Unemployment grew in 44 states last month. 4 more years - 4 more years!!!!!

[Soul Crusher]

http://www.usatoday.com/money/economy/employment/story/2012-08-17/state-unemployment-rates-july/57117802/1



Hope and chains

[Soul Crusher]

Gallup:August Unemployment Not Looking Good
 Gallup.com ^ | August 17, 2012 | Staff

Posted on Saturday, August 18, 2012 9:55:54

New Gallup unemployment data suggest an increase in the government's seasonally adjusted unemployment rate for August when it is reported on Friday, Sept. 7. During recent months, Gallup's measurements have been more optimistic than those of the BLS. Barring a sharp reversal in this relationship, the government's unadjusted unemployment rate might be expected to stay the same or increase in August.


Gallup's Daily tracking of the unemployment situation is based on interviews with more than 30,000 adults over the 30 days ending Aug. 15, and shows essentially no change in the unadjusted unemployment rate at 8.3% compared to 8.2% in July. In turn, this suggests that the government's unadjusted unemployment rate could increase to 8.7% in July from 8.6% in June. The government's measurement of the unadjusted unemployment rate has been known to differ with Gallup's findings, but a drop of 0.3% in July is necessary to bring the government's unadjusted rate down to Gallup levels.

More interestingly, there were no BLS seasonal adjustments in August 2011. If this remains the same in 2012, the Gallup seasonally adjusted unemployment rate for August would be 8.3% while that of the BLS would be 8.7%, assuming a similar increase to that shown in the Gallup data. Further, Gallup's data show the labor force participation rate to be increasing in August. In turn, that could have an additional negative impact on the unemployment rate for August if the government's data show a similar pattern.


(Excerpt) Read more at behavioraleconomy.gallup .com ...

[Fury]

I'm sold. Let's reelect him! 

[Soul Crusher]

I'm sold. Let's reelect him! 

Notice how not one of these delusional FREAKS like 180, straw, blackass, gaybear, benny, chad, bay, lurker, et al have made so much as one pst on the economy in months? 

[Fury]

Notice how not one of these delusional FREAKS like 180, straw, blackass, gaybear, benny, chad, bay, lurker, et al have made so much as one pst on the economy in months? 

Nope but I have watched how they've logged close to 400-500 posts about Romney taxes. It's a good example of why this board is such a piece of shit.

Keep up the good work, Hugo. 

[Straw Man]

Since the right wing hates government and thinks it should be smaller do they also believe that the loss of government jobs is a good thing and actually helps the economy?

[Fury]

Since the right wing hates government and thinks it should be smaller do they also believe that the loss of government jobs is a good thing and actually helps the economy?

What loss of government jobs? Federal employment has grown under the Usurper. 

[240 is Back]

What loss of government jobs? Federal employment has grown under the Usurper. 

I thought I read somewhere that the federeal employee-to-American ratio was lower now?  I could be wrong.

[Straw Man]

What loss of government jobs? Federal employment has grown under the Usurper. 

yep ~ 123k in jobs as of January 2012. Mostly in  homeland security, justice, veterans and defense (which area all things that Republicans hate)

note the use of the link:   http://money.cnn.com/2012/01/25/news/economy/obama_government/index.htm

If that figure was a monthly jobs report the right wing of this board would have pissed all over it

but let's put that aside and just address the premise that if the a government (city, state, federal) reduces it's job force is that a good thing for the economy

lower government payroll = less government spending which presumably is somehow a good thing right?

It's still people out of work which increase reliance on: unemployment, food stamps, housing assistance programs, medicaid, etc..... but that's still a net "good thing" for the economy right?

[Straw Man]

I thought I read somewhere that the federeal employee-to-American ratio was lower now?  I could be wrong.

But it's still a tad smaller than it was in 1992, said Craig Jennings, a federal budget expert at the progressive think tank OMB Watch.

and I would assume our population is larger now than it was 12 years ago

http://money.cnn.com/2012/01/25/news/economy/obama_government/index.htm

[240 is Back]

and I would assume our population is larger now than it was 12 years ago

http://money.cnn.com/2012/01/25/news/economy/obama_government/index.htm

So the govt was bigger under reagan and bush 1, than under Obama.  interesting.

[Straw Man]

So the govt was bigger under reagan and bush 1, than under Obama.  interesting.

and to serve the needs of a smaller population

[blacken700]

so are you saying all this crying for smaller gov. by the repubs is bullshit. hhhmmm

[Kazan]

You can post all the bullshit you want. I lived through Carters disaster, and the good times when Reagan was POTUS.

[Fury]

So the govt was bigger under reagan and bush 1, than under Obama.  interesting.

Nice try, but wrong. Federal spending as a percentage of GDP is higher than it was under either of those two. What's the matter, didn't learn that on MSDNC?

"Inaugurated on Jan. 20, 2009, Obama has now presided over the start of three fiscal years—2010, 2011, and 2012. According to the historical tables published by his own Office of Management and Budget, these are three of the only four fiscal years since the Japanese surrendered on Sept. 2, 1945, that the federal government has spent more than 24 percent of GDP."

http://cnsnews.com/news/article/obama-i-ve-been-president-federal-spending-has-risen-lowest-pace-nearly-60-years


240 not knowing what he's talking about? Color me fucking surprised. 

[Straw Man]

Nice try, but wrong. Federal spending as a percentage of GDP is higher than it was under either of those two. What's the matter, didn't learn that on MSDNC?

"Inaugurated on Jan. 20, 2009, Obama has now presided over the start of three fiscal years—2010, 2011, and 2012. According to the historical tables published by his own Office of Management and Budget, these are three of the only four fiscal years since the Japanese surrendered on Sept. 2, 1945, that the federal government has spent more than 24 percent of GDP."

http://cnsnews.com/news/article/obama-i-ve-been-president-federal-spending-has-risen-lowest-pace-nearly-60-years


240 not knowing what he's talking about? Color me fucking surprised. 

how about we color you fucking stupid as usual

no one was talking about spending as a % of GDP

we were talking about the # of people on the federal payroll

[Fury]

how about we color you fucking stupid as usual

no one was talking about spending as a % of GDP

we were talking about the # of people on the federal payroll

That means fuck all to me. All that matters is that Obama, in his quest to reduce the deficit, has increased the number of federal employees on the payroll. I could not care less about the ratio of employees to population when you will clearly refuse to account for the increased automation and efficiency of federal employees. There are more (and growing) and that's all that matters.

It's funny that one of the dumbest people on this board seems intent on calling others stupid. Perhaps you could continue to show us the "relevence" of your stunning commentary.




3 of 4 years with federal spending over 24% of GDP have fallen under Obama. 3 of the worst 4 years of economy recovery following a recession have fallen under Obama. 'Nuf said.

[Straw Man]

That means fuck all to me. All that matters is that Obama, in his quest to reduce the deficit, has increased the number of federal employees on the payroll. I could not care less about the ratio of employees to population when you will clearly refuse to account for the increased automation and efficiency of federal employees. There are more (and growing) and that's all that matters.

It's funny that one of the dumbest people on this board seems intent on calling others stupid. Perhaps you could continue to show us the "relevence" of your stunning commentary.




3 of 4 years with federal spending over 24% of GDP have fallen under Obama. 3 of the worst 4 years of economy recovery following a recession have fallen under Obama. 'Nuf said.

how exactly can you say "nice try but wrong" when you're not even talking about the same topic

hmm...let me try that

nice try but wrong - chocolate ice cream is better

[240 is Back]

so are you saying all this crying for smaller gov. by the repubs is bullshit. hhhmmm

I'm sorry, i've accused obama of bloating our govt.  I should have been all over reagan for it.

[240 is Back]

Nice try, but wrong. Federal spending as a percentage of GDP is higher than it was under either of those two. What's the matter, didn't learn that on MSDNC?

how about number of employees?

[The True Adonis]

Reagan is a mythological character at this point.

[doison]

I'm sorry, i've accused obama of bloating our govt.  I should have been all over reagan for it.

So the current strategy to explain why Obama deserves 4 more years is to take each of his failures and find a way to somehow associate it with a former Republic generally considered to be successful in his government position...thus somehow making Obama's failure actually a "success?"

What's even more amusing is that you still mock that republican for his policies...which makes fuck-all for sense when you're simultaneously trying to link him to Obama BECAUSE he's considered to have had success with his policies.  
Obama did X and the economy sucks, but Reagan did Y, which is equal to X when you square the constant and divide by the rate of population growth minus the job growth Reagan created....so Obama made the right move with X.  Reagan still sucks though...despite the fact that I need him to be successful in order to justify linking him to Obama to prove that Obama is also a success by associated policies.

It's worse than playing both sides of the issues...it's like playing four sides of the same issue.


*This isn't a direct reply to Rob's post here....but I'm linking my post to any good post he's ever made to make this post automatically a "good" post, but he still sucks as a poster.

[tonymctones]

So the current strategy to explain why Obama deserves 4 more years is to take each of his failures and find a way to somehow associate it with a former Republic generally considered to be successful in his government position...thus somehow making Obama's failure actually a "success?"

What's even more amusing is that you still mock that republican for his policies...which makes fuck-all for sense when you're simultaneously trying to link him to Obama BECAUSE he's considered to have had success with his policies.  
Obama did X and the economy sucks, but Reagan did Y, which is equal to X when you square the constant and divide by the rate of population growth minus the job growth Reagan created....so Obama made the right move with X.  Reagan still sucks though...despite the fact that I need him to be successful in order to justify linking him to Obama to prove that Obama is also a success by associated policies.

It's worse than playing both sides of the issues...it's like playing four sides of the same issue.


*This isn't a direct reply to Rob's post here....but I'm linking my post to any good post he's ever made to make this post automatically a "good" post, but he still sucks as a poster.

HAHAHHHAHHAHAHA post of the year right here folks, lol hahahahahhha

[Soul Crusher]

 



Epic post.

So the current strategy to explain why Obama deserves 4 more years is to take each of his failures and find a way to somehow associate it with a former Republic generally considered to be successful in his government position...thus somehow making Obama's failure actually a "success?"

What's even more amusing is that you still mock that republican for his policies...which makes fuck-all for sense when you're simultaneously trying to link him to Obama BECAUSE he's considered to have had success with his policies.  
Obama did X and the economy sucks, but Reagan did Y, which is equal to X when you square the constant and divide by the rate of population growth minus the job growth Reagan created....so Obama made the right move with X.  Reagan still sucks though...despite the fact that I need him to be successful in order to justify linking him to Obama to prove that Obama is also a success by associated policies.

It's worse than playing both sides of the issues...it's like playing four sides of the same issue.


*This isn't a direct reply to Rob's post here....but I'm linking my post to any good post he's ever made to make this post automatically a "good" post, but he still sucks as a poster.

[240 is Back]

So the current strategy to explain why Obama deserves 4 more years is to take each of his failures and find a way to somehow associate it with a former Republic generally considered to be successful in his government position...thus somehow making Obama's failure actually a "success?"

What's even more amusing is that you still mock that republican for his policies...which makes fuck-all for sense when you're simultaneously trying to link him to Obama BECAUSE he's considered to have had success with his policies. 
Obama did X and the economy sucks, but Reagan did Y, which is equal to X when you square the constant and divide by the rate of population growth minus the job growth Reagan created....so Obama made the right move with X.  Reagan still sucks though...despite the fact that I need him to be successful in order to justify linking him to Obama to prove that Obama is also a success by associated policies.

It's worse than playing both sides of the issues...it's like playing four sides of the same issue.


*This isn't a direct reply to Rob's post here....but I'm linking my post to any good post he's ever made to make this post automatically a "good" post, but he still sucks as a poster.

i have a terrible migraine today... i'm sure this is brilliant but at the moment the logic is going right over my feeble head lol