US Jobless claims fall to 4 decade low

[EdwardBaiamonte]

UM. Thank you Jimmy Carter !

????????????

 

[Rozman]

Really bad job numbers for May 2016......

Watch the Libs here brag about the great Obama economy.....
No interest rate hike anytime soon....
Really shitty job numbers report are the main reason for that.

 

[Faun]

Really bad job numbers for May 2016......

Watch the Libs here brag about the great Obama economy.....
No interest rate hike anytime soon....
Really shitty job numbers report are the main reason for that.

After years of job growth, you yahoos finally get a month to cheer about.

 

[Rshermr]

Really bad job numbers for May 2016......

Watch the Libs here brag about the great Obama economy.....
No interest rate hike anytime soon....
Really shitty job numbers report are the main reason for that.

Let me help you, Roz. As a con tool, any job numbers you see are shitty when the president is democratic. But the ue rate dropped to 4.7%, which is really good. Now, what is really shitty. That should be easy for anyone to comment on. Really shitty was the 10% ue rate under Bush, while we were loosing over 500,000 jobs per month. See what I am saying. That is shitty, todays numbers are good. Your analysis, however, is also shitty.

 

[Rshermr]

Really bad job numbers for May 2016......

Watch the Libs here brag about the great Obama economy.....
No interest rate hike anytime soon....
Really shitty job numbers report are the main reason for that.

After years of job growth, you yahoos finally get a month to cheer about.

What is, in fact, funny is that if you get a marginally good rate change and something that these tools can say were bad numbers, it makes the con excited, hopeful, and happy. Because they could care less about workers.

While we added fewer jobs, the analysis is that we did add jobs, but only 38,000 jobs and the ue rate fell to 4.7%. Not great. But nothing at all as bad as republican rates and their Great Republican Recession of 2008.

 

[Oldstyle]

It's amusing to watch you Obama apologists claim an improved unemployment rate as one of Barry's "successes" but when it's pointed out to you that he led the worst recovery from a recession in modern economic history and you're asked what Obama economic strategy led to job creation...all you hear in here is crickets!

We've currently kept interest rates at the Fed at nearly 0% for the longest period of time in American history...and the reason for that is the economy is a house of cards...kept afloat by a stock market bubble created by cheap money from the Fed. Every time the Fed Chief even HINTS at a raise the stock market goes into a nose dive and they have to hurriedly announce that they're going to hold off on rate increases until later.

The Recession of 2008 has been over for years now...what we're suffering through now is Barack Obama's "Recovery".

 

[Faun]

It's amusing to watch you Obama apologists claim an improved unemployment rate as one of Barry's "successes" but when it's pointed out to you that he led the worst recovery from a recession in modern economic history and you're asked what Obama economic strategy led to job creation...all you hear in here is crickets!

We've currently kept interest rates at the Fed at nearly 0% for the longest period of time in American history...and the reason for that is the economy is a house of cards...kept afloat by a stock market bubble created by cheap money from the Fed. Every time the Fed Chief even HINTS at a raise the stock market goes into a nose dive and they have to hurriedly announce that they're going to hold off on rate increases until later.

The Recession of 2008 has been over for years now...what we're suffering through now is Barack Obama's "Recovery".

Yeah, the 14.2 million jobs added during the recovery are just a figment of your con tool imagination.

 

[Oldstyle]

Really bad job numbers for May 2016......

Watch the Libs here brag about the great Obama economy.....
No interest rate hike anytime soon....
Really shitty job numbers report are the main reason for that.

Let me help you, Roz. As a con tool, any job numbers you see are shitty when the president is democratic. But the ue rate dropped to 4.7%, which is really good. Now, what is really shitty. That should be easy for anyone to comment on. Really shitty was the 10% ue rate under Bush, while we were loosing over 500,000 jobs per month. See what I am saying. That is shitty, todays numbers are good. Your analysis, however, is also shitty.

Your analysis (as usual) is long on partisan bullshit and short on facts! The highest unemployment rate under George W. Bush was 7.8 as he was leaving office. His average for two terms was slightly above 5. Obama's average is at 7.5...the second worst of any President since Ike.

Bush had to deal with the aftermath of 9/11 with all of the damage that did to our economy. Barry hasn't had anything even close to that crisis and yet his lack of a coherent economic plan to stimulate the economy has led to the glacially slow recovery we've been slogging through for the past seven and a half years now! Doubt what I'm saying? Tell me who Obama's Chief Economic Advisor is and what their plan is to grow the economy! And as you're forced to go Google that...ask yourself why it is that you don't have a clue who's in charge of that or what the current plan is!

 

[Faun]

Really bad job numbers for May 2016......

Watch the Libs here brag about the great Obama economy.....
No interest rate hike anytime soon....
Really shitty job numbers report are the main reason for that.

Let me help you, Roz. As a con tool, any job numbers you see are shitty when the president is democratic. But the ue rate dropped to 4.7%, which is really good. Now, what is really shitty. That should be easy for anyone to comment on. Really shitty was the 10% ue rate under Bush, while we were loosing over 500,000 jobs per month. See what I am saying. That is shitty, todays numbers are good. Your analysis, however, is also shitty.

Your analysis (as usual) is long on partisan bullshit and short on facts! The highest unemployment rate under George W. Bush was 7.8 as he was leaving office. His average for two terms was slightly above 5. Obama's average is at 7.5...the second worst of any President since Ike.

Bush had to deal with the aftermath of 9/11 with all of the damage that did to our economy. Barry hasn't had anything even close to that crisis and yet his lack of a coherent economic plan to stimulate the economy has led to the glacially slow recovery we've been slogging through for the past seven and a half years now! Doubt what I'm saying? Tell me who Obama's Chief Economic Advisor is and what their plan is to grow the economy! And as you're forced to go Google that...ask yourself why it is that you don't have a clue who's in charge of that or what the current plan is!

Claiming Obama hasn't had to deal with anything close to the crisis of 9.11 reveals again what a con tool you are.

In terms of financial impact to our nation, Bush's Great Recession caused far more damage to us than 9.11. Several times over in fact.

You really do nothing but spout rightarded idiocies.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

When you left BLS fuck with the numbers they can do wonders!

 

[Oldstyle]

Really bad job numbers for May 2016......

Watch the Libs here brag about the great Obama economy.....
No interest rate hike anytime soon....
Really shitty job numbers report are the main reason for that.

Let me help you, Roz. As a con tool, any job numbers you see are shitty when the president is democratic. But the ue rate dropped to 4.7%, which is really good. Now, what is really shitty. That should be easy for anyone to comment on. Really shitty was the 10% ue rate under Bush, while we were loosing over 500,000 jobs per month. See what I am saying. That is shitty, todays numbers are good. Your analysis, however, is also shitty.

Your analysis (as usual) is long on partisan bullshit and short on facts! The highest unemployment rate under George W. Bush was 7.8 as he was leaving office. His average for two terms was slightly above 5. Obama's average is at 7.5...the second worst of any President since Ike.

Bush had to deal with the aftermath of 9/11 with all of the damage that did to our economy. Barry hasn't had anything even close to that crisis and yet his lack of a coherent economic plan to stimulate the economy has led to the glacially slow recovery we've been slogging through for the past seven and a half years now! Doubt what I'm saying? Tell me who Obama's Chief Economic Advisor is and what their plan is to grow the economy! And as you're forced to go Google that...ask yourself why it is that you don't have a clue who's in charge of that or what the current plan is!

Claiming Obama hasn't had to deal with anything close to the crisis of 9.11 reveals again what a con tool you are.

In terms of financial impact to our nation, Bush's Great Recession caused far more damage to us than 9.11. Several times over in fact.

You really do nothing but spout rightarded idiocies.

Before Bush took office the economy was already slowing rapidly because of the ending of the Dot Com Boom. Couple that with 9/11 and it was a one - two punch to the American economy that Bush had to deal with throughout the early part of his Presidency. The recession that you on the left blame on Bush was precipitated in large part by a housing bubble caused by governmental policies that George W. Bush was one of the few in Washington that was arguing were dangerous and needed to be addressed BEFORE a crash occurred. Funny how one of the few people who saw trouble coming is the person that you've decided is solely to blame!

 

[Faun]

Really bad job numbers for May 2016......

Watch the Libs here brag about the great Obama economy.....
No interest rate hike anytime soon....
Really shitty job numbers report are the main reason for that.

Let me help you, Roz. As a con tool, any job numbers you see are shitty when the president is democratic. But the ue rate dropped to 4.7%, which is really good. Now, what is really shitty. That should be easy for anyone to comment on. Really shitty was the 10% ue rate under Bush, while we were loosing over 500,000 jobs per month. See what I am saying. That is shitty, todays numbers are good. Your analysis, however, is also shitty.

Your analysis (as usual) is long on partisan bullshit and short on facts! The highest unemployment rate under George W. Bush was 7.8 as he was leaving office. His average for two terms was slightly above 5. Obama's average is at 7.5...the second worst of any President since Ike.

Bush had to deal with the aftermath of 9/11 with all of the damage that did to our economy. Barry hasn't had anything even close to that crisis and yet his lack of a coherent economic plan to stimulate the economy has led to the glacially slow recovery we've been slogging through for the past seven and a half years now! Doubt what I'm saying? Tell me who Obama's Chief Economic Advisor is and what their plan is to grow the economy! And as you're forced to go Google that...ask yourself why it is that you don't have a clue who's in charge of that or what the current plan is!

Claiming Obama hasn't had to deal with anything close to the crisis of 9.11 reveals again what a con tool you are.

In terms of financial impact to our nation, Bush's Great Recession caused far more damage to us than 9.11. Several times over in fact.

You really do nothing but spout rightarded idiocies.

Before Bush took office the economy was already slowing rapidly because of the ending of the Dot Com Boom. Couple that with 9/11 and it was a one - two punch to the American economy that Bush had to deal with throughout the early part of his Presidency. The recession that you on the left blame on Bush was precipitated in large part by a housing bubble caused by governmental policies that George W. Bush was one of the few in Washington that was arguing were dangerous and needed to be addressed BEFORE a crash occurred. Funny how one of the few people who saw trouble coming is the person that you've decided is solely to blame!

More con tool nonsense.

Meanwhile, Bush took credit for the housing boom until it went bust.

"Thanks to our policies, home ownership in America is at an all-time high." ~ George Bush, 9.2.2004, RNC acceptance speech​

The Great Bush Recession is on him (and Republicans).

And it cost is more than 9.11 by multitudes. Yet you idiotically claimed Obama didn't have to deal with anything near like what Bush did. <smh>

 

[Oldstyle]

We have the economy we have now...not because of successful Obama policy, Faun...what few successes we have are due to an artificially pumped up stock market that has made the rich far richer and skipped over everyone else...and cheap energy prices that were brought on by fracking technology creating so much cheap gas and oil here in the US that it forced the OPEC nations to slash their prices! Since Barack Obama has been anti-fracking and anti-Big Oil and Gas it's laughable to watch his supporters claim cheap energy as one of his "successes".

 

[Oldstyle]

My challenge to any of you Obama shills remains the same as it's been for years now...show me his policies that created jobs and grew the economy!

 

[Faun]

My challenge to any of you Obama shills remains the same as it's been for years now...show me his policies that created jobs and grew the economy!

As I've already pointed out a) there's no point because anything mentioned results on you trying to summarily dismiss it (which I've done and you did); b) for better or worse, the presidents policies get credit or blame for the economy.

Con tools like you seek only to blame Democrats for the bad and find ways to not credit them for the good. That's your entire game plan summed up nice and succinctly in one sentence. That's what makes you a con tool.

 

[Oldstyle]

My challenge to any of you Obama shills remains the same as it's been for years now...show me his policies that created jobs and grew the economy!

As I've already pointed out a) there's no point because anything mentioned results on you trying to summarily dismiss it (which I've done and you did); b) for better or worse, the presidents policies get credit or blame for the economy.

Con tools like you seek only to blame Democrats for the bad and find ways to not credit them for the good. That's your entire game plan summed up nice and succinctly in one sentence. That's what makes you a con tool.

So in other words...you're not even going to try to show Obama policies that created jobs and grew the economy? Noted, Faun...

That's what makes YOU the partisan shill that you are!

 

[Rshermr]

My challenge to any of you Obama shills remains the same as it's been for years now...show me his policies that created jobs and grew the economy!

As I've already pointed out a) there's no point because anything mentioned results on you trying to summarily dismiss it (which I've done and you did); b) for better or worse, the presidents policies get credit or blame for the economy.

Con tools like you seek only to blame Democrats for the bad and find ways to not credit them for the good. That's your entire game plan summed up nice and succinctly in one sentence. That's what makes you a con tool.

So in other words...you're not even going to try to show Obama policies that created jobs and grew the economy? Noted, Faun...

That's what makes YOU the partisan shill that you are!

Wow. You showed him, in plain words. And he pretends he did not understand. Poor stupid liar. And he will say the same thing, over and over and over and over. Because that is what he does. Poor clown.
Here come his personal attacks. Because he can not deal with economic conversation.

 

[Rshermr]

My challenge to any of you Obama shills remains the same as it's been for years now...show me his policies that created jobs and grew the economy!

As I've already pointed out a) there's no point because anything mentioned results on you trying to summarily dismiss it (which I've done and you did); b) for better or worse, the presidents policies get credit or blame for the economy.

Con tools like you seek only to blame Democrats for the bad and find ways to not credit them for the good. That's your entire game plan summed up nice and succinctly in one sentence. That's what makes you a con tool.

So in other words...you're not even going to try to show Obama policies that created jobs and grew the economy? Noted, Faun...

That's what makes YOU the partisan shill that you are!

Wow. You showed him, in plain words. And he pretends he did not understand. Poor stupid liar. And he will say the same thing, over and over and over and over. Because that is what he does. Poor clown.
Here come his personal attacks. Because he can not deal with economic conversation.

You might take the study done by the head of the SF Fed, which concluded:
Study: ”Fiscal Spending Jobs Multipliers: Evidence from the 2009 American Recovery and Reinvestment Act.”

Who did it: Daniel J. Wilson of the Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco.

What it says: The stimulus created 2 million jobs in its first year, and 3.2 million by March 2011. The jobs multiplier varies widely based on whether one studies stimulus spending that has been announced to go to certain recipients, is obligated to those recipients, or has actually been paid out to those recipients. Estimates vary from 4.8, for one measure based on announced spending, to 25.2, for another measure based on actual payments. Private sector, state and local government and construction sectors all showed consistently significant positive effects, whereas whether the effect on manufacturing, education and health was positive depends on whether one looks at announcements, obligations or payments.

Or:
Study: ”Did the Stimulus Stimulate? Real Time Estimates of the Effects of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act.”

Who did it: James Feyrer and Bruce Sacerdote, Dartmouth College.What it says: The stimulus had a positive, statistically significant effect on employment. The effects varied by type of spending. Aid to states for education and law enforcement didn’t have a significant effect, but aid to low-income people and infrastructure spending showed very positive impacts.

What it says: The stimulus had a positive, statistically significant effect on employment. The effects varied by type of spending. Aid to states for education and law enforcement didn’t have a significant effect, but aid to low-income people and infrastructure spending showed very positive impacts.

There are many more. Including the cbo itself, but there is not much use in shoeing this to oldstyle. He will just pretend he never saw it. Because he is a lying con tool.

 

[Faun]

My challenge to any of you Obama shills remains the same as it's been for years now...show me his policies that created jobs and grew the economy!

As I've already pointed out a) there's no point because anything mentioned results on you trying to summarily dismiss it (which I've done and you did); b) for better or worse, the presidents policies get credit or blame for the economy.

Con tools like you seek only to blame Democrats for the bad and find ways to not credit them for the good. That's your entire game plan summed up nice and succinctly in one sentence. That's what makes you a con tool.

So in other words...you're not even going to try to show Obama policies that created jobs and grew the economy? Noted, Faun...

That's what makes YOU the partisan shill that you are!

You must have attention deficit disorder. As I just pointed out to you -- I've offered policies in the past. You ignored them. Why would I expect a different result trying that again?

You ignore inconvenient facts.

That's what you do.

You're a con tool.

That's what you are.

 

[Markle]

More con tool nonsense.

Meanwhile, Bush took credit for the housing boom until it went bust.

"Thanks to our policies, home ownership in America is at an all-time high." ~ George Bush, 9.2.2004, RNC acceptance speech​

The Great Bush Recession is on him (and Republicans).

And it cost is more than 9.11 by multitudes. Yet you idiotically claimed Obama didn't have to deal with anything near like what Bush did. <smh>

Setting the Record Straight: Six Years of Unheeded Warnings for GSE Reform
The Washington Times Fails To Research The Administration's Efforts To Reform Fannie Mae And Freddie Mac

White House News

Setting the Record Straight

In Focus: Economy

Today, the Washington Times incorrectly accused the White House of ignoring warnings of trouble ahead for government-sponsored enterprises (GSEs) and neglecting to "adopt any reform until this summer," when it was too late. "Neither the White House nor Congress heeded the warnings, Fannie and Freddie retained strong bipartisan support during the 1990s and early part of this decade." (Editorial, "Hear, See And Speak No Evil About Fannie And Freddie," The Washington Times, 10/9/08)

Over the past six years, the President and his Administration have not only warned of the systemic consequences of failure to reform GSEs but also put forward thoughtful plans to reduce the risk that either Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac would encounter such difficulties. In fact, it was Congress that flatly rejected President Bush's call more than five years ago to reform the GSEs. Over the years, the President's repeated attempts to reform the supervision of these entities were thwarted by the legislative maneuvering of those who emphatically denied there were problems with the GSEs.

Read more: Setting the Record Straight: Six Years of Unheeded Warnings for GSE Reform