Unintended Consequences when LIBERALISM takes control.....

[Faun]

US layoffs surge to 6-month high: Challenger

Layoffs surged in January to the highest levels since July as employers in the retail and energy sectors pulled out the pink slips, according to a private survey out Thursday

Check out the latest job numbers according to the BLS, not some private survey...

151,000 more jobs - CES (62nd consecutive month of growth)
158,000 more private sector jobs - CES (71st consecutive month of growth)
615,000 more jobs - CPS (data affected by changes in population controls)
Unemployment rate drops to 4.9%

Ah yes, when last year the BLS was saying that a recovery for Obama was jobs needed at 250,000, but since the liberal cant meet the goal they lowered it to 150,000. ROTFLMAO, at how stupid you really are.

Obamacare Mandate: Anyone Who Works 30-Hour Week Is Now 'Full-Time'

Obamacare Mandate: Anyone Who Works 30-Hour Week Is Now 'Full-Time'

Oops.
U.S. jobless claims rise to four-month high

The four-week moving average of claims, considered a better measure of labor market trends as it irons out week-to-week volatility, rose by only 6,750 to 298,000 last week.

It has remained below 300,000, which is associated with a firming labor market, for 18 weeks.

TRUTH cant be denied.

You're not spouting truth -- you're too deranged to know what the truth is. For example, you post an article stating U.S. jobless claims rise to four month high.....

Dumbfuck, did you even bother to check the date on that article??

1/15/2015.

It's thirteen months old.

Truth doesn't matter to demented idiots like you. You have preconceived hallucinations based on ideology and not reality; so you hunt on the Internet to find confirmation of your delusions.

 

[Mikeoxenormous]

US layoffs surge to 6-month high: Challenger

Layoffs surged in January to the highest levels since July as employers in the retail and energy sectors pulled out the pink slips, according to a private survey out Thursday

Check out the latest job numbers according to the BLS, not some private survey...

151,000 more jobs - CES (62nd consecutive month of growth)
158,000 more private sector jobs - CES (71st consecutive month of growth)
615,000 more jobs - CPS (data affected by changes in population controls)
Unemployment rate drops to 4.9%

Ah yes, when last year the BLS was saying that a recovery for Obama was jobs needed at 250,000, but since the liberal cant meet the goal they lowered it to 150,000. ROTFLMAO, at how stupid you really are.

Obamacare Mandate: Anyone Who Works 30-Hour Week Is Now 'Full-Time'

Obamacare Mandate: Anyone Who Works 30-Hour Week Is Now 'Full-Time'

Oops.
U.S. jobless claims rise to four-month high

The four-week moving average of claims, considered a better measure of labor market trends as it irons out week-to-week volatility, rose by only 6,750 to 298,000 last week.

It has remained below 300,000, which is associated with a firming labor market, for 18 weeks.

TRUTH cant be denied.

You're not spouting truth -- you're too deranged to know what the truth is. For example, you post an article stating U.S. jobless claims rise to four month high.....

Dumbfuck, did you even bother to check the date on that article??

1/15/2015.

It's thirteen months old.

Truth doesn't matter to demented idiots like you. You have preconceived hallucinations based on ideology and not reality; so you hunt on the Internet to find confirmation of your delusions.

As the moron that you are, I was showing YOU that back in Jan of 2015 the BLS was saying that 300,000 was needed for a sturdy job market. Of course being a liberal that went right over your Zippy pin head.
Then in comparison today, with 150,000 , as typical of liberalism, when goals are met, you just lower the standard till eventually they are met. But hey you are a liberal and are too stupid to know better.

 

[Faun]

US layoffs surge to 6-month high: Challenger

Layoffs surged in January to the highest levels since July as employers in the retail and energy sectors pulled out the pink slips, according to a private survey out Thursday

Check out the latest job numbers according to the BLS, not some private survey...

151,000 more jobs - CES (62nd consecutive month of growth)
158,000 more private sector jobs - CES (71st consecutive month of growth)
615,000 more jobs - CPS (data affected by changes in population controls)
Unemployment rate drops to 4.9%

Ah yes, when last year the BLS was saying that a recovery for Obama was jobs needed at 250,000, but since the liberal cant meet the goal they lowered it to 150,000. ROTFLMAO, at how stupid you really are.

Obamacare Mandate: Anyone Who Works 30-Hour Week Is Now 'Full-Time'

Obamacare Mandate: Anyone Who Works 30-Hour Week Is Now 'Full-Time'

Oops.
U.S. jobless claims rise to four-month high

The four-week moving average of claims, considered a better measure of labor market trends as it irons out week-to-week volatility, rose by only 6,750 to 298,000 last week.

It has remained below 300,000, which is associated with a firming labor market, for 18 weeks.

TRUTH cant be denied.

You're not spouting truth -- you're too deranged to know what the truth is. For example, you post an article stating U.S. jobless claims rise to four month high.....

Dumbfuck, did you even bother to check the date on that article??

1/15/2015.

It's thirteen months old.

Truth doesn't matter to demented idiots like you. You have preconceived hallucinations based on ideology and not reality; so you hunt on the Internet to find confirmation of your delusions.

As the moron that you are, I was showing YOU that back in Jan of 2015 the BLS was saying that 300,000 was needed for a sturdy job market. Of course being a liberal that went right over your Zippy pin head.
Then in comparison today, with 150,000 , as typical of liberalism, when goals are met, you just lower the standard till eventually they are met. But hey you are a liberal and are too stupid to know better.

View attachment 62419

Holyfuckingshit!

Now you're conflating employment numbers with initial jobless claims.



150,000 jobs are needed to keep up with population growth. The 13 month old article you posted states below 300,000 initial jobless claims "is associated with a firming labor market, for 18 weeks."

Such claims were at 285,000 for the last week of January.

Let's see how competent you are .....

Is 285,000 more or less than 300,000? Is less than 300,000 an indication of a "sturdy job market?"

 

[Mikeoxenormous]

US layoffs surge to 6-month high: Challenger

Check out the latest job numbers according to the BLS, not some private survey...

151,000 more jobs - CES (62nd consecutive month of growth)
158,000 more private sector jobs - CES (71st consecutive month of growth)
615,000 more jobs - CPS (data affected by changes in population controls)
Unemployment rate drops to 4.9%

Ah yes, when last year the BLS was saying that a recovery for Obama was jobs needed at 250,000, but since the liberal cant meet the goal they lowered it to 150,000. ROTFLMAO, at how stupid you really are.

Obamacare Mandate: Anyone Who Works 30-Hour Week Is Now 'Full-Time'

Obamacare Mandate: Anyone Who Works 30-Hour Week Is Now 'Full-Time'

Oops.
U.S. jobless claims rise to four-month high

The four-week moving average of claims, considered a better measure of labor market trends as it irons out week-to-week volatility, rose by only 6,750 to 298,000 last week.

It has remained below 300,000, which is associated with a firming labor market, for 18 weeks.

TRUTH cant be denied.

You're not spouting truth -- you're too deranged to know what the truth is. For example, you post an article stating U.S. jobless claims rise to four month high.....

Dumbfuck, did you even bother to check the date on that article??

1/15/2015.

It's thirteen months old.

Truth doesn't matter to demented idiots like you. You have preconceived hallucinations based on ideology and not reality; so you hunt on the Internet to find confirmation of your delusions.

As the moron that you are, I was showing YOU that back in Jan of 2015 the BLS was saying that 300,000 was needed for a sturdy job market. Of course being a liberal that went right over your Zippy pin head.
Then in comparison today, with 150,000 , as typical of liberalism, when goals are met, you just lower the standard till eventually they are met. But hey you are a liberal and are too stupid to know better.

View attachment 62419

Holyfuckingshit!

Now you're conflating employment numbers with initial jobless claims.



150,000 jobs are needed to keep up with population growth. The 13 month old article you posted states below 300,000 initial jobless claims "is associated with a firming labor market, for 18 weeks."

Such claims were at 285,000 for the last week of January.

Let's see how competent you are .....

Is 285,000 more or less than 300,000? Is less than 300,000 an indication of a "sturdy job market?"

So what you are saying is that if they create 150,000 jobs that is enough for the 300,000 that are looking for work? No wonder that there are 94 million people who stopped looking for work. The Obama roaring economy just isn't fulfilling the need. Thanks for pointing out the why.

 

[Faun]

Check out the latest job numbers according to the BLS, not some private survey...

151,000 more jobs - CES (62nd consecutive month of growth)
158,000 more private sector jobs - CES (71st consecutive month of growth)
615,000 more jobs - CPS (data affected by changes in population controls)
Unemployment rate drops to 4.9%

Ah yes, when last year the BLS was saying that a recovery for Obama was jobs needed at 250,000, but since the liberal cant meet the goal they lowered it to 150,000. ROTFLMAO, at how stupid you really are.

Obamacare Mandate: Anyone Who Works 30-Hour Week Is Now 'Full-Time'

Obamacare Mandate: Anyone Who Works 30-Hour Week Is Now 'Full-Time'

Oops.
U.S. jobless claims rise to four-month high

The four-week moving average of claims, considered a better measure of labor market trends as it irons out week-to-week volatility, rose by only 6,750 to 298,000 last week.

It has remained below 300,000, which is associated with a firming labor market, for 18 weeks.

TRUTH cant be denied.

You're not spouting truth -- you're too deranged to know what the truth is. For example, you post an article stating U.S. jobless claims rise to four month high.....

Dumbfuck, did you even bother to check the date on that article??

1/15/2015.

It's thirteen months old.

Truth doesn't matter to demented idiots like you. You have preconceived hallucinations based on ideology and not reality; so you hunt on the Internet to find confirmation of your delusions.

As the moron that you are, I was showing YOU that back in Jan of 2015 the BLS was saying that 300,000 was needed for a sturdy job market. Of course being a liberal that went right over your Zippy pin head.
Then in comparison today, with 150,000 , as typical of liberalism, when goals are met, you just lower the standard till eventually they are met. But hey you are a liberal and are too stupid to know better.

View attachment 62419

Holyfuckingshit!

Now you're conflating employment numbers with initial jobless claims.



150,000 jobs are needed to keep up with population growth. The 13 month old article you posted states below 300,000 initial jobless claims "is associated with a firming labor market, for 18 weeks."

Such claims were at 285,000 for the last week of January.

Let's see how competent you are .....

Is 285,000 more or less than 300,000? Is less than 300,000 an indication of a "sturdy job market?"

So what you are saying is that if they create 150,000 jobs that is enough for the 300,000 that are looking for work? No wonder that there are 94 million people who stopped looking for work. The Obama roaring economy just isn't fulfilling the need. Thanks for pointing out the why.

Holyfuckingshit!

You're not even capable of answering those easy quesstions.

You failed the test.

Here, I'll answer them for you...

Q: Is 285,000 more or less than 300,000?
A: LESS

Q: Is less than 300,000 an indication of a "sturdy job market?"
A: YES

See how easy that was? And you couldn't even do it.

Again, since you're brain-dead .... YOU posted less than 300,000 new jobless claims indicates a "sturdy job market." We currently have fewer than 300,000 -- even according to you, we have a "sturdy job market," but because you're so fucking deranged, you didn't even realize you said that; nor can you admit it now.

G'head, let's hear you say -- we have a sturdy job market.....

And in answer to your question, as demented as it is ... despite there being 285,000 new job claims for the last week in January, 151,000 jobs were added for the month. That keeps up with population growth.

 

[Mikeoxenormous]

Ah yes, when last year the BLS was saying that a recovery for Obama was jobs needed at 250,000, but since the liberal cant meet the goal they lowered it to 150,000. ROTFLMAO, at how stupid you really are.

Obamacare Mandate: Anyone Who Works 30-Hour Week Is Now 'Full-Time' Oops.
U.S. jobless claims rise to four-month high TRUTH cant be denied.

You're not spouting truth -- you're too deranged to know what the truth is. For example, you post an article stating U.S. jobless claims rise to four month high.....

Dumbfuck, did you even bother to check the date on that article??

1/15/2015.

It's thirteen months old.

Truth doesn't matter to demented idiots like you. You have preconceived hallucinations based on ideology and not reality; so you hunt on the Internet to find confirmation of your delusions.

As the moron that you are, I was showing YOU that back in Jan of 2015 the BLS was saying that 300,000 was needed for a sturdy job market. Of course being a liberal that went right over your Zippy pin head.
Then in comparison today, with 150,000 , as typical of liberalism, when goals are met, you just lower the standard till eventually they are met. But hey you are a liberal and are too stupid to know better.

View attachment 62419

Holyfuckingshit!

Now you're conflating employment numbers with initial jobless claims.



150,000 jobs are needed to keep up with population growth. The 13 month old article you posted states below 300,000 initial jobless claims "is associated with a firming labor market, for 18 weeks."

Such claims were at 285,000 for the last week of January.

Let's see how competent you are .....

Is 285,000 more or less than 300,000? Is less than 300,000 an indication of a "sturdy job market?"

So what you are saying is that if they create 150,000 jobs that is enough for the 300,000 that are looking for work? No wonder that there are 94 million people who stopped looking for work. The Obama roaring economy just isn't fulfilling the need. Thanks for pointing out the why.

Holyfuckingshit!

You're not even capable of answering those easy quesstions.

You failed the test.

Here, I'll answer them for you...

Q: Is 285,000 more or less than 300,000?
A: LESS

Q: Is less than 300,000 an indication of a "sturdy job market?"
A: YES

See how easy that was? And you couldn't even do it.

Again, since you're brain-dead .... YOU posted less than 300,000 new jobless claims indicates a "sturdy job market." We currently have fewer than 300,000 -- even according to you, we have a "sturdy job market," but because you're so fucking deranged, you didn't even realize you said that; nor can you admit it now.

G'head, let's hear you say -- we have a sturdy job market.....

And in answer to your question, as demented as it is ... despite there being 285,000 new job claims for the last week in January, 151,000 jobs were added for the month. That keeps up with population growth.

Now you said

ObamaCare has absolutely nothing to do with how the BLS tracks full time vs part time employment. The BLS standard is 35 hours.

150,000 new jobs per month has long been the number to keep up with population growth.

But then you said

Such claims were at 285,000 for the last week of January.

Now as far as I can tell 285,000 - 150,000 is 135,000 not looking for a job. Is that why 94 million people aren't looking for work and the U-3 is under 5%? No wonder Obama got voted for twice by you.

 

[Faun]

You're not spouting truth -- you're too deranged to know what the truth is. For example, you post an article stating U.S. jobless claims rise to four month high.....

Dumbfuck, did you even bother to check the date on that article??

1/15/2015.

It's thirteen months old.

Truth doesn't matter to demented idiots like you. You have preconceived hallucinations based on ideology and not reality; so you hunt on the Internet to find confirmation of your delusions.

As the moron that you are, I was showing YOU that back in Jan of 2015 the BLS was saying that 300,000 was needed for a sturdy job market. Of course being a liberal that went right over your Zippy pin head.
Then in comparison today, with 150,000 , as typical of liberalism, when goals are met, you just lower the standard till eventually they are met. But hey you are a liberal and are too stupid to know better.

View attachment 62419

Holyfuckingshit!

Now you're conflating employment numbers with initial jobless claims.



150,000 jobs are needed to keep up with population growth. The 13 month old article you posted states below 300,000 initial jobless claims "is associated with a firming labor market, for 18 weeks."

Such claims were at 285,000 for the last week of January.

Let's see how competent you are .....

Is 285,000 more or less than 300,000? Is less than 300,000 an indication of a "sturdy job market?"

So what you are saying is that if they create 150,000 jobs that is enough for the 300,000 that are looking for work? No wonder that there are 94 million people who stopped looking for work. The Obama roaring economy just isn't fulfilling the need. Thanks for pointing out the why.

Holyfuckingshit!

You're not even capable of answering those easy quesstions.

You failed the test.

Here, I'll answer them for you...

Q: Is 285,000 more or less than 300,000?
A: LESS

Q: Is less than 300,000 an indication of a "sturdy job market?"
A: YES

See how easy that was? And you couldn't even do it.

Again, since you're brain-dead .... YOU posted less than 300,000 new jobless claims indicates a "sturdy job market." We currently have fewer than 300,000 -- even according to you, we have a "sturdy job market," but because you're so fucking deranged, you didn't even realize you said that; nor can you admit it now.

G'head, let's hear you say -- we have a sturdy job market.....

And in answer to your question, as demented as it is ... despite there being 285,000 new job claims for the last week in January, 151,000 jobs were added for the month. That keeps up with population growth.

Now you said

ObamaCare has absolutely nothing to do with how the BLS tracks full time vs part time employment. The BLS standard is 35 hours.

150,000 new jobs per month has long been the number to keep up with population growth.

But then you said

Such claims were at 285,000 for the last week of January.

Now as far as I can tell 285,000 - 150,000 is 135,000 not looking for a job. Is that why 94 million people aren't looking for work and the U-3 is under 5%? No wonder Obama got voted for twice by you.

You're fucking deranged.

It's not 285,000 - 150,000.

150,000 is a net gain.

 

[Mikeoxenormous]

Dow sheds 200 after jobs report; Fed eyed

U.S. equities fell on Friday as mixed U.S. employment data raised concerns that the Federal Reserve may raise rates this year.

The U.S. economy added 151,000 jobs in January, the Bureau of Labor Statistics said Friday. Economists were expecting a gain of 190,000. The unemployment rate, however, fell to 4.9 percent from 5.0 percent, while wages rose 0.5 percent.

Hope you don't bust a blood vessel with this information. I guess pretty soon the Experts will be looking for 100,000 jobs as the normal and when it is 90,000 then it wont look so bad. By the way,

GEORGE BUSH - has been out of office now for over 7 years. You know who owns this economy? BARRACK HUSSEIN OBAMA, mmm,mmm,mmm. the only thing missing from the little Nazi's is the swastika symbol on their sleeves.

 

[Mikeoxenormous]

As the moron that you are, I was showing YOU that back in Jan of 2015 the BLS was saying that 300,000 was needed for a sturdy job market. Of course being a liberal that went right over your Zippy pin head.
Then in comparison today, with 150,000 , as typical of liberalism, when goals are met, you just lower the standard till eventually they are met. But hey you are a liberal and are too stupid to know better.

View attachment 62419

Holyfuckingshit!

Now you're conflating employment numbers with initial jobless claims.



150,000 jobs are needed to keep up with population growth. The 13 month old article you posted states below 300,000 initial jobless claims "is associated with a firming labor market, for 18 weeks."

Such claims were at 285,000 for the last week of January.

Let's see how competent you are .....

Is 285,000 more or less than 300,000? Is less than 300,000 an indication of a "sturdy job market?"

So what you are saying is that if they create 150,000 jobs that is enough for the 300,000 that are looking for work? No wonder that there are 94 million people who stopped looking for work. The Obama roaring economy just isn't fulfilling the need. Thanks for pointing out the why.

Holyfuckingshit!

You're not even capable of answering those easy quesstions.

You failed the test.

Here, I'll answer them for you...

Q: Is 285,000 more or less than 300,000?
A: LESS

Q: Is less than 300,000 an indication of a "sturdy job market?"
A: YES

See how easy that was? And you couldn't even do it.

Again, since you're brain-dead .... YOU posted less than 300,000 new jobless claims indicates a "sturdy job market." We currently have fewer than 300,000 -- even according to you, we have a "sturdy job market," but because you're so fucking deranged, you didn't even realize you said that; nor can you admit it now.

G'head, let's hear you say -- we have a sturdy job market.....

And in answer to your question, as demented as it is ... despite there being 285,000 new job claims for the last week in January, 151,000 jobs were added for the month. That keeps up with population growth.

Now you said

ObamaCare has absolutely nothing to do with how the BLS tracks full time vs part time employment. The BLS standard is 35 hours.

150,000 new jobs per month has long been the number to keep up with population growth.

But then you said

Such claims were at 285,000 for the last week of January.

Now as far as I can tell 285,000 - 150,000 is 135,000 not looking for a job. Is that why 94 million people aren't looking for work and the U-3 is under 5%? No wonder Obama got voted for twice by you.

You're fucking deranged.

It's not 285,000 - 150,000.

150,000 is a net gain.

If 150,000 jobs are created to counter the population growth, how is it 285,000 people are looking for a job but cant find them(and don't forget the 94 million not bothering to look for a job either)? Did you learn the common core math in school? Sure looks like you are trying to use that type of formula on US.

 

[Faun]

Dow sheds 200 after jobs report; Fed eyed

U.S. equities fell on Friday as mixed U.S. employment data raised concerns that the Federal Reserve may raise rates this year.

The U.S. economy added 151,000 jobs in January, the Bureau of Labor Statistics said Friday. Economists were expecting a gain of 190,000. The unemployment rate, however, fell to 4.9 percent from 5.0 percent, while wages rose 0.5 percent.

Hope you don't bust a blood vessel with this information. I guess pretty soon the Experts will be looking for 100,000 jobs as the normal and when it is 90,000 then it wont look so bad. By the way,

GEORGE BUSH - has been out of office now for over 7 years. You know who owns this economy? BARRACK HUSSEIN OBAMA, mmm,mmm,mmm. the only thing missing from the little Nazi's is the swastika symbol on their sleeves.

Why would I "bust a blood vessel" over that? The stock market is a long term investment. Though my 401K is down from recent months, it's more than double what it was when George Bush left office.

 

[Mikeoxenormous]

Dow sheds 200 after jobs report; Fed eyed

U.S. equities fell on Friday as mixed U.S. employment data raised concerns that the Federal Reserve may raise rates this year.

The U.S. economy added 151,000 jobs in January, the Bureau of Labor Statistics said Friday. Economists were expecting a gain of 190,000. The unemployment rate, however, fell to 4.9 percent from 5.0 percent, while wages rose 0.5 percent.

Hope you don't bust a blood vessel with this information. I guess pretty soon the Experts will be looking for 100,000 jobs as the normal and when it is 90,000 then it wont look so bad. By the way,

GEORGE BUSH - has been out of office now for over 7 years. You know who owns this economy? BARRACK HUSSEIN OBAMA, mmm,mmm,mmm. the only thing missing from the little Nazi's is the swastika symbol on their sleeves.

Why would I "bust a blood vessel" over that? The stock market is a long term investment. Though my 401K is down from recent months, it's more than double what it was when George Bush left office.

Yes , you already said that you don't give a rats ass, to those less fortunate. But how can your 401K be down with the economy in recovery? Clinton might strengthen Social Security by taxing investments

Clinton might strengthen Social Security by taxing investments

If the Vagina gets in the Rainblow House, your 401K would be in the tank, as everyone would be bailing out on the market. Then you could join the rest of American living in Obamaville.

 

[Faun]

Holyfuckingshit!

Now you're conflating employment numbers with initial jobless claims.



150,000 jobs are needed to keep up with population growth. The 13 month old article you posted states below 300,000 initial jobless claims "is associated with a firming labor market, for 18 weeks."

Such claims were at 285,000 for the last week of January.

Let's see how competent you are .....

Is 285,000 more or less than 300,000? Is less than 300,000 an indication of a "sturdy job market?"

So what you are saying is that if they create 150,000 jobs that is enough for the 300,000 that are looking for work? No wonder that there are 94 million people who stopped looking for work. The Obama roaring economy just isn't fulfilling the need. Thanks for pointing out the why.

Holyfuckingshit!

You're not even capable of answering those easy quesstions.

You failed the test.

Here, I'll answer them for you...

Q: Is 285,000 more or less than 300,000?
A: LESS

Q: Is less than 300,000 an indication of a "sturdy job market?"
A: YES

See how easy that was? And you couldn't even do it.

Again, since you're brain-dead .... YOU posted less than 300,000 new jobless claims indicates a "sturdy job market." We currently have fewer than 300,000 -- even according to you, we have a "sturdy job market," but because you're so fucking deranged, you didn't even realize you said that; nor can you admit it now.

G'head, let's hear you say -- we have a sturdy job market.....

And in answer to your question, as demented as it is ... despite there being 285,000 new job claims for the last week in January, 151,000 jobs were added for the month. That keeps up with population growth.

Now you said

ObamaCare has absolutely nothing to do with how the BLS tracks full time vs part time employment. The BLS standard is 35 hours.

150,000 new jobs per month has long been the number to keep up with population growth.

But then you said

Such claims were at 285,000 for the last week of January.

Now as far as I can tell 285,000 - 150,000 is 135,000 not looking for a job. Is that why 94 million people aren't looking for work and the U-3 is under 5%? No wonder Obama got voted for twice by you.

You're fucking deranged.

It's not 285,000 - 150,000.

150,000 is a net gain.

If 150,000 jobs are created to counter the population growth, how is it 285,000 people are looking for a job but cant find them(and don't forget the 94 million not bothering to look for a job either)? Did you learn the common core math in school? Sure looks like you are trying to use that type of formula on US.

What the fuck is wrong with you?? Don't you care that you post like a raving lunatic?

Those 285 thousand initial job claims were just filed. You think 285,000 people find a job within 2 weeks of losing one?

And I'm selling you nothing. I'm pointing out reality. I don't expect you to accept it, you're too far gone over the edge.

151,000 jobs were added last month. Regardless of how many people lost their job or how many people are looking for their first time, there was a net gain of 151,000 jobs added.

And again -- according to YOU, since we have less than 300,000 initial jobless claims filed, we have a "sturdy job market." That's what YOU said.

You're now arguing with yourself, trying to convince yourself we don't have a "sturdy job market" after you said we do.

 

[Faun]

Dow sheds 200 after jobs report; Fed eyed

U.S. equities fell on Friday as mixed U.S. employment data raised concerns that the Federal Reserve may raise rates this year.

The U.S. economy added 151,000 jobs in January, the Bureau of Labor Statistics said Friday. Economists were expecting a gain of 190,000. The unemployment rate, however, fell to 4.9 percent from 5.0 percent, while wages rose 0.5 percent.

Hope you don't bust a blood vessel with this information. I guess pretty soon the Experts will be looking for 100,000 jobs as the normal and when it is 90,000 then it wont look so bad. By the way,

GEORGE BUSH - has been out of office now for over 7 years. You know who owns this economy? BARRACK HUSSEIN OBAMA, mmm,mmm,mmm. the only thing missing from the little Nazi's is the swastika symbol on their sleeves.

Why would I "bust a blood vessel" over that? The stock market is a long term investment. Though my 401K is down from recent months, it's more than double what it was when George Bush left office.

Yes , you already said that you don't give a rats ass, to those less fortunate. But how can your 401K be down with the economy in recovery? Clinton might strengthen Social Security by taxing investments

Clinton might strengthen Social Security by taxing investments

If the Vagina gets in the Rainblow House, your 401K would be in the tank, as everyone would be bailing out on the market. Then you could join the rest of American living in Obamaville.

View attachment 62425

You're fucking deranged.

I didn't say I don't care about the less fortunate.

a) I was talking about folks who don't want to work. How does that make them less fortunate? Seems to me, people in a position to not have to work are not less fortunate.

b) I didn't say I don't care about them, I said I don't care what "YOU" do with them. Why would I care about anything you want to do?

 

[Mikeoxenormous]

So what you are saying is that if they create 150,000 jobs that is enough for the 300,000 that are looking for work? No wonder that there are 94 million people who stopped looking for work. The Obama roaring economy just isn't fulfilling the need. Thanks for pointing out the why.

Holyfuckingshit!

You're not even capable of answering those easy quesstions.

You failed the test.

Here, I'll answer them for you...

Q: Is 285,000 more or less than 300,000?
A: LESS

Q: Is less than 300,000 an indication of a "sturdy job market?"
A: YES

See how easy that was? And you couldn't even do it.

Again, since you're brain-dead .... YOU posted less than 300,000 new jobless claims indicates a "sturdy job market." We currently have fewer than 300,000 -- even according to you, we have a "sturdy job market," but because you're so fucking deranged, you didn't even realize you said that; nor can you admit it now.

G'head, let's hear you say -- we have a sturdy job market.....

And in answer to your question, as demented as it is ... despite there being 285,000 new job claims for the last week in January, 151,000 jobs were added for the month. That keeps up with population growth.

Now you said

ObamaCare has absolutely nothing to do with how the BLS tracks full time vs part time employment. The BLS standard is 35 hours.

150,000 new jobs per month has long been the number to keep up with population growth.

But then you said

Such claims were at 285,000 for the last week of January.

Now as far as I can tell 285,000 - 150,000 is 135,000 not looking for a job. Is that why 94 million people aren't looking for work and the U-3 is under 5%? No wonder Obama got voted for twice by you.

You're fucking deranged.

It's not 285,000 - 150,000.

150,000 is a net gain.

If 150,000 jobs are created to counter the population growth, how is it 285,000 people are looking for a job but cant find them(and don't forget the 94 million not bothering to look for a job either)? Did you learn the common core math in school? Sure looks like you are trying to use that type of formula on US.

What the fuck is wrong with you?? Don't you care that you post like a raving lunatic?

Those 285 thousand initial job claims were just filed. You think 285,000 people find a job within 2 weeks of losing one?

And I'm selling you nothing. I'm pointing out reality. I don't expect you to accept it, you're too far gone over the edge.

151,000 jobs were added last month. Regardless of how many people lost their job or how many people are looking for their first time, there was a net gain of 151,000 jobs added.

And again -- according to YOU, since we have less than 300,000 initial jobless claims filed, we have a "sturdy job market." That's what YOU said.

You're now arguing with yourself, trying to convince yourself we don't have a "sturdy job market" after you said we do.

and the stock market goes down. Sure seems that investors are jittery about this "sturdy job market" . The Dows high last year was over 18k, today it has shed 2000 points.
Citi: World economy trapped in ‘death spiral’

Some analysts — including those at Citi — have turned bearish on the world economy this year, following an equity rout in January and weaker economic data out of China and the U.S.

Hmm, you say "sturdy job market" , some analysts say the US has weaker economic data. I believe the analysts over a liberal anytime. Keep being a goosestepping, koolaid drinking, low information, mindnumbed, useful idiot, eventually you will be living with the rest of those who voted for the messiah, mmm, mmm, mmm and now live in a tent. Yes Scarlett , elections do have consequences.

 

[Mikeoxenormous]

Dow sheds 200 after jobs report; Fed eyed

U.S. equities fell on Friday as mixed U.S. employment data raised concerns that the Federal Reserve may raise rates this year.

The U.S. economy added 151,000 jobs in January, the Bureau of Labor Statistics said Friday. Economists were expecting a gain of 190,000. The unemployment rate, however, fell to 4.9 percent from 5.0 percent, while wages rose 0.5 percent.

Hope you don't bust a blood vessel with this information. I guess pretty soon the Experts will be looking for 100,000 jobs as the normal and when it is 90,000 then it wont look so bad. By the way,

GEORGE BUSH - has been out of office now for over 7 years. You know who owns this economy? BARRACK HUSSEIN OBAMA, mmm,mmm,mmm. the only thing missing from the little Nazi's is the swastika symbol on their sleeves.

Why would I "bust a blood vessel" over that? The stock market is a long term investment. Though my 401K is down from recent months, it's more than double what it was when George Bush left office.

Yes , you already said that you don't give a rats ass, to those less fortunate. But how can your 401K be down with the economy in recovery? Clinton might strengthen Social Security by taxing investments

Clinton might strengthen Social Security by taxing investments

If the Vagina gets in the Rainblow House, your 401K would be in the tank, as everyone would be bailing out on the market. Then you could join the rest of American living in Obamaville.

View attachment 62425

You're fucking deranged.

I didn't say I don't care about the less fortunate.

a) I was talking about folks who don't want to work. How does that make them less fortunate? Seems to me, people in a position to not have to work are not less fortunate.

b) I didn't say I don't care about them, I said I don't care what "YOU" do with them. Why would I care about anything you want to do?

FaunMessiah
Joined:
Nov 14, 2011
Messages:
13,418
Thanks Received:
2,384
Trophy Points:
260
Ratings:

I don't care what you do with them, they don't want to work. You're an idiot for portraying them as though they lost their job and can't find another.

 

[Mikeoxenormous]

Dow sheds 200 after jobs report; Fed eyed

U.S. equities fell on Friday as mixed U.S. employment data raised concerns that the Federal Reserve may raise rates this year.

The U.S. economy added 151,000 jobs in January, the Bureau of Labor Statistics said Friday. Economists were expecting a gain of 190,000. The unemployment rate, however, fell to 4.9 percent from 5.0 percent, while wages rose 0.5 percent.

Hope you don't bust a blood vessel with this information. I guess pretty soon the Experts will be looking for 100,000 jobs as the normal and when it is 90,000 then it wont look so bad. By the way,

GEORGE BUSH - has been out of office now for over 7 years. You know who owns this economy? BARRACK HUSSEIN OBAMA, mmm,mmm,mmm. the only thing missing from the little Nazi's is the swastika symbol on their sleeves.

Why would I "bust a blood vessel" over that? The stock market is a long term investment. Though my 401K is down from recent months, it's more than double what it was when George Bush left office.

Yes , you already said that you don't give a rats ass, to those less fortunate. But how can your 401K be down with the economy in recovery? Clinton might strengthen Social Security by taxing investments

Clinton might strengthen Social Security by taxing investments

If the Vagina gets in the Rainblow House, your 401K would be in the tank, as everyone would be bailing out on the market. Then you could join the rest of American living in Obamaville.

View attachment 62425

You're fucking deranged.

I didn't say I don't care about the less fortunate.

a) I was talking about folks who don't want to work. How does that make them less fortunate? Seems to me, people in a position to not have to work are not less fortunate.

b) I didn't say I don't care about them, I said I don't care what "YOU" do with them. Why would I care about anything you want to do?

Oh, you didn't highlight the "YOU" like you just did, so I assumed that like your liberal retarded president(who golfs while the world burns) you just give them enough to survive, but wont help them get out of the gutter and make something of themselves. When everyone is equal(by liberalism) everyone will be equally poor and equally miserable.

 

[Arianrhod]

 

[Sun Devil 92]

Dow sheds 200 after jobs report; Fed eyed

U.S. equities fell on Friday as mixed U.S. employment data raised concerns that the Federal Reserve may raise rates this year.

The U.S. economy added 151,000 jobs in January, the Bureau of Labor Statistics said Friday. Economists were expecting a gain of 190,000. The unemployment rate, however, fell to 4.9 percent from 5.0 percent, while wages rose 0.5 percent.

Hope you don't bust a blood vessel with this information. I guess pretty soon the Experts will be looking for 100,000 jobs as the normal and when it is 90,000 then it wont look so bad. By the way,

GEORGE BUSH - has been out of office now for over 7 years. You know who owns this economy? BARRACK HUSSEIN OBAMA, mmm,mmm,mmm. the only thing missing from the little Nazi's is the swastika symbol on their sleeves.

Why would I "bust a blood vessel" over that? The stock market is a long term investment. Though my 401K is down from recent months, it's more than double what it was when George Bush left office.

Yes , you already said that you don't give a rats ass, to those less fortunate. But how can your 401K be down with the economy in recovery? Clinton might strengthen Social Security by taxing investments

Clinton might strengthen Social Security by taxing investments

If the Vagina gets in the Rainblow House, your 401K would be in the tank, as everyone would be bailing out on the market. Then you could join the rest of American living in Obamaville.

View attachment 62425

You're fucking deranged.

I didn't say I don't care about the less fortunate.

a) I was talking about folks who don't want to work. How does that make them less fortunate? Seems to me, people in a position to not have to work are not less fortunate.

b) I didn't say I don't care about them, I said I don't care what "YOU" do with them. Why would I care about anything you want to do?

Oh, you didn't highlight the "YOU" like you just did, so I assumed that like your liberal retarded president(who golfs while the world burns) you just give them enough to survive, but wont help them get out of the gutter and make something of themselves. When everyone is equal(by liberalism) everyone will be equally poor and equally miserable.

Obama is not a liberal.

He's a far left, big government, Al Gore type (we know what's best for your...better than you do), elitist, divider.

Please keep the two straight.

I consider myself both liberal and conservative and Obama is giving liberals a bad name.

 

[Arianrhod]

I consider myself both liberal and conservative...

Would that be one of those "socially liberal/fiscally conservative" dichotomies we hear so much about?

 

[Faun]

Holyfuckingshit!

You're not even capable of answering those easy quesstions.

You failed the test.

Here, I'll answer them for you...

Q: Is 285,000 more or less than 300,000?
A: LESS

Q: Is less than 300,000 an indication of a "sturdy job market?"
A: YES

See how easy that was? And you couldn't even do it.

Again, since you're brain-dead .... YOU posted less than 300,000 new jobless claims indicates a "sturdy job market." We currently have fewer than 300,000 -- even according to you, we have a "sturdy job market," but because you're so fucking deranged, you didn't even realize you said that; nor can you admit it now.

G'head, let's hear you say -- we have a sturdy job market.....

And in answer to your question, as demented as it is ... despite there being 285,000 new job claims for the last week in January, 151,000 jobs were added for the month. That keeps up with population growth.

Now you said

ObamaCare has absolutely nothing to do with how the BLS tracks full time vs part time employment. The BLS standard is 35 hours.

150,000 new jobs per month has long been the number to keep up with population growth.

But then you said

Such claims were at 285,000 for the last week of January.

Now as far as I can tell 285,000 - 150,000 is 135,000 not looking for a job. Is that why 94 million people aren't looking for work and the U-3 is under 5%? No wonder Obama got voted for twice by you.

You're fucking deranged.

It's not 285,000 - 150,000.

150,000 is a net gain.

If 150,000 jobs are created to counter the population growth, how is it 285,000 people are looking for a job but cant find them(and don't forget the 94 million not bothering to look for a job either)? Did you learn the common core math in school? Sure looks like you are trying to use that type of formula on US.

What the fuck is wrong with you?? Don't you care that you post like a raving lunatic?

Those 285 thousand initial job claims were just filed. You think 285,000 people find a job within 2 weeks of losing one?

And I'm selling you nothing. I'm pointing out reality. I don't expect you to accept it, you're too far gone over the edge.

151,000 jobs were added last month. Regardless of how many people lost their job or how many people are looking for their first time, there was a net gain of 151,000 jobs added.

And again -- according to YOU, since we have less than 300,000 initial jobless claims filed, we have a "sturdy job market." That's what YOU said.

You're now arguing with yourself, trying to convince yourself we don't have a "sturdy job market" after you said we do.

and the stock market goes down. Sure seems that investors are jittery about this "sturdy job market" . The Dows high last year was over 18k, today it has shed 2000 points.
Citi: World economy trapped in ‘death spiral’

Some analysts — including those at Citi — have turned bearish on the world economy this year, following an equity rout in January and weaker economic data out of China and the U.S.

Hmm, you say "sturdy job market" , some analysts say the US has weaker economic data. I believe the analysts over a liberal anytime. Keep being a goosestepping, koolaid drinking, low information, mindnumbed, useful idiot, eventually you will be living with the rest of those who voted for the messiah, mmm, mmm, mmm and now live in a tent. Yes Scarlett , elections do have consequences.

Holyfuckingshit!

No, I didn't say the job market is sturdy -- YOU did.

As the moron that you are, I was showing YOU that back in Jan of 2015 the BLS was saying that 300,000 was needed for a sturdy job market. Of course being a liberal that went right over your Zippy pin head.