partisanship, so thanks for that.

And I take it by you not responding to what I posted, your plan is to just ignore how I showed you unemployment benefits were at a 14 year low a year ago after you falsely claimed there are "more people on unemployment?"

Those numbers are total bulltwinkle, and if you don't know it, you're just as dumb as the other ignorant morons who think with their partisan panties rather than with their brains.

whoopsie...try again, tool.

Again, no answer. Why do you keep running away from your rightwing talking points every time I squash them?

Here are more numbers from the BLS since the start of the job recovery at the start of 2010....

Full-time jobs .... +11,465,000
Part-time jobs .... -294,000

 

[Faun]

So you're arguing FOR higher gas prices?

Sent from my SM-N910T using Tapatalk

No, I am simply pointing out that silver linings can contain dark clouds.

Which is what exactly? Spell out the dark cloud you're referring to.

Sent from my SM-N910T using Tapatalk

Are you really this dense...or are you just having a hard time following because you are on some tiny device?

Low price of gas....good for me...silver lining. Low price of oil, caused job loss in domestic oil production industry...dark cloud.

How many middle class workers has your dark cloud affected negatively? Thanks for answering BTW.

Sent from my SM-N910T using Tapatalk

Dunno, since I am not into categorizing people. What "class" would you consider all those folks who work in the oil production industry...mainly the rough necks and others doing the grunt work who are the first to get laid off? How about the folks who work in all the supporting industries? I think I posted a graph showing the decline in rig count...over the last year or so...what do you suppose all the folks who worked on or worked for companies supporting those rigs are doing right now?

Edit: here's the url to the image with the rig count graph -
http://static4.businessinsider.com/image/558d8657ecad047748daa49f-1200-900/oil-rig-chart-6-26-15.png

Holyfuckingshit!

The same poster who showed a graph in post #2634 of low income consumer confidence now says in post #2646 that he doesn't categorize people.



Seriously?

 

[Dan Daly]

No, I am simply pointing out that silver linings can contain dark clouds.

Which is what exactly? Spell out the dark cloud you're referring to.

Sent from my SM-N910T using Tapatalk

Are you really this dense...or are you just having a hard time following because you are on some tiny device?

Low price of gas....good for me...silver lining. Low price of oil, caused job loss in domestic oil production industry...dark cloud.

How many middle class workers has your dark cloud affected negatively? Thanks for answering BTW.

Sent from my SM-N910T using Tapatalk

Dunno, since I am not into categorizing people. What "class" would you consider all those folks who work in the oil production industry...mainly the rough necks and others doing the grunt work who are the first to get laid off? How about the folks who work in all the supporting industries? I think I posted a graph showing the decline in rig count...over the last year or so...what do you suppose all the folks who worked on or worked for companies supporting those rigs are doing right now?

Edit: here's the url to the image with the rig count graph -
http://static4.businessinsider.com/image/558d8657ecad047748daa49f-1200-900/oil-rig-chart-6-26-15.png

Holyfuckingshit!

The same poster who showed a graph in post #2634 of low income consumer confidence now says in post #2646 that he doesn't categorize people.



Seriously?

Uh I posted a graph, I didn't create the categories. Is this your rebuttal? Seriously? Might as well just wave a white flag, dipstick.

 

[Dan Daly]

While I simply loved buying gas for a 1.71 yesterday, I also know how many people are now out of work because of the low prices...both from the industry and the industries that supply them. More people on unemployment and welfare and more kids having to do without, but hey, at least they don't have to spend as much on gas, right?

You sound like a conservative. Here, in reality...

Lowest number of Americans receiving unemployment benefits in 14 years

... and that was a year ago when the unemployment rate was 5.7%.

There were 18 milion people out of work who wanted a job when Bush left office. Today, with a civilian noninstitutional population growth of 17 million, there are 14 million out of work but wanting a job.

You people who are either blinded by your partisan blinders and attempt to categorize everyone else through them amuse me.

Fact: The lower price of oil has decreased the rig-count and the number of shale-oil producers in the US because at these prices, they cannot make a profit or service their debt (some of these businesses run on nothing but rolling over debt). This has resulted in layoffs and job loss in the industry. It's not rocket science.

Fact: When an industry like oil/gas takes a hit, all those who provide goods and services to those industries also take a hit. Duh, again, not rocket scienct.

Fact: Those who loose their employment resulting from these price levels can either try to wait it out using savings and/or unemployment benefits, or try finding employment in other industries. Some will also start taking food-stamps and other assistance like WIC

Fact: The vast majority of the jobs "created" in this "recovery" have been part-time or menial service industry jobs. (You want fries with that, dude?) The jobs being lost were "boom" jobs that were relatively well-paying.

What is unfactual or politically partisan about those above facts?

Idiocrats, meet em everywhere.

Say what?? Since the beginning of 2010 when the job recovery began, we've gained over 11 million jobs. Part time Jobs decreased over that same period by 300,000 jobs, so where the fuck do you come up with saying "the vast majority" of those jobs were "part time??"

But I did get a good laugh at you blindly posting nonsensical partisan talking points right after accusing others of being blinded by partisanship, so thanks for that.

And I take it by you not responding to what I posted, your plan is to just ignore how I showed you unemployment benefits were at a 14 year low a year ago after you falsely claimed there are "more people on unemployment?"

Those numbers are total bulltwinkle, and if you don't know it, you're just as dumb as the other ignorant morons who think with their partisan panties rather than with their brains.

whoopsie...try again, tool.

Again, no answer. Why do you keep running away from your rightwing talking points every time I squash them?

Here are more numbers from the BLS since the start of the job recovery at the start of 2010....

Full-time jobs .... +11,465,000
Part-time jobs .... -294,000

If you don't see the answer in that graph, I'm sorry, I can't cure stupid. BLS...LOLZ. gonna quote the tooth fairy next?

 

[Faun]

Which is what exactly? Spell out the dark cloud you're referring to.

Sent from my SM-N910T using Tapatalk

Are you really this dense...or are you just having a hard time following because you are on some tiny device?

Low price of gas....good for me...silver lining. Low price of oil, caused job loss in domestic oil production industry...dark cloud.

How many middle class workers has your dark cloud affected negatively? Thanks for answering BTW.

Sent from my SM-N910T using Tapatalk

Dunno, since I am not into categorizing people. What "class" would you consider all those folks who work in the oil production industry...mainly the rough necks and others doing the grunt work who are the first to get laid off? How about the folks who work in all the supporting industries? I think I posted a graph showing the decline in rig count...over the last year or so...what do you suppose all the folks who worked on or worked for companies supporting those rigs are doing right now?

Edit: here's the url to the image with the rig count graph -
http://static4.businessinsider.com/image/558d8657ecad047748daa49f-1200-900/oil-rig-chart-6-26-15.png

Holyfuckingshit!

The same poster who showed a graph in post #2634 of low income consumer confidence now says in post #2646 that he doesn't categorize people.



Seriously?

Uh I posted a graph, I didn't create the categories. Is this your rebuttal? Seriously? Might as well just wave a white flag, dipstick.

Ummm... you posted it here. Are you not responsible for what you post?? Shirking personal responsibility; typical for a conservative.

And that's not a white flag ... it's a hanky. You can use it to cry into...

Consumer Board consumer confidence index (present situation):

January, 2009 ... 29.7
October, 2015 ... 108.1​

 

[MarcATL]

So you're arguing FOR higher gas prices?

Sent from my SM-N910T using Tapatalk

No, I am simply pointing out that silver linings can contain dark clouds.

Which is what exactly? Spell out the dark cloud you're referring to.

Sent from my SM-N910T using Tapatalk

Are you really this dense...or are you just having a hard time following because you are on some tiny device?

Low price of gas....good for me...silver lining. Low price of oil, caused job loss in domestic oil production industry...dark cloud.

How many middle class workers has your dark cloud affected negatively? Thanks for answering BTW.

Sent from my SM-N910T using Tapatalk

Dunno, since I am not into categorizing people. What "class" would you consider all those folks who work in the oil production industry...mainly the rough necks and others doing the grunt work who are the first to get laid off? How about the folks who work in all the supporting industries? I think I posted a graph showing the decline in rig count...over the last year or so...what do you suppose all the folks who worked on or worked for companies supporting those rigs are doing right now?

Edit: here's the url to the image with the rig count graph -
http://static4.businessinsider.com/image/558d8657ecad047748daa49f-1200-900/oil-rig-chart-6-26-15.png

You sure you don't categorize people?

Why would you say a thing like that anyway? Are you a self-proclaimed Independent?
Sent from my SM-N910T using Tapatalk

 

[Faun]

You sound like a conservative. Here, in reality...

Lowest number of Americans receiving unemployment benefits in 14 years

... and that was a year ago when the unemployment rate was 5.7%.

There were 18 milion people out of work who wanted a job when Bush left office. Today, with a civilian noninstitutional population growth of 17 million, there are 14 million out of work but wanting a job.

You people who are either blinded by your partisan blinders and attempt to categorize everyone else through them amuse me.

Fact: The lower price of oil has decreased the rig-count and the number of shale-oil producers in the US because at these prices, they cannot make a profit or service their debt (some of these businesses run on nothing but rolling over debt). This has resulted in layoffs and job loss in the industry. It's not rocket science.

Fact: When an industry like oil/gas takes a hit, all those who provide goods and services to those industries also take a hit. Duh, again, not rocket scienct.

Fact: Those who loose their employment resulting from these price levels can either try to wait it out using savings and/or unemployment benefits, or try finding employment in other industries. Some will also start taking food-stamps and other assistance like WIC

Fact: The vast majority of the jobs "created" in this "recovery" have been part-time or menial service industry jobs. (You want fries with that, dude?) The jobs being lost were "boom" jobs that were relatively well-paying.

What is unfactual or politically partisan about those above facts?

Idiocrats, meet em everywhere.

Say what?? Since the beginning of 2010 when the job recovery began, we've gained over 11 million jobs. Part time Jobs decreased over that same period by 300,000 jobs, so where the fuck do you come up with saying "the vast majority" of those jobs were "part time??"

But I did get a good laugh at you blindly posting nonsensical partisan talking points right after accusing others of being blinded by partisanship, so thanks for that.

And I take it by you not responding to what I posted, your plan is to just ignore how I showed you unemployment benefits were at a 14 year low a year ago after you falsely claimed there are "more people on unemployment?"

Those numbers are total bulltwinkle, and if you don't know it, you're just as dumb as the other ignorant morons who think with their partisan panties rather than with their brains.

whoopsie...try again, tool.

Again, no answer. Why do you keep running away from your rightwing talking points every time I squash them?

Here are more numbers from the BLS since the start of the job recovery at the start of 2010....

Full-time jobs .... +11,465,000
Part-time jobs .... -294,000

If you don't see the answer in that graph, I'm sorry, I can't cure stupid. BLS...LOLZ. gonna quote the tooth fairy next?

What I see is you posting a graph which plays with the figured by using moving averages because the actual figures prove that you lied

You said the vast majority of jobs in the recovery were part time. Of course, that's simply not possible in a job market which produced a decrease of 300,000 part time jobs; while at the same time, increased full time jobs by 11.5 million. You can't deal which the actual figures, so you tried yo hide these numbers by using averages.

 

[Dan Daly]

No, I am simply pointing out that silver linings can contain dark clouds.

Which is what exactly? Spell out the dark cloud you're referring to.

Sent from my SM-N910T using Tapatalk

Are you really this dense...or are you just having a hard time following because you are on some tiny device?

Low price of gas....good for me...silver lining. Low price of oil, caused job loss in domestic oil production industry...dark cloud.

How many middle class workers has your dark cloud affected negatively? Thanks for answering BTW.

Sent from my SM-N910T using Tapatalk

Dunno, since I am not into categorizing people. What "class" would you consider all those folks who work in the oil production industry...mainly the rough necks and others doing the grunt work who are the first to get laid off? How about the folks who work in all the supporting industries? I think I posted a graph showing the decline in rig count...over the last year or so...what do you suppose all the folks who worked on or worked for companies supporting those rigs are doing right now?

Edit: here's the url to the image with the rig count graph -
http://static4.businessinsider.com/image/558d8657ecad047748daa49f-1200-900/oil-rig-chart-6-26-15.png

You sure you don't categorize people?

Why would you say a thing like that anyway? Are you a self-proclaimed Independent?
Sent from my SM-N910T using Tapatalk

No, I don't categorize people...I take them as they are, based on their actions and words. That's not to say that I don't use colorful rhetoric in political venues...when in Rome....

I have to wonder why you avoided asking the questions I asked. Maybe you got stuck on the first sentence and didn't see them? OK, here they are again.

What "class" would you consider all those folks who work in the oil production industry...mainly the rough necks and others doing the grunt work who are the first to get laid off? How about the folks who work in all the supporting industries? I think I posted a graph showing the decline in rig count...over the last year or so...what do you suppose all the folks who worked on or worked for companies supporting those rigs are doing right now?

 

[Dan Daly]

You people who are either blinded by your partisan blinders and attempt to categorize everyone else through them amuse me.

Fact: The lower price of oil has decreased the rig-count and the number of shale-oil producers in the US because at these prices, they cannot make a profit or service their debt (some of these businesses run on nothing but rolling over debt). This has resulted in layoffs and job loss in the industry. It's not rocket science.

Fact: When an industry like oil/gas takes a hit, all those who provide goods and services to those industries also take a hit. Duh, again, not rocket scienct.

Fact: Those who loose their employment resulting from these price levels can either try to wait it out using savings and/or unemployment benefits, or try finding employment in other industries. Some will also start taking food-stamps and other assistance like WIC

Fact: The vast majority of the jobs "created" in this "recovery" have been part-time or menial service industry jobs. (You want fries with that, dude?) The jobs being lost were "boom" jobs that were relatively well-paying.

What is unfactual or politically partisan about those above facts?

Idiocrats, meet em everywhere.

Say what?? Since the beginning of 2010 when the job recovery began, we've gained over 11 million jobs. Part time Jobs decreased over that same period by 300,000 jobs, so where the fuck do you come up with saying "the vast majority" of those jobs were "part time??"

But I did get a good laugh at you blindly posting nonsensical partisan talking points right after accusing others of being blinded by partisanship, so thanks for that.

And I take it by you not responding to what I posted, your plan is to just ignore how I showed you unemployment benefits were at a 14 year low a year ago after you falsely claimed there are "more people on unemployment?"

Those numbers are total bulltwinkle, and if you don't know it, you're just as dumb as the other ignorant morons who think with their partisan panties rather than with their brains.

whoopsie...try again, tool.

Again, no answer. Why do you keep running away from your rightwing talking points every time I squash them?

Here are more numbers from the BLS since the start of the job recovery at the start of 2010....

Full-time jobs .... +11,465,000
Part-time jobs .... -294,000

If you don't see the answer in that graph, I'm sorry, I can't cure stupid. BLS...LOLZ. gonna quote the tooth fairy next?

What I see is you posting a graph which plays with the figured by using moving averages because the actual figures prove that you lied

You said the vast majority of jobs in the recovery were part time. Of course, that's simply not possible in a job market which produced a decrease of 300,000 part time jobs; while at the same time, increased full time jobs by 11.5 million. You can't deal which the actual figures, so you tried yo hide these numbers by using averages.

The real numbers disagree...but stick with your cooked BLM numbers...cooking the books is all that is holding your fantasies together...and just like in 2008, I'm going to have to be impolite and laugh at your dumb asses when your fantasies explode in your faces.

 

[Faun]

Say what?? Since the beginning of 2010 when the job recovery began, we've gained over 11 million jobs. Part time Jobs decreased over that same period by 300,000 jobs, so where the fuck do you come up with saying "the vast majority" of those jobs were "part time??"

But I did get a good laugh at you blindly posting nonsensical partisan talking points right after accusing others of being blinded by partisanship, so thanks for that.

And I take it by you not responding to what I posted, your plan is to just ignore how I showed you unemployment benefits were at a 14 year low a year ago after you falsely claimed there are "more people on unemployment?"

Those numbers are total bulltwinkle, and if you don't know it, you're just as dumb as the other ignorant morons who think with their partisan panties rather than with their brains.

whoopsie...try again, tool.

Again, no answer. Why do you keep running away from your rightwing talking points every time I squash them?

Here are more numbers from the BLS since the start of the job recovery at the start of 2010....

Full-time jobs .... +11,465,000
Part-time jobs .... -294,000

If you don't see the answer in that graph, I'm sorry, I can't cure stupid. BLS...LOLZ. gonna quote the tooth fairy next?

What I see is you posting a graph which plays with the figured by using moving averages because the actual figures prove that you lied

You said the vast majority of jobs in the recovery were part time. Of course, that's simply not possible in a job market which produced a decrease of 300,000 part time jobs; while at the same time, increased full time jobs by 11.5 million. You can't deal which the actual figures, so you tried yo hide these numbers by using averages.

The real numbers disagree...but stick with your cooked BLM numbers...cooking the books is all that is holding your fantasies together...and just like in 2008, I'm going to have to be impolite and laugh at your dumb asses when your fantasies explode in your faces.

Now this is fucking awesome!

You posted a chart produced by dshort.com and you're claiming the BLS numbers are bullshit ....

.... soooo ....

... the logical next question is ...

... what was the source for the dshort.com chart you posted?

 

[Moonglow]

$1.64 for gas in Bentonville, Ar..

 

[ShaklesOfBigGov]

While I simply loved buying gas for a 1.71 yesterday, I also know how many people are now out of work because of the low prices...both from the industry and the industries that supply them. More people on unemployment and welfare and more kids having to do without, but hey, at least they don't have to spend as much on gas, right?

You sound like a conservative. Here, in reality...

Lowest number of Americans receiving unemployment benefits in 14 years

... and that was a year ago when the unemployment rate was 5.7%.

There were 18 milion people out of work who wanted a job when Bush left office. Today, with a civilian noninstitutional population growth of 17 million, there are 14 million out of work but wanting a job.

You people who are either blinded by your partisan blinders and attempt to categorize everyone else through them amuse me.

Fact: The lower price of oil has decreased the rig-count and the number of shale-oil producers in the US because at these prices, they cannot make a profit or service their debt (some of these businesses run on nothing but rolling over debt). This has resulted in layoffs and job loss in the industry. It's not rocket science.

Fact: When an industry like oil/gas takes a hit, all those who provide goods and services to those industries also take a hit. Duh, again, not rocket scienct.

Fact: Those who loose their employment resulting from these price levels can either try to wait it out using savings and/or unemployment benefits, or try finding employment in other industries. Some will also start taking food-stamps and other assistance like WIC

Fact: The vast majority of the jobs "created" in this "recovery" have been part-time or menial service industry jobs. (You want fries with that, dude?) The jobs being lost were "boom" jobs that were relatively well-paying.

What is unfactual or politically partisan about those above facts?

Idiocrats, meet em everywhere.

Say what?? Since the beginning of 2010 when the job recovery began, we've gained over 11 million jobs. Part time Jobs decreased over that same period by 300,000 jobs, so where the fuck do you come up with saying "the vast majority" of those jobs were "part time??"

But I did get a good laugh at you blindly posting nonsensical partisan talking points right after accusing others of being blinded by partisanship, so thanks for that.

And I take it by you not responding to what I posted, your plan is to just ignore how I showed you unemployment benefits were at a 14 year low a year ago after you falsely claimed there are "more people on unemployment?"

Those numbers are total bulltwinkle, and if you don't know it, you're just as dumb as the other ignorant morons who think with their partisan panties rather than with their brains.

whoopsie...try again, tool.

Again, no answer. Why do you keep running away from your rightwing talking points every time I squash them?

Here are more numbers from the BLS since the start of the job recovery at the start of 2010....

Full-time jobs .... +11,465,000
Part-time jobs .... -294,000

Actually those full-time numbers can be very misleading. You can have a company hire more full-time employees than is necessary, anticipating that some will eventually quit. You can also have an individual work full-time quit, and try another full-time job the following month, but you would have us believe that your "figures" mean there must be more individuals that are working full-time.

Now with regard to the unemployment figures, here is a little known fact as why simply quoting the latest unemployment number can be misleading.
Those unemployment numbers don't include

1. Unemployed workers who have exhausted their benefits.
2. Unemployed workers who have not yet earned benefit rights (such as new entrants or reentrants to the labor force).
3. Disqualified workers whose unemployment is considered to have resulted from their own actions rather than from economic conditions; for example, a worker fired for misconduct on the job.
4. Otherwise eligible unemployed persons who do not file for benefits.

Because of these and other limitations, statistics on insured unemployment cannot be used as a measure of total unemployment in the United States. Over the past decade, only about one-third of the total unemployed, on average, received regular UI benefits.

So you can quote only one statistical figure as your basis for proving the economy is doing well and improving, but unless you are willing to take into consideration other factors which play a part in revealing the overall picture of the economy, you'll only look like a complete idiot in doing so.

 

[rightwinger]

You sound like a conservative. Here, in reality...

Lowest number of Americans receiving unemployment benefits in 14 years

... and that was a year ago when the unemployment rate was 5.7%.

There were 18 milion people out of work who wanted a job when Bush left office. Today, with a civilian noninstitutional population growth of 17 million, there are 14 million out of work but wanting a job.

You people who are either blinded by your partisan blinders and attempt to categorize everyone else through them amuse me.

Fact: The lower price of oil has decreased the rig-count and the number of shale-oil producers in the US because at these prices, they cannot make a profit or service their debt (some of these businesses run on nothing but rolling over debt). This has resulted in layoffs and job loss in the industry. It's not rocket science.

Fact: When an industry like oil/gas takes a hit, all those who provide goods and services to those industries also take a hit. Duh, again, not rocket scienct.

Fact: Those who loose their employment resulting from these price levels can either try to wait it out using savings and/or unemployment benefits, or try finding employment in other industries. Some will also start taking food-stamps and other assistance like WIC

Fact: The vast majority of the jobs "created" in this "recovery" have been part-time or menial service industry jobs. (You want fries with that, dude?) The jobs being lost were "boom" jobs that were relatively well-paying.

What is unfactual or politically partisan about those above facts?

Idiocrats, meet em everywhere.

Say what?? Since the beginning of 2010 when the job recovery began, we've gained over 11 million jobs. Part time Jobs decreased over that same period by 300,000 jobs, so where the fuck do you come up with saying "the vast majority" of those jobs were "part time??"

But I did get a good laugh at you blindly posting nonsensical partisan talking points right after accusing others of being blinded by partisanship, so thanks for that.

And I take it by you not responding to what I posted, your plan is to just ignore how I showed you unemployment benefits were at a 14 year low a year ago after you falsely claimed there are "more people on unemployment?"

Those numbers are total bulltwinkle, and if you don't know it, you're just as dumb as the other ignorant morons who think with their partisan panties rather than with their brains.

whoopsie...try again, tool.

Again, no answer. Why do you keep running away from your rightwing talking points every time I squash them?

Here are more numbers from the BLS since the start of the job recovery at the start of 2010....

Full-time jobs .... +11,465,000
Part-time jobs .... -294,000

Actually those full-time numbers can be very misleading. You can have a company hire more full-time employees than is necessary, anticipating that some will eventually quit. You can also have an individual work full-time quit, and try another full-time job the following month, but you would have us believe that your "figures" mean there must be more individuals that are working full-time.

Now with regard to the unemployment figures, here is a little known fact as why simply quoting the latest unemployment number can be misleading.
Those unemployment numbers don't include

1. Unemployed workers who have exhausted their benefits.
2. Unemployed workers who have not yet earned benefit rights (such as new entrants or reentrants to the labor force).
3. Disqualified workers whose unemployment is considered to have resulted from their own actions rather than from economic conditions; for example, a worker fired for misconduct on the job.
4. Otherwise eligible unemployed persons who do not file for benefits.

Because of these and other limitations, statistics on insured unemployment cannot be used as a measure of total unemployment in the United States. Over the past decade, only about one-third of the total unemployed, on average, received regular UI benefits.

So you can quote only one statistical figure as your basis for proving the economy is doing well and improving, but unless you are willing to take into consideration other factors which play a part in revealing the overall picture of the economy, you'll only look like a complete idiot in doing so.

11 MILLION full time jobs?

Why don't you just admit the economy has been strong?

 

[ShaklesOfBigGov]

You people who are either blinded by your partisan blinders and attempt to categorize everyone else through them amuse me.

Fact: The lower price of oil has decreased the rig-count and the number of shale-oil producers in the US because at these prices, they cannot make a profit or service their debt (some of these businesses run on nothing but rolling over debt). This has resulted in layoffs and job loss in the industry. It's not rocket science.

Fact: When an industry like oil/gas takes a hit, all those who provide goods and services to those industries also take a hit. Duh, again, not rocket scienct.

Fact: Those who loose their employment resulting from these price levels can either try to wait it out using savings and/or unemployment benefits, or try finding employment in other industries. Some will also start taking food-stamps and other assistance like WIC

Fact: The vast majority of the jobs "created" in this "recovery" have been part-time or menial service industry jobs. (You want fries with that, dude?) The jobs being lost were "boom" jobs that were relatively well-paying.

What is unfactual or politically partisan about those above facts?

Idiocrats, meet em everywhere.

Say what?? Since the beginning of 2010 when the job recovery began, we've gained over 11 million jobs. Part time Jobs decreased over that same period by 300,000 jobs, so where the fuck do you come up with saying "the vast majority" of those jobs were "part time??"

But I did get a good laugh at you blindly posting nonsensical partisan talking points right after accusing others of being blinded by partisanship, so thanks for that.

And I take it by you not responding to what I posted, your plan is to just ignore how I showed you unemployment benefits were at a 14 year low a year ago after you falsely claimed there are "more people on unemployment?"

Those numbers are total bulltwinkle, and if you don't know it, you're just as dumb as the other ignorant morons who think with their partisan panties rather than with their brains.

whoopsie...try again, tool.

Again, no answer. Why do you keep running away from your rightwing talking points every time I squash them?

Here are more numbers from the BLS since the start of the job recovery at the start of 2010....

Full-time jobs .... +11,465,000
Part-time jobs .... -294,000

Actually those full-time numbers can be very misleading. You can have a company hire more full-time employees than is necessary, anticipating that some will eventually quit. You can also have an individual work full-time quit, and try another full-time job the following month, but you would have us believe that your "figures" mean there must be more individuals that are working full-time.

Now with regard to the unemployment figures, here is a little known fact as why simply quoting the latest unemployment number can be misleading.
Those unemployment numbers don't include

1. Unemployed workers who have exhausted their benefits.
2. Unemployed workers who have not yet earned benefit rights (such as new entrants or reentrants to the labor force).
3. Disqualified workers whose unemployment is considered to have resulted from their own actions rather than from economic conditions; for example, a worker fired for misconduct on the job.
4. Otherwise eligible unemployed persons who do not file for benefits.

Because of these and other limitations, statistics on insured unemployment cannot be used as a measure of total unemployment in the United States. Over the past decade, only about one-third of the total unemployed, on average, received regular UI benefits.

So you can quote only one statistical figure as your basis for proving the economy is doing well and improving, but unless you are willing to take into consideration other factors which play a part in revealing the overall picture of the economy, you'll only look like a complete idiot in doing so.

11 MILLION full time jobs?

Why don't you just admit the economy has been strong?

If your effort is to mislead others based off that one figure, go right ahead. Can you prove to me these are long term full time jobs, and not just one that can only provide 3 or 4 months worth of employment? How about you convince me of THOSE figures. Surely you know better than to put all your eggs into one basket.