July Jobs Report- 163,000 jobs GAINED

[240 is Back]

I didn't see any new threads on this.   Isn't this important to yall?  


Employers said they added 163,000 jobs in the month, according to a Labor Department report released Friday, much better than the 95,000 jobs economists had forecast.

UE ticked up to 8.3%.   I wish Congress would stop playing Chicken and work together and find a good middle ground.  

We've let them have their way - 18 months of congress NOT DOING ANYTHING.   Are you happy with the results?  I'm not.
http://money.cnn.com/2012/08/03/news/economy/jobs-report-unemployment/index.htm?hpt=hp_t3

[Fury]

StrawDouche says another $2 trillion in stimulus will fix this.

Better reelect Obama. Recovery summer!!!!

[James]

42 straight months above 8%...  

[Straw Man]

StrawDouche says another $2 trillion in stimulus will fix this.

Better reelect Obama. Recovery summer!!!!

Hey Bereft Fury

Don't attribute words to me that I did not say

[Soul Crusher]

LOL.  150k out of the labor force and 429k added by birth death model.

U6 at 15%

125k less on the household survey.


Of course the MBA business master 180 thinks this is good. 

LMFAO - fucking idiot   

[Soul Crusher]

Obama adviser: Jobless rate is really 8.254%
By David Jackson, USA TODAY
By Rich Pedroncelli, AP

The White House is really getting specific when it comes to the unemployment rate.

Rather than 8.3% -- the rounded-up figure -- Obama economic adviser Alan B. Krueger writes on the White House website that the real jobless rate is 8.254%.

"The household survey showed that the unemployment rate ticked up to 8.3% in July (or, more precisely, the rate rose from 8.217% in June to 8.254% in July)," wrote Krueger, chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers.

He added: "Acting BLS (Bureau of Labor Statistics) Commissioner John Galvin noted in his statement that the unemployment rate was 'essentially unchanged' from June to July."

We doubt that Republican Mitt Romney and his allies will draw that distinction.

"Today's increase in the unemployment rate is a hammer blow to struggling middle-class families," Romney said in a statement.

Other GOP members mocked Krueger for declaring the jobless rate at 8.254%

Republican Party spokeswoman Kirsten Kukowski said, "23 million people struggling for work isn't a rounding error. and the White House's attempts to argue show just how out of touch they are."

Analysts said the (slightly) higher rate results from an increase in people re-entering the job market.

They also noted that the economy created 163,000 jobs in July, exceeding expectations.

"While there is more work that remains to be done, today's employment report provides further evidence that the U.S. economy is continuing to recover from the worst downturn since the Great Depression," Krueger wrote.

See photos of: Barack Obama, Mitt Romney

[blacken700]

i guess that's better then  in the  last four months of 2008, 1.9 million jobs were lost

[240 is Back]

i guess that's better then  in the  last four months of 2008, 1.9 million jobs were lost

terrible time for america, no doubt about it. 

Repubs scream louder about 163k jobs added, than they did when we were losing 600k jobs a month.

[Soul Crusher]

terrible time for america, no doubt about it. 

Repubs scream louder about 163k jobs added, than they did when we were losing 600k jobs a month.

[blacken700]

i guess that's better then  in the  last four months of 2008, 1.9 million jobs were lost

who was mr. pres 

[Soul Crusher]

who was mr. pres 

  


The Lowest UE % during the entire Obama misadministration is still higher than the Highest UE% under W. 

Let that sink in. 

[blacken700]

Economist Gary Burtless of the liberal Brookings Institution wonders what Foxx would say if the shoe were on the other foot.
 
"The longest post-World-War-II business expansion ended in March 2001, one and a half months after a Republican Administration took office," Burtless said. "That new Republican administration also had the good fortune to have a House of Representatives and, at first, a Senate that was controlled by the same party. According to Rep. Foxx’s reasoning, the recession that began after March 2001 must have been 'caused' by the political change-over in control of the White House. Of course, I think this reasoning is specious, but it is equally ludicrous to claim that the recession which began in January 2008 was 'caused' by a change in political control of Congress that took place in January 2007."
 

[Soul Crusher]

Economist Gary Burtless of the liberal Brookings Institution wonders what Foxx would say if the shoe were on the other foot.
 
"The longest post-World-War-II business expansion ended in March 2001, one and a half months after a Republican Administration took office," Burtless said. "That new Republican administration also had the good fortune to have a House of Representatives and, at first, a Senate that was controlled by the same party. According to Rep. Foxx’s reasoning, the recession that began after March 2001 must have been 'caused' by the political change-over in control of the White House. Of course, I think this reasoning is specious, but it is equally ludicrous to claim that the recession which began in January 2008 was 'caused' by a change in political control of Congress that took place in January 2007."
 

[blacken700]

why are you posting a picture of you crying when you were a baby,i agree some things never change 

[Soul Crusher]

why are you posting a picture of you crying when you were a baby,i agree some things never change 

Blacken - is the private sector doing just fine? 

[blacken700]

better than losing 500,000 jobs a month,no

[GigantorX]

better than losing 500,000 jobs a month,no

After all the money, capital, time, debt and effort that has been expended over the last 3 years or so I don't think your question is acceptable.

With everything that was done over the last several years , "Better than losing 500k jobs a month, no" doesn't cut it.

[Straw Man]

I suspect the total job losses under Bush are much greater than the total job losses under Obama

That may not be (actually is not) a totally fair comparison since we're talking about 8 years of Bush Admin vs ~ 3.5 years for Obama (remember he didn't take office until Feb 2009)

If we just compare apples to apples (i.e. the same time frame) Bush is still the champ of job losses

From January 2001 through March 2004, he says, the country lost more than 1.6 million jobs overall, and more than 2.4 million jobs in the private sector. (Krugman doesn't label his axes, but a call to the BLS confirmed that his chart is meant to be read in the thousands, and we checked his figures against the BLS website.)

Meanwhile, from January 2009 through March 2012, the country lost an estimated 740,000 jobs in total, and lost about 161,000 jobs in the private sector. In other words, job loss under Obama -- who inherited a recession deeper than any seen in generations, followed by a recovery that most would describe as modest -- was nevertheless dwarfed by job loss under Bush, at least for the majority of the two presidents' first terms

.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/04/23/job-loss-obama-bush_n_1446650.html

[Soul Crusher]

I suspect the total job losses under Bush are much greater than the total job losses under Obama

That may not be (actually is not) a totally fair comparison since we're talking about 8 years of Bush Admin vs ~ 3.5 years for Obama (remember he didn't take office until Feb 2009)

If we just compare apples to apples (i.e. the same time frame) Bush is still the champ of job losses
.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/04/23/job-loss-obama-bush_n_1446650.html

So don't vote for Bush in 2012. 

[Straw Man]

So don't vote for Bush in 2012. 

Since Romney campaign is staffed with Bush advisor and people from his administration and since his economic plan it basically nothing more than an analog of the Bush plan a vote for Romney is a vote for Bush by proxy

Of course none of that pertains to the point that Bush had a worse record on jobs from the beginning of his first term to March of 3 years in than Obama did in that same time period

Nothing changes those facts and since Bush also ended his last with unprecedented job losses his overall picture is much worse (again, not a fair comparison since we'd be comparing 8 years of Bush to  3.5 years of Obama)

[240 is Back]

So don't vote for Bush in 2012. 

Romney wants to return many of the bush policies, with bush people.   Romney is bush when it comes to the economy.  I dont know that I liked how bush did things.  2008 ring a bell?

[Soul Crusher]

Romney wants to return many of the bush policies, with bush people.   Romney is bush when it comes to the economy.  I dont know that I liked how bush did things.  2008 ring a bell?

LOL - Most people were far better off for most of the bush years than the last 4.   

[Straw Man]

LOL - Most people were far better off for most of the bush years than the last 4.   

yep, most people who purchased a house during the Bush admin are now underwater

Bush also lost more jobs then Obama and of course many thousands have lost their life or be maimed for life during the wars that were started by Bush

people of New Orleans can certainly that Bush for doing a heck of a job

We also get to pay the interest on all the debt accumulated under Bush

Good Times

[GigantorX]

yep, most people who purchased a house during the Bush admin are now underwater

Bush also lost more jobs then Obama and of course many thousands have lost their life or be maimed for life during the wars that were started by Bush

people of New Orleans can certainly that Bush for doing a heck of a job

We also get to pay the interest on all the debt accumulated under Bush

Good Times

The fault of the N.O. fiasco lies first with the local governments, authorities the mayor etc.

[Straw Man]

The fault of the N.O. fiasco lies first with the local governments, authorities the mayor etc.

no doubt they get some blame too but so does Bush and so does the Army Corp of Engineers and probably others

Plenty of blame to go around