US Jobless claims fall to 4 decade low

[edthecynic]

People who ran out of unemployment and can no longer file are counted as employed.
That is how dumb this figure is. It is is just a number. It doesn't represent how many people are employed, it is a number of people who filed for unemployment.
If you have 10,000 employable people...1400 do not work - then your true unemployment figure is 14%.
If 200 of these people have never had a job, because they were in school ect. - they are counted among the EMPLOYED people...if you try to use this number to represent how many jobs there are.
So the figure is now - 12%.
If 300 people have been out of work for longer than they can draw unemployment, then - again using this number - the figure is now 9%.

Get it dumbass OP? - you can't use this number to represent anything other than what it is - and what it is - has no meaning for how many people have jobs.

All LIES, get it

What are you talking about?
I am saying that you can't use a number that represents how many people file for unemployment anything other than how many people file for unemployment.
The number cannot be used to insinuate more people have jobs.
Tell me how that is a lie.

People who run out of UI are NOT counted as employed simply because their UI ran out, as you falsely claim, they are counted as unemployed until they find a job whether they are collecting UI or not as long as they made at least a token effort to find a job which can be as little as asking a friend if they know of any jobs. So your whole rant was based on the lie in your first sentence which I have highlighted in red for you.

Nope....wrong again.
I said that as a point showing how dumb the OP was using this number to insinuate that more people have jobs.
The number, jobless claims, is a number of..wait for it... jobless claims. Trying to use that number to show anything else is wrong...my first sentence is an example of that - the note "that is how dumb that figure is" - what I really should have said it "that is how dumb it is to use this figure for that".

The number of NEW jobless claims, and the NEW is very important, shows that less workers are losing their jobs. The OP left out the NEW, so I'll give you the benefit of the doubt, but the stat properly stated IS a good sign for the economy.

New Jobless Claims: Down 6K, Lowest Since 1973 - dshort - Advisor Perspectives

In the week ending April 16, the advance figure for seasonally adjusted initial claims was 247,000, a decrease of 6,000 from the previous week's unrevised level of 253,000. This is the lowest level for initial claims since November 24, 1973 when it was 233,000. The 4-week moving average was 260,500, a decrease of 4,500 from the previous week's unrevised average of 265,000.

There were no special factors impacting this week's initial claims. This marks 59 consecutive weeks of initial claims below 300,000, the longest streak since 1973.

 

[sealybobo]

People who ran out of unemployment and can no longer file are counted as employed.
That is how dumb this figure is. It is is just a number. It doesn't represent how many people are employed, it is a number of people who filed for unemployment.
If you have 10,000 employable people...1400 do not work - then your true unemployment figure is 14%.
If 200 of these people have never had a job, because they were in school ect. - they are counted among the EMPLOYED people...if you try to use this number to represent how many jobs there are.
So the figure is now - 12%.
If 300 people have been out of work for longer than they can draw unemployment, then - again using this number - the figure is now 9%.

Get it dumbass OP? - you can't use this number to represent anything other than what it is - and what it is - has no meaning for how many people have jobs.

All LIES, get it

What are you talking about?
I am saying that you can't use a number that represents how many people file for unemployment anything other than how many people file for unemployment.
The number cannot be used to insinuate more people have jobs.
Tell me how that is a lie.

People who run out of UI are NOT counted as employed simply because their UI ran out, as you falsely claim, they are counted as unemployed until they find a job whether they are collecting UI or not as long as they made at least a token effort to find a job which can be as little as asking a friend if they know of any jobs. So your whole rant was based on the lie in your first sentence which I have highlighted in red for you.

Nope....wrong again.
I said that as a point showing how dumb the OP was using this number to insinuate that more people have jobs.
The number, jobless claims, is a number of..wait for it... jobless claims. Trying to use that number to show anything else is wrong...my first sentence is an example of that - the note "that is how dumb that figure is" - what I really should have said it "that is how dumb it is to use this figure for that".

The number of NEW jobless claims, and the NEW is very important, shows that less workers are losing their jobs. The OP left out the NEW, so I'll give you the benefit of the doubt, but the stat properly stated IS a good sign for the economy.

New Jobless Claims: Down 6K, Lowest Since 1973 - dshort - Advisor Perspectives

In the week ending April 16, the advance figure for seasonally adjusted initial claims was 247,000, a decrease of 6,000 from the previous week's unrevised level of 253,000. This is the lowest level for initial claims since November 24, 1973 when it was 233,000. The 4-week moving average was 260,500, a decrease of 4,500 from the previous week's unrevised average of 265,000.

There were no special factors impacting this week's initial claims. This marks 59 consecutive weeks of initial claims below 300,000, the longest streak since 1973.

The wallstreet journal title reads " us joless claims 4 decade low", but you are right in the piece they said new.

Still this is a good economy. Republicans wanted to blame Obama for a bad economy but won't give him credit for a good one

 

[sealybobo]

People who ran out of unemployment and can no longer file are counted as employed.
That is how dumb this figure is. It is is just a number. It doesn't represent how many people are employed, it is a number of people who filed for unemployment.
If you have 10,000 employable people...1400 do not work - then your true unemployment figure is 14%.
If 200 of these people have never had a job, because they were in school ect. - they are counted among the EMPLOYED people...if you try to use this number to represent how many jobs there are.
So the figure is now - 12%.
If 300 people have been out of work for longer than they can draw unemployment, then - again using this number - the figure is now 9%.

Get it dumbass OP? - you can't use this number to represent anything other than what it is - and what it is - has no meaning for how many people have jobs.

All LIES, get it

What are you talking about?
I am saying that you can't use a number that represents how many people file for unemployment anything other than how many people file for unemployment.
The number cannot be used to insinuate more people have jobs.
Tell me how that is a lie.

I know guys who work construction or carpentry work or start their own business and do all cash under the table jobs while they collect unemployment. When unemployment is done we are done worrying about them. Especially in a good economy like this

 

[Oldstyle]

I've got a cookie for the first Progressive on this board that can name the Obama policies that created jobs in America! He hasn't had a plan to fix the economy or create jobs since Larry Summers left YEARS AGO! Thanks Obama? That's farce of the highest order...

I got a job because of an Obama policy. It gave companies a tax write off if they hired the unemployed. No payroll tax. So this company hired 20 new salespeople.

Where's my cookie?

What's laughable is that you think that Obama policy created jobs, Sealy! Oh, it was supposed to...but like most of Obama's economic policies...it didn't take into account how businesses really operate. The fact of the matter is the tax write off you refer to DIDN'T create a net gain in job creation! It did however allow some business owners to claim a tax write off for employees they would have hired anyway but because that benefit only took place after a year had passed most companies that were not flush with cash couldn't take advantage of it even if they would have liked to have done so.

You guys have a spin on everything.

1. Yes it did create jobs. It encouraged companies that wouldn't have hired a couple extra employees to hire them.

2. But lets say you are right, which in a way you are. Thank you for admitting that giving corporations more tax breaks won't create jobs.

So I'll conceed you are right. But that means we were right all along. We told you giving companies tax breaks doesn't mean they will create more jobs. The only thing that creates more jobs is more demand.

What creates more jobs is the anticipation of profit. Demand? If there is no profit to be made from satisfying demand then the Private Sector won't create a business or jobs to do so. Giving companies tax breaks does one thing and one thing only...it makes it more likely that profits will be made and kept...and THAT is what induces the Private Sector to create jobs.

You liberals don't have a clue how business and economics work...yet think you do...you pass idiotic legislation that won't grow the economy or create jobs and then whine about how "evil corporations" won't cooperate with what you're trying to do!

As for whether I'm "right" or not? You know I am because economic growth has been tepid at best. If it wasn't for the cost of gasoline and natural gas being as low as it is right now (none of which Barack Obama is responsible for!) economic growth would be almost non existent.

Actually, most normal people understand the truth lies somewhere in the middle. If you think conservativonomics work you're more brainwashed than you appear to be. Are you a libertarian?

What exactly is "brainwashed" about wanting government that's efficient and not a burden on society? What's "brainwashed" about wanting fiscal responsibility from our elected officials? What's "brainwashed" about understanding that the American Dream isn't about entitlements but opportunity? Am I a libertarian? I would classify myself as a sort of Rockefeller conservative. I believe in fiscal conservatism so that we have a healthy enough economy to afford social programs. I don't believe we can spend our way to prosperity. Nor do I think it's good for people to be given things.

 

[sealybobo]

I got a job because of an Obama policy. It gave companies a tax write off if they hired the unemployed. No payroll tax. So this company hired 20 new salespeople.

Where's my cookie?

What's laughable is that you think that Obama policy created jobs, Sealy! Oh, it was supposed to...but like most of Obama's economic policies...it didn't take into account how businesses really operate. The fact of the matter is the tax write off you refer to DIDN'T create a net gain in job creation! It did however allow some business owners to claim a tax write off for employees they would have hired anyway but because that benefit only took place after a year had passed most companies that were not flush with cash couldn't take advantage of it even if they would have liked to have done so.

You guys have a spin on everything.

1. Yes it did create jobs. It encouraged companies that wouldn't have hired a couple extra employees to hire them.

2. But lets say you are right, which in a way you are. Thank you for admitting that giving corporations more tax breaks won't create jobs.

So I'll conceed you are right. But that means we were right all along. We told you giving companies tax breaks doesn't mean they will create more jobs. The only thing that creates more jobs is more demand.

What creates more jobs is the anticipation of profit. Demand? If there is no profit to be made from satisfying demand then the Private Sector won't create a business or jobs to do so. Giving companies tax breaks does one thing and one thing only...it makes it more likely that profits will be made and kept...and THAT is what induces the Private Sector to create jobs.

You liberals don't have a clue how business and economics work...yet think you do...you pass idiotic legislation that won't grow the economy or create jobs and then whine about how "evil corporations" won't cooperate with what you're trying to do!

As for whether I'm "right" or not? You know I am because economic growth has been tepid at best. If it wasn't for the cost of gasoline and natural gas being as low as it is right now (none of which Barack Obama is responsible for!) economic growth would be almost non existent.

Actually, most normal people understand the truth lies somewhere in the middle. If you think conservativonomics work you're more brainwashed than you appear to be. Are you a libertarian?

What exactly is "brainwashed" about wanting government that's efficient and not a burden on society? What's "brainwashed" about wanting fiscal responsibility from our elected officials? What's "brainwashed" about understanding that the American Dream isn't about entitlements but opportunity? Am I a libertarian? I would classify myself as a sort of Rockefeller conservative. I believe in fiscal conservatism so that we have a healthy enough economy to afford social programs. I don't believe we can spend our way to prosperity. Nor do I think it's good for people to be given things.

And I agree.

 

[Oldstyle]

All LIES, get it

What are you talking about?
I am saying that you can't use a number that represents how many people file for unemployment anything other than how many people file for unemployment.
The number cannot be used to insinuate more people have jobs.
Tell me how that is a lie.

People who run out of UI are NOT counted as employed simply because their UI ran out, as you falsely claim, they are counted as unemployed until they find a job whether they are collecting UI or not as long as they made at least a token effort to find a job which can be as little as asking a friend if they know of any jobs. So your whole rant was based on the lie in your first sentence which I have highlighted in red for you.

Nope....wrong again.
I said that as a point showing how dumb the OP was using this number to insinuate that more people have jobs.
The number, jobless claims, is a number of..wait for it... jobless claims. Trying to use that number to show anything else is wrong...my first sentence is an example of that - the note "that is how dumb that figure is" - what I really should have said it "that is how dumb it is to use this figure for that".

The number of NEW jobless claims, and the NEW is very important, shows that less workers are losing their jobs. The OP left out the NEW, so I'll give you the benefit of the doubt, but the stat properly stated IS a good sign for the economy.

New Jobless Claims: Down 6K, Lowest Since 1973 - dshort - Advisor Perspectives

In the week ending April 16, the advance figure for seasonally adjusted initial claims was 247,000, a decrease of 6,000 from the previous week's unrevised level of 253,000. This is the lowest level for initial claims since November 24, 1973 when it was 233,000. The 4-week moving average was 260,500, a decrease of 4,500 from the previous week's unrevised average of 265,000.

There were no special factors impacting this week's initial claims. This marks 59 consecutive weeks of initial claims below 300,000, the longest streak since 1973.

The wallstreet journal title reads " us joless claims 4 decade low", but you are right in the piece they said new.

Still this is a good economy. Republicans wanted to blame Obama for a bad economy but won't give him credit for a good one

Sealy...this is NOT a good economy! I'm sorry but it isn't. Is it better than it was back in 2008 and 2009? Heck yeah! And it should be! We've done nonstop quantitative easing and kept interest rates at nearly zero for eight years now. That should have had the economy on a fast boil years ago but instead we've got an economy that's just grinding along. I don't blame Barry for a bad economy...I blame him for a total lack of initiatives to grow the economy and put people back to work for much of the last six years. He owns "The Great Recession" because he hasn't had a clue when it comes to economics.

 

[sealybobo]

What are you talking about?
I am saying that you can't use a number that represents how many people file for unemployment anything other than how many people file for unemployment.
The number cannot be used to insinuate more people have jobs.
Tell me how that is a lie.

People who run out of UI are NOT counted as employed simply because their UI ran out, as you falsely claim, they are counted as unemployed until they find a job whether they are collecting UI or not as long as they made at least a token effort to find a job which can be as little as asking a friend if they know of any jobs. So your whole rant was based on the lie in your first sentence which I have highlighted in red for you.

Nope....wrong again.
I said that as a point showing how dumb the OP was using this number to insinuate that more people have jobs.
The number, jobless claims, is a number of..wait for it... jobless claims. Trying to use that number to show anything else is wrong...my first sentence is an example of that - the note "that is how dumb that figure is" - what I really should have said it "that is how dumb it is to use this figure for that".

The number of NEW jobless claims, and the NEW is very important, shows that less workers are losing their jobs. The OP left out the NEW, so I'll give you the benefit of the doubt, but the stat properly stated IS a good sign for the economy.

New Jobless Claims: Down 6K, Lowest Since 1973 - dshort - Advisor Perspectives

In the week ending April 16, the advance figure for seasonally adjusted initial claims was 247,000, a decrease of 6,000 from the previous week's unrevised level of 253,000. This is the lowest level for initial claims since November 24, 1973 when it was 233,000. The 4-week moving average was 260,500, a decrease of 4,500 from the previous week's unrevised average of 265,000.

There were no special factors impacting this week's initial claims. This marks 59 consecutive weeks of initial claims below 300,000, the longest streak since 1973.

The wallstreet journal title reads " us joless claims 4 decade low", but you are right in the piece they said new.

Still this is a good economy. Republicans wanted to blame Obama for a bad economy but won't give him credit for a good one

Sealy...this is NOT a good economy! I'm sorry but it isn't. Is it better than it was back in 2008 and 2009? Heck yeah! And it should be! We've done nonstop quantitative easing and kept interest rates at nearly zero for eight years now. That should have had the economy on a fast boil years ago but instead we've got an economy that's just grinding along. I don't blame Barry for a bad economy...I blame him for a total lack of initiatives to grow the economy and put people back to work for much of the last six years. He owns "The Great Recession" because he hasn't had a clue when it comes to economics.

Dems give us 40 years of slow steady growth Republicans give us ten years bust ten years booms. Hard to survive gopanomics if you aren't rich. What do you do?

But I agree I hate interest rates being so low

 

[Faun]

People who ran out of unemployment and can no longer file are counted as employed.

I can't even begin to guess where you people get your information from?? It's like you're all drinking from the same kool-aid fountain. <smh>

No, unemployed people are not counted as employed. WTF are you talking about??

 

[Oldstyle]

People who run out of UI are NOT counted as employed simply because their UI ran out, as you falsely claim, they are counted as unemployed until they find a job whether they are collecting UI or not as long as they made at least a token effort to find a job which can be as little as asking a friend if they know of any jobs. So your whole rant was based on the lie in your first sentence which I have highlighted in red for you.

Nope....wrong again.
I said that as a point showing how dumb the OP was using this number to insinuate that more people have jobs.
The number, jobless claims, is a number of..wait for it... jobless claims. Trying to use that number to show anything else is wrong...my first sentence is an example of that - the note "that is how dumb that figure is" - what I really should have said it "that is how dumb it is to use this figure for that".

The number of NEW jobless claims, and the NEW is very important, shows that less workers are losing their jobs. The OP left out the NEW, so I'll give you the benefit of the doubt, but the stat properly stated IS a good sign for the economy.

New Jobless Claims: Down 6K, Lowest Since 1973 - dshort - Advisor Perspectives

In the week ending April 16, the advance figure for seasonally adjusted initial claims was 247,000, a decrease of 6,000 from the previous week's unrevised level of 253,000. This is the lowest level for initial claims since November 24, 1973 when it was 233,000. The 4-week moving average was 260,500, a decrease of 4,500 from the previous week's unrevised average of 265,000.

There were no special factors impacting this week's initial claims. This marks 59 consecutive weeks of initial claims below 300,000, the longest streak since 1973.

The wallstreet journal title reads " us joless claims 4 decade low", but you are right in the piece they said new.

Still this is a good economy. Republicans wanted to blame Obama for a bad economy but won't give him credit for a good one

Sealy...this is NOT a good economy! I'm sorry but it isn't. Is it better than it was back in 2008 and 2009? Heck yeah! And it should be! We've done nonstop quantitative easing and kept interest rates at nearly zero for eight years now. That should have had the economy on a fast boil years ago but instead we've got an economy that's just grinding along. I don't blame Barry for a bad economy...I blame him for a total lack of initiatives to grow the economy and put people back to work for much of the last six years. He owns "The Great Recession" because he hasn't had a clue when it comes to economics.

Dems give us 40 years of slow steady growth Republicans give us ten years bust ten years booms. Hard to survive gopanomics if you aren't rich. What do you do?

But I agree I hate interest rates being so low

What 40 years of slow steady growth have Democratic policies given us? Please don't tell me that you're going to use the post WWII years as an example of how Democrats grew the economy, Sealy! That period of prosperity was due in large part from our being the only major industrial power who's infrastructure hadn't been crippled by the war. Our economy prospered because we became the world's supplier of material goods almost by default. If you think that's something that can be recreated NOW I can only state that you're rather naive.

 

[Oldstyle]

People who run out of UI are NOT counted as employed simply because their UI ran out, as you falsely claim, they are counted as unemployed until they find a job whether they are collecting UI or not as long as they made at least a token effort to find a job which can be as little as asking a friend if they know of any jobs. So your whole rant was based on the lie in your first sentence which I have highlighted in red for you.

Nope....wrong again.
I said that as a point showing how dumb the OP was using this number to insinuate that more people have jobs.
The number, jobless claims, is a number of..wait for it... jobless claims. Trying to use that number to show anything else is wrong...my first sentence is an example of that - the note "that is how dumb that figure is" - what I really should have said it "that is how dumb it is to use this figure for that".

The number of NEW jobless claims, and the NEW is very important, shows that less workers are losing their jobs. The OP left out the NEW, so I'll give you the benefit of the doubt, but the stat properly stated IS a good sign for the economy.

New Jobless Claims: Down 6K, Lowest Since 1973 - dshort - Advisor Perspectives

In the week ending April 16, the advance figure for seasonally adjusted initial claims was 247,000, a decrease of 6,000 from the previous week's unrevised level of 253,000. This is the lowest level for initial claims since November 24, 1973 when it was 233,000. The 4-week moving average was 260,500, a decrease of 4,500 from the previous week's unrevised average of 265,000.

There were no special factors impacting this week's initial claims. This marks 59 consecutive weeks of initial claims below 300,000, the longest streak since 1973.

The wallstreet journal title reads " us joless claims 4 decade low", but you are right in the piece they said new.

Still this is a good economy. Republicans wanted to blame Obama for a bad economy but won't give him credit for a good one

Sealy...this is NOT a good economy! I'm sorry but it isn't. Is it better than it was back in 2008 and 2009? Heck yeah! And it should be! We've done nonstop quantitative easing and kept interest rates at nearly zero for eight years now. That should have had the economy on a fast boil years ago but instead we've got an economy that's just grinding along. I don't blame Barry for a bad economy...I blame him for a total lack of initiatives to grow the economy and put people back to work for much of the last six years. He owns "The Great Recession" because he hasn't had a clue when it comes to economics.

Dems give us 40 years of slow steady growth Republicans give us ten years bust ten years booms. Hard to survive gopanomics if you aren't rich. What do you do?

But I agree I hate interest rates being so low

Will you admit WHY interest rates have been kept so low? I'll give you a hint...it's NOT because the Fed thinks the economy is "good"!

 

[Faun]

[
It's wrong not to count people who are employed as unemployed? I'm not getting why you think people who have jobs should be considered unemployed.

Of course you don't because you're like Obama using the US Labor statistics as straw man fallacy to celebrate false victories. If you consider a person working only 8 hours a week as being employed at a Temp agency, then you're as delusional as Obama who thinks ISIS is contained. Librat gov. throw the people a crumb and call this a victory. Shame!

When the unemployment rate was 5% while Bush was president, how come you righties weren't accusing Bush of using that stat as a straw man fallacy to celebrate false victories? How come none of you said then that an unemployment rate of 5% is a lie, that the actual unemployment rate was as high as 20% to 40%?

 

[sealybobo]

Nope....wrong again.
I said that as a point showing how dumb the OP was using this number to insinuate that more people have jobs.
The number, jobless claims, is a number of..wait for it... jobless claims. Trying to use that number to show anything else is wrong...my first sentence is an example of that - the note "that is how dumb that figure is" - what I really should have said it "that is how dumb it is to use this figure for that".

The number of NEW jobless claims, and the NEW is very important, shows that less workers are losing their jobs. The OP left out the NEW, so I'll give you the benefit of the doubt, but the stat properly stated IS a good sign for the economy.

New Jobless Claims: Down 6K, Lowest Since 1973 - dshort - Advisor Perspectives

In the week ending April 16, the advance figure for seasonally adjusted initial claims was 247,000, a decrease of 6,000 from the previous week's unrevised level of 253,000. This is the lowest level for initial claims since November 24, 1973 when it was 233,000. The 4-week moving average was 260,500, a decrease of 4,500 from the previous week's unrevised average of 265,000.

There were no special factors impacting this week's initial claims. This marks 59 consecutive weeks of initial claims below 300,000, the longest streak since 1973.

The wallstreet journal title reads " us joless claims 4 decade low", but you are right in the piece they said new.

Still this is a good economy. Republicans wanted to blame Obama for a bad economy but won't give him credit for a good one

Sealy...this is NOT a good economy! I'm sorry but it isn't. Is it better than it was back in 2008 and 2009? Heck yeah! And it should be! We've done nonstop quantitative easing and kept interest rates at nearly zero for eight years now. That should have had the economy on a fast boil years ago but instead we've got an economy that's just grinding along. I don't blame Barry for a bad economy...I blame him for a total lack of initiatives to grow the economy and put people back to work for much of the last six years. He owns "The Great Recession" because he hasn't had a clue when it comes to economics.

Dems give us 40 years of slow steady growth Republicans give us ten years bust ten years booms. Hard to survive gopanomics if you aren't rich. What do you do?

But I agree I hate interest rates being so low

Will you admit WHY interest rates have been kept so low? I'll give you a hint...it's NOT because the Fed thinks the economy is "good"!

What do we need to do?

 

[sealybobo]

[
It's wrong not to count people who are employed as unemployed? I'm not getting why you think people who have jobs should be considered unemployed.

Of course you don't because you're like Obama using the US Labor statistics as straw man fallacy to celebrate false victories. If you consider a person working only 8 hours a week as being employed at a Temp agency, then you're as delusional as Obama who thinks ISIS is contained. Librat gov. throw the people a crumb and call this a victory. Shame!

When the unemployment rate was 5% while Bush was president, how come you righties weren't accusing Bush of using that stat as a straw man fallacy to celebrate false victories? How come none of you said then that an unemployment rate of 5% is a lie, that the actual unemployment rate was as high as 20% to 40%?

We were telling them that. Back then it was true today we are at zero unemployment and Republicans are counting retirees in their numbers. Republicans don't know they are being stupid or lying. They are brainwashed

 

[Faun]

But the 109,631,000 living in households taking federal welfare benefits as of the end of 2012, according to the Census Bureau, equaled 35.4 percent of all 309,467,000 people living in the United States at that time.Sep 9, 2015

1. Percentage of Americans Now on Welfare Paints a ...
   economyincrisis.org/.../percentage-of-americans-now-on-welfare-paints-a-d...

Typical dishonest stat. They counted 6 different programs and if one person was eligible for all 6 they were counted as 6 different people. Most poor people were eligible for more than 1 poverty program, in fact, when the Right like to claim that poor people make more than people who work, they count all 6 poverty programs combined.

Show a liberal hard evidence, liberals say its inadmissible, bring a liberal witnesses and the criminal's testimony confession, liberals say it was false witnesses and a forced confession, the jury finds the criminal guilty on 12 charges, the libs say the criminal didn't commit one crime. Democrats love defending their politician criminals like Bill Clinton, Hillary, ISIS, Ted Kennedy, Southern Democrat Ku Klux Klan harassing and hanging blacks in the South for voting Republican and still blacks harassed today by bigots for being an Uncle Tom for voting Republican. No wonder libs condone their criminal behavior, they're the Mafia! You librats learn well from your master Saul Alinsky.

Saul Alinsky’s 12 Rules for Radicals


* RULE 5: “Ridicule is man’s most potent weapon.” There is no defense. It’s irrational. It’s infuriating. It also works as a key pressure point to force the enemy into concessions.


* RULE 11: “The price of a successful attack is a constructive alternative.” Never let the enemy score points because you’re caught without a solution to the problem.

Cries the imbecile who thinks Carter was president in 1974.

 

[Faun]

Nope....wrong again.
I said that as a point showing how dumb the OP was using this number to insinuate that more people have jobs.
The number, jobless claims, is a number of..wait for it... jobless claims. Trying to use that number to show anything else is wrong...my first sentence is an example of that - the note "that is how dumb that figure is" - what I really should have said it "that is how dumb it is to use this figure for that".

The number of NEW jobless claims, and the NEW is very important, shows that less workers are losing their jobs. The OP left out the NEW, so I'll give you the benefit of the doubt, but the stat properly stated IS a good sign for the economy.

New Jobless Claims: Down 6K, Lowest Since 1973 - dshort - Advisor Perspectives

In the week ending April 16, the advance figure for seasonally adjusted initial claims was 247,000, a decrease of 6,000 from the previous week's unrevised level of 253,000. This is the lowest level for initial claims since November 24, 1973 when it was 233,000. The 4-week moving average was 260,500, a decrease of 4,500 from the previous week's unrevised average of 265,000.

There were no special factors impacting this week's initial claims. This marks 59 consecutive weeks of initial claims below 300,000, the longest streak since 1973.

The wallstreet journal title reads " us joless claims 4 decade low", but you are right in the piece they said new.

Still this is a good economy. Republicans wanted to blame Obama for a bad economy but won't give him credit for a good one

Sealy...this is NOT a good economy! I'm sorry but it isn't. Is it better than it was back in 2008 and 2009? Heck yeah! And it should be! We've done nonstop quantitative easing and kept interest rates at nearly zero for eight years now. That should have had the economy on a fast boil years ago but instead we've got an economy that's just grinding along. I don't blame Barry for a bad economy...I blame him for a total lack of initiatives to grow the economy and put people back to work for much of the last six years. He owns "The Great Recession" because he hasn't had a clue when it comes to economics.

Dems give us 40 years of slow steady growth Republicans give us ten years bust ten years booms. Hard to survive gopanomics if you aren't rich. What do you do?

But I agree I hate interest rates being so low

What 40 years of slow steady growth have Democratic policies given us? Please don't tell me that you're going to use the post WWII years as an example of how Democrats grew the economy, Sealy! That period of prosperity was due in large part from our being the only major industrial power who's infrastructure hadn't been crippled by the war. Our economy prospered because we became the world's supplier of material goods almost by default. If you think that's something that can be recreated NOW I can only state that you're rather naive.

Yeah, this is just coincidence.....

Clinton	-3.1
Obama	-2.8
Johnson	-2.3
Reagan	-2.1
Kennedy	-0.9
Carter	0.0
GHW Bush	+1.9
Ford	+2.0
Nixon	+2.1
Eisenhower	+2.5
Bush	+3.6

^^^ change in unemployment rate

Bureau of Labor Statistics Data

 

[couch protester]

When the unemployment rate was 5% while Bush was president, how come you righties weren't accusing Bush of using that stat as a straw man fallacy to celebrate false victories? How come none of you said then that an unemployment rate of 5% is a lie, that the actual unemployment rate was as high as 20% to 40%?

Who cares about Bush? Conservatives don't trust the gov. but you librats do. We want smaller gov. Less gov.

You libs want Big gov. Big Brother gov. Wipe your asses gov. Baby daddy gov. Welfare gov. Spy on you gov. Help me gov. Tell you what to do gov. Nurse Betty gov. Hold your hand gov. Be your friend gov. Hand out gov. Control gov. Defend me gov. Gestapo get their guns gov. Free gov.

 

[Faun]

When the unemployment rate was 5% while Bush was president, how come you righties weren't accusing Bush of using that stat as a straw man fallacy to celebrate false victories? How come none of you said then that an unemployment rate of 5% is a lie, that the actual unemployment rate was as high as 20% to 40%?

Who cares about Bush? Conservatives don't trust the gov. but you librats do. We want smaller gov. Less gov.

You libs want Big gov. Big Brother gov. Wipe your asses gov. Baby daddy gov. Welfare gov. Spy on you gov. Help me gov. Tell you what to do gov. Nurse Betty gov. Hold your hand gov. Be your friend gov. Hand out gov. Control gov. Defend me gov. Gestapo get their guns gov. Free gov.

Thanks for proving my point.

You claim conservatives don't trust the government, yet you can't explain why y'all weren't bitching about moaning about how fake the unemployment rate was when it was 5% under Bush.

According to righties ....

5% unemployment under Bush is really 5% unemployment.

5% unemployment under Obama is really 40% unemployment.

 

[couch protester]

We were telling them that. Back then it was true today we are at zero unemployment and Republicans are counting retirees in their numbers. Republicans don't know they are being stupid or lying. They are brainwashed

You demoRATS are like a Pyramid scheme, looking for success in numbers, just so you can say that Obama had a great track record, while the 100 million Americans are in poverty. That's a great victory, just celebrate your ignorance. In the mean time you ignore your POTUS 8 trillion dollar spending debt. Of course his unemployment rate victory is just smoking mirrors to hide his enormous bad credit rating.

 

[couch protester]

Thanks for proving my point. You claim conservatives don't trust the government, yet you can't explain why y'all weren't bitching about moaning about how fake the unemployment rate was when it was 5% under Bush.

Yes, you proved your point, that free stuff makes you happy and your POTUS raised the debt 8 trillion dollars more than bush? Now, stop trying so hard to desperately prove epic fail points and putting your foot in your mouth.

 

[Faun]

We were telling them that. Back then it was true today we are at zero unemployment and Republicans are counting retirees in their numbers. Republicans don't know they are being stupid or lying. They are brainwashed

You demoRATS are like a Pyramid scheme, looking for success in numbers, just so you can say that Obama had a great track record, while the 100 million Americans are in poverty. That's a great victory, just celebrate your ignorance. In the mean time you ignore your POTUS 8 trillion dollar spending debt. Of course his unemployment rate victory is just smoking mirrors to hide his enormous bad credit rating.

"Deficits don't matter" ~ A conservative Republican