Obamagas to drop below $2 a gallon nationwide

[rightwinger]

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.

Oh...I forgot...the economy must fail

Continue with your fantasies

 

[Dan Daly]

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?

The same numbers...presented to reflect some shred of reality rather than to distort reality as your presentation attempts. Duh.

The "real" numbers come from things like the Baltic Dry index, the price of energy, the real unemployment numbers etc..without the filters of government applied.

Did ya ever wonder how people gauged their economic well-being before the government started telling them? Of course not..you probably can't make change without a cash register or tell the weather without the weather channel. I guess that's how some of us managed to avoid disaster in 2008, when you same bozos were telling us how great things were. You can spin it anyway you want, but we were right, you were comfortably ignorant...and it's gonna play out the same way again. Bank on it.

 

[Dan Daly]

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.

Oh...I forgot...the economy must fail

Continue with your fantasies

Sure thing Senator McCain.

 

[ShaklesOfBigGov]

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.

Oh...I forgot...the economy must fail

Continue with your fantasies

That's why you only allow one source of statistics for your information. Afraid you may have a bit of trouble proving this is long term employment you are referring to? Let's say the job only can provide three months worth of work, after which the worker hasn't earned enough to open a new unemployment claim. Surely you're smart enough to figure out what happens. Why do you think an economist has to go by more than one source of information to get an overall picture of the economy?

 

[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

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.

Umm ... it doesn't really matter how many times a full time individual quits one job and takes another -- such an individual still counts as only one full time employee in the link I provided. We are up 11.5 million full time jobs over the last 6 years.

That's the number.

Anyone posting anything else is only trying to minimize that.

 

[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

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.

No matter how you shake it, we are up 11.5 million jobs since the recovery. We are currently in the unprecedented 68th (and still counting) consecutive month of continuous growth in the private sector. Shattering the old record of 51 consecutive months under Clinton.

 

[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.

Umm ... it doesn't really matter how many times a full time individual quits one job and takes another -- such an individual still counts as only one full time employee in the link I provided. We are up 11.5 million full time jobs over the last 6 years.

That's the number.

Anyone posting anything else is only trying to minimize that.

To include in those instances where an individual has a gap in full-time employment? Can you show me where it actually states among those numbers used?

 

[rightwinger]

Looking at $1.50 Obamagas by Christmas

I can hardly wait for some of that Hillarygas

 

[Faun]

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?

The same numbers...presented to reflect some shred of reality rather than to distort reality as your presentation attempts. Duh.

The "real" numbers come from things like the Baltic Dry index, the price of energy, the real unemployment numbers etc..without the filters of government applied.

Did ya ever wonder how people gauged their economic well-being before the government started telling them? Of course not..you probably can't make change without a cash register or tell the weather without the weather channel. I guess that's how some of us managed to avoid disaster in 2008, when you same bozos were telling us how great things were. You can spin it anyway you want, but we were right, you were comfortably ignorant...and it's gonna play out the same way again. Bank on it.

Alright! I knew this was fucking awesome! Was I right or was I right?

So you're posting ... wait for it .......... numbers from BLS

But wait ..... didn't you say ........... "BLS...LOLZ. gonna quote the tooth fairy next?" ..... and ...... "The real numbers disagree...but stick with your cooked BLM numbers...cooking the books is all that is holding your fantasies together."

So why are you posting numbers YOU BELIEVE are bullshit???

.... and what did the tooth fairy leave under your pillow?

 

[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

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.

Umm ... it doesn't really matter how many times a full time individual quits one job and takes another -- such an individual still counts as only one full time employee in the link I provided. We are up 11.5 million full time jobs over the last 6 years.

That's the number.

Anyone posting anything else is only trying to minimize that.

To include in those instances where an individual has a gap in full-time employment? Can you show me where it actually states among those numbers used?

What gap do you mean? If someone was working full time but is now in between jobs, they would be considered as unemployed or not in the labor force. Either way, they wouldn't be employed.

There are 11.5 million additional employed people than there were 6 years ago. 11.5 million people who are currently employed.

 

[ShaklesOfBigGov]

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.

Umm ... it doesn't really matter how many times a full time individual quits one job and takes another -- such an individual still counts as only one full time employee in the link I provided. We are up 11.5 million full time jobs over the last 6 years.

That's the number.

Anyone posting anything else is only trying to minimize that.

To include in those instances where an individual has a gap in full-time employment? Can you show me where it actually states among those numbers used?

What gap do you mean? If someone was working full time but is now in between jobs, they would be considered as unemployed or not in the labor force. Either way, they wouldn't be employed.

There are 11.5 million additional employed people than there were 6 years ago. 11.5 million people who are currently employed.

Again, you have to prove these are long term employment. Those who are considered full time but are only needed for 3 months, those that are among a group that's "overhired" to compensate for those that may quit or seasonal ... that figure you have does not prove we are in a strong economy. You have to be a complete idiot to rely on one statistical figure to prove if we are in a strong economy, just like unemployment numbers alone don't tell the whole story. You can have an individual not qualify for unemployment based on their own actions, because they have exhausted all their benefits, or they have not earned enough to qualify them for a new claim. If we are in such a strong economy, why does the Feds wait so long to feel comfortable in raising interest rates? You don't know jack of what you are talking about Faun.

 

[Faun]

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.

Umm ... it doesn't really matter how many times a full time individual quits one job and takes another -- such an individual still counts as only one full time employee in the link I provided. We are up 11.5 million full time jobs over the last 6 years.

That's the number.

Anyone posting anything else is only trying to minimize that.

To include in those instances where an individual has a gap in full-time employment? Can you show me where it actually states among those numbers used?

What gap do you mean? If someone was working full time but is now in between jobs, they would be considered as unemployed or not in the labor force. Either way, they wouldn't be employed.

There are 11.5 million additional employed people than there were 6 years ago. 11.5 million people who are currently employed.

Again, you have to prove these are long term employment. Those who are considered full time but are only needed for 3 months, those that are among a group that's "overhired" to compensate for those that may quit or seasonal ... that figure you have does not prove we are in a strong economy. You have to be a complete idiot to rely on one statistical figure to prove if we are in a strong economy, just like unemployment numbers alone don't tell the whole story. You can have an individual not qualify for unemployment based on their own actions, because they have exhausted all their benefits, or they have not earned enough to qualify them for a new claim. If we are in such a strong economy, why does the Feds wait so long to feel comfortable in raising interest rates? You don't know jack of what you are talking about Faun.

In terms of the health of the job market, what do you think it means when people stay at their jobs longer? What does long term employment mean to you?

 

[theHawk]

National gas prices to soon fall below 2

Nationally, regular unleaded gasoline currently averages about $2.12 a gallon, down 46 cents from just four weeks ago and $1.01 cheaper than year-ago levels.
Gas prices are also expected to fall more than previously forecast for the full year

Not bad for a community organizer











.

What law did he sign, or executive decree, to bring gas prices down?

Or was it Obama-magic that came through again?

 

[theHawk]

National gas prices to soon fall below 2

Nationally, regular unleaded gasoline currently averages about $2.12 a gallon, down 46 cents from just four weeks ago and $1.01 cheaper than year-ago levels.
Gas prices are also expected to fall more than previously forecast for the full year

Not bad for a community organizer






.

Federal oil & gas creation IS DOWN dumbass. The increase is from the PRIVATE SECTOR.

Gas prices are low DESPITE Obama.

Fucking lib idiot

Do I detect the smell of sour grapes?

The record setting drop in the price of Obamagas is sending conservatives who predicted $5 plus gas (sound familiar gramps?) into a tizzy

You are a dumb motherfucker. My thread never mentioned Obama & it was grounded in reality as compared to this donkey fart bullshit you're peddling as an Obama accomplishment. You're an embarrassment to fellow democrats

Obamagas will go down as one of our presidents greatest accomplishments

The Republican Congress too?

 

[rightwinger]

National gas prices to soon fall below 2

Nationally, regular unleaded gasoline currently averages about $2.12 a gallon, down 46 cents from just four weeks ago and $1.01 cheaper than year-ago levels.
Gas prices are also expected to fall more than previously forecast for the full year

Not bad for a community organizer











.

What law did he sign, or executive decree, to bring gas prices down?

Or was it Obama-magic that came through again?

Conservatives are so naive when it comes to the pricing of Obamagas

Don't you realize Obama is a Socialist? That is what you conservatives have been telling us for seven years. Socialists set the means of production and the price....but you probably knew that

Are you now going to claim that Obama is not a Socialist?

 

[ShaklesOfBigGov]

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.

Umm ... it doesn't really matter how many times a full time individual quits one job and takes another -- such an individual still counts as only one full time employee in the link I provided. We are up 11.5 million full time jobs over the last 6 years.

That's the number.

Anyone posting anything else is only trying to minimize that.

To include in those instances where an individual has a gap in full-time employment? Can you show me where it actually states among those numbers used?

What gap do you mean? If someone was working full time but is now in between jobs, they would be considered as unemployed or not in the labor force. Either way, they wouldn't be employed.

There are 11.5 million additional employed people than there were 6 years ago. 11.5 million people who are currently employed.

Again, you have to prove these are long term employment. Those who are considered full time but are only needed for 3 months, those that are among a group that's "overhired" to compensate for those that may quit or seasonal ... that figure you have does not prove we are in a strong economy. You have to be a complete idiot to rely on one statistical figure to prove if we are in a strong economy, just like unemployment numbers alone don't tell the whole story. You can have an individual not qualify for unemployment based on their own actions, because they have exhausted all their benefits, or they have not earned enough to qualify them for a new claim. If we are in such a strong economy, why does the Feds wait so long to feel comfortable in raising interest rates? You don't know jack of what you are talking about Faun.

In terms of the health of the job market, what do you think it means when people stay at their jobs longer? What does long term employment mean to you?

What does it mean when you work full time but the company only has need of you for 3 months? What about the company that overhired because they experience a high turn around and anticipate that those they employ will either will not work out or quit? Relying on only one set of figures does not equate to an overall picture of the strength of the economy. I don't know how many times I have to explain that to you for you to understand. How many economists actually rely on job numbers alone and think they know enough to accurately determine how this country is doing? I just sat and explained how those numbers can be misleading, as well as what unemployment numbers don't account for .... get a clue.

 

[Faun]

Umm ... it doesn't really matter how many times a full time individual quits one job and takes another -- such an individual still counts as only one full time employee in the link I provided. We are up 11.5 million full time jobs over the last 6 years.

That's the number.

Anyone posting anything else is only trying to minimize that.

To include in those instances where an individual has a gap in full-time employment? Can you show me where it actually states among those numbers used?

What gap do you mean? If someone was working full time but is now in between jobs, they would be considered as unemployed or not in the labor force. Either way, they wouldn't be employed.

There are 11.5 million additional employed people than there were 6 years ago. 11.5 million people who are currently employed.

Again, you have to prove these are long term employment. Those who are considered full time but are only needed for 3 months, those that are among a group that's "overhired" to compensate for those that may quit or seasonal ... that figure you have does not prove we are in a strong economy. You have to be a complete idiot to rely on one statistical figure to prove if we are in a strong economy, just like unemployment numbers alone don't tell the whole story. You can have an individual not qualify for unemployment based on their own actions, because they have exhausted all their benefits, or they have not earned enough to qualify them for a new claim. If we are in such a strong economy, why does the Feds wait so long to feel comfortable in raising interest rates? You don't know jack of what you are talking about Faun.

In terms of the health of the job market, what do you think it means when people stay at their jobs longer? What does long term employment mean to you?

What does it mean when you work full time but the company only has need of you for 3 months? What about the company that overhired because they experience a high turn around and anticipate that those they employ will either will not work out or quit? Relying on only one set of figures does not equate to an overall picture of the strength of the economy. I don't know how many times I have to explain that to you for you to understand. How many economists actually rely on job numbers alone and think they know enough to accurately determine how this country is doing? I just sat and explained how those numbers can be misleading, as well as what unemployment numbers don't account for .... get a clue.

That didn't answer my question. All you did was repeat a previous post. How does long-term employment indicate the health of the job market? Are you saying it's better for people to remain at their jobs longer or is it worse?

 

[ShaklesOfBigGov]

To include in those instances where an individual has a gap in full-time employment? Can you show me where it actually states among those numbers used?

What gap do you mean? If someone was working full time but is now in between jobs, they would be considered as unemployed or not in the labor force. Either way, they wouldn't be employed.

There are 11.5 million additional employed people than there were 6 years ago. 11.5 million people who are currently employed.

Again, you have to prove these are long term employment. Those who are considered full time but are only needed for 3 months, those that are among a group that's "overhired" to compensate for those that may quit or seasonal ... that figure you have does not prove we are in a strong economy. You have to be a complete idiot to rely on one statistical figure to prove if we are in a strong economy, just like unemployment numbers alone don't tell the whole story. You can have an individual not qualify for unemployment based on their own actions, because they have exhausted all their benefits, or they have not earned enough to qualify them for a new claim. If we are in such a strong economy, why does the Feds wait so long to feel comfortable in raising interest rates? You don't know jack of what you are talking about Faun.

In terms of the health of the job market, what do you think it means when people stay at their jobs longer? What does long term employment mean to you?

What does it mean when you work full time but the company only has need of you for 3 months? What about the company that overhired because they experience a high turn around and anticipate that those they employ will either will not work out or quit? Relying on only one set of figures does not equate to an overall picture of the strength of the economy. I don't know how many times I have to explain that to you for you to understand. How many economists actually rely on job numbers alone and think they know enough to accurately determine how this country is doing? I just sat and explained how those numbers can be misleading, as well as what unemployment numbers don't account for .... get a clue.

That didn't answer my question. All you did was repeat a previous post. How does long-term employment indicate the health of the job market? Are you saying it's better for people to remain at their jobs longer or is it worse?

People don't often have a choice if they can't remain employed for longer than three months. They also don't have the option to receive unemployment benefits if they don't qualify for a new claim. No ability to provide their family with health care through their employer. Maybe that individual is able to find another full-time job after two months of searching.

However, you can't provide me a breakdown on how those numbers you quoted are obtained, can you? All you can prove is that a full-time job was provided and recorded. You could have the same individual obtain two different full-time jobs because long term employment wasn't available in their profession, and it's simply recorded as just another full-time job. Your graph can't distinguish the difference, can it? I ask again, show me a breakdown of how those numbers were recorded and obtained. Your silence on the issue explains a lot.

 

[Dan Daly]

Oil Jobs Lost: 250,000 And Counting, Texas Likely To See Massive Layoffs Soon

 

[rightwinger]

Imagine how many jobs would be created if we went back to $4 Bushgas?