| Name: |
MartiniMan
- 
|
|
| Subject: |
Job News for November
|
|
Date:
|
12/4/2009 1:57:38 PM
|
First the good news. Jobless claims were down in November and measured unemployment was at 10% (real unemployment is still over 17%). The bad news is that losses continue unabated in many sectors (manufacturing, IT, etc.) and most of the jobs that were added in November were temporary. Let's hope the trend regarding non-temporary jobs changes as well as soon as possible. My fear is that once the temporary job improvement in November and December abates we will be back to bigger losses. We shall see.
For sure the trumpeting of the government media is way off base as usual as they attempt to prop up the administration. I will give the Messiah credit that he is not overplaying the significance of this because I think he has been advised that more bad news is likely looming in the near future. Why he worries about that since the sycophantic government media will give him all the cover he would ever need is beyond me but good for him to be circumspect.
|
| Name: |
architect
-
|
|
| Subject: |
Job News for Nov is less bad
|
|
Date:
|
12/4/2009 3:37:48 PM
|
my condolences to MM and WW. I might have been too pessimistic in my estimate of a Feb or March turn around. And, MM I would love to know what media you are reading/viewing/hearing that is being so supportive of Obama. Even MSNBC is being strongly critical because he is not liberal enough and CNN is starting to sound like Fox (we distort, you comply) News.
|
| Name: |
MartiniMan
-
|
|
| Subject: |
Job News for Nov is less bad
|
|
Date:
|
12/4/2009 4:23:01 PM
|
Archie, condolences are not necessary. As we have both told you in the past, unlike you loony leftists, we actually want what is good for America regardless of the electoral consequences. You see, we are the ones creating jobs out there, not the poor slobs that slavishly vote for Democrats in greedy anticipation of their next handout. However, I can always count on you to twist things around but I will once again enlighten you.
I was specifically referring to the over the top coverage of the job number improvement without at least referring to the internals about these being mostly temporary jobs. My post was fair to Obama and pointed out he was rightly circumspect about the significance of the numbers.
As for the pMSNBC complaining about the Messiah not being liberal enough I can only take your word for it because I don't watch. I would venture to guess this is a temporary reaction to the Afghanistan decision to send more troops, which even Bob Schieffer (not exactly a right winger) said it made no sense. To the loony left the only acceptable course is the defeat of the US and the victory of our enemies. Of course only 8 or 9 people are watching pMSNBC at any one time so they can hardly provide a representative sampling. They will once again revert to their slavish lap dog status with the administration so fear not.
|
| Name: |
water_watcher
-
|
|
| Subject: |
Job News for Nov is less bad
|
|
Date:
|
12/4/2009 5:59:04 PM
|
Hey ... I was the one that told you the number would turn positive earlier than you said. BUT ... after all this time and other countries turning positive already ... this is nothing Obama and the socialist can say was any accomplishment.
I have also said the policies Obama will make any "natural" recovery short lived and will not be robust at all. We will struggle with high unemployment for some time and then the massive deficits and government spending will start to have an impact on inflation, in which the federal reserve will respond with higher interest rates. And then ... welcome back to the wonderful years of Jimmy Carter.
So enjoy the "less bad" for a while along with 10% unemployment ... and you will probably see positive job growth in January. But you will not see the 300,000 to 500,000 job growth in a month we saw under Bush II or Reagan.
Sorry you may hit 150,000 before it starts turning down again. The problem is Obamas policies are anti business and growth and all they want to keep telling people is they have to adjust to slower growth and higher unemployment ... because that is the socialist way.
Don't worry ... we will get REAL leadership back in congress next year and the Obama nightmare will be over in 2012.
|
| Name: |
water_watcher
-
|
|
| Subject: |
BTW Archie
|
|
Date:
|
12/4/2009 6:03:40 PM
|
Still waiting to hear what you think obama has accomplished and has been good that continues to deserve your unwavering support and loyalty and others are waking up from the hopeless change nightmare.
|
| Name: |
architect
-
|
|
| Subject: |
Pray tell WW
|
|
Date:
|
12/4/2009 7:43:25 PM
|
How can anyone with such unwavering loyalty to your half name sake (W) be so concerned with anyone elses loyalty to Obama? I have said more than once on this forum that it was without any enthusiasm that I voted for Obama and did so only after W had made me ashamed of voting for him in 04 and McCain had made me sorry for voting for him in the 2000 primary by kow towing to the likes of you and other extreme rightest in the 08 primary and by the final insult of selecting a feather brain as a running mate.
Now, as to your crediting Reagan and W for such fantastic jobs creation, what about Clinton who saw more new jobs in his 8 years than either Reagan or W and who enjoyed the lowest unemployment rate in the past 30 years? (If memory serves me about 3.7% in early 2000 I also seem to remember that Mr. Reagan saw unemployment reach over 11% on his watch.
|
| Name: |
architect
-
|
|
| Subject: |
BTW WW
|
|
Date:
|
12/4/2009 8:39:04 PM
|
I knew you would want to know so I just checked the Bureau of Labor Stats: In round numbers the net job gains during the Reagan, Clinton, and W administrations are 16 million, 22 million and 3 million respectively. The largest monthly gain was 472,000 in March 2000. I believe Clinton was in the White House in that time frame.
|
| Name: |
GoneFishin
-
|
|
| Subject: |
Job News for Nov is less bad
|
|
Date:
|
12/4/2009 9:45:43 PM
|
It is nice to see some positive job news. However, I sense that the Nov number and the next few months may include alot of temporary positions relating to the census. Obviously, I hope that I am wrong and these are permanent positions.
|
Thanks ... about what I recall. Clinton was fortunate to have a republican congress to help his performance. W definitely had to recover from the tech bust and then 9/11. So we will see what the messiah can do. So far, in over a year there have only been net losses ... the only thing the socialists can say it it is less bad. WOW ... what bragging rights. We destroyed less jobs this month than last month.
Can you also check for me what the high and low unemployment rate was under W ... thanks ... that would be helpful.
|
| Name: |
water_watcher
-
|
|
| Subject: |
Pray tell WW
|
|
Date:
|
12/5/2009 7:49:06 AM
|
I have never once had unwavering loyalty to W ... I think he did some excellent things on taxes and taking us through 9/11, along with leadership to go after terrorists and break up cells. But I was very critical of his domestic spending ... just as I am of BO ... although BO makes W look like a penny pincher.
|
| Name: |
water_watcher
-
|
|
| Subject: |
Tell you what Archie ...
|
|
Date:
|
12/5/2009 7:57:19 AM
|
you want to say Reagan owns 11% unemployment left from the last socialist president we had ... ok we will pin that on Reagan. So that means you have to accept that BO owns the current unemployment and stop saying it is Bush. Can't have it both ways.
But ... even though I feel BO's policies have made things much worse and delayed recovery .... I am willing to say whatever unemployment was within 1 year after a president takes office does not belong to them .... so then it is what their policies do to chnage the direction.
Fair?
So we know the grow we saw under Reagan and Clinton (some of that is what caused the financial crisis with all the sub prime mortgages and they hype around tech) ... so now we need to see it under BO or else you have to admit his policies are not working.
|
| Name: |
architect
-
|
|
| Subject: |
Tell you what Archie ...
|
|
Date:
|
12/5/2009 8:55:03 AM
|
|
| Name: |
architect
-
|
|
| Subject: |
Tell you what Archie ...
|
|
Date:
|
12/5/2009 8:55:04 AM
|
|
| Name: |
architect
-
|
|
| Subject: |
Tell you what Archie ...
|
|
Date:
|
12/5/2009 8:55:04 AM
|
|
| Name: |
architect
-
|
|
| Subject: |
Tell you what Archie ...
|
|
Date:
|
12/5/2009 8:55:05 AM
|
|
| Name: |
architect
-
|
|
| Subject: |
Tell you what Archie ...
|
|
Date:
|
12/5/2009 8:55:05 AM
|
|
| Name: |
architect
-
|
|
| Subject: |
Tell you what Archie ...
|
|
Date:
|
12/5/2009 9:11:51 AM
|
Sorry! I have no idea how that happened above......WW I didn't say Reagan "owned" the 11%. He didn't. Neither did Bill Clinton "own" his 3.7%. Obviously it stands to reason that Obama will not "own" either the good or the bad of the economy during his watch. The US economy is a gigantic vessel that takes much more force to turn than has been used to date by Mr. Obama. Actions and decisions within the private economy, which may be nudged one way or the other by Gov't intervention, are much more influential. Note the financial near meltdown of the past 18 months. The no-reguletion crowd gave the banks and money centers the "freedom" to do what they did but in the final analysis it was they what done it. Which ever way the economic ship sails in the next decade will be influenced only on the margins by whoever is President or in control on Capitol Hill.
|
| Name: |
MartiniMan
-
|
|
| Subject: |
Job News for Nov is less bad
|
|
Date:
|
12/5/2009 9:52:17 AM
|
GF: The internals on the numbers already indicate the majority of them are temporary. One piece of info the government media is neglecting to tell the public. For sure there is some improvement but the sectors where we would like to see permanent job growth are still shedding jobs at a healthy clip. Still, it beats the alternative of no job growth in the temporary sector.
|
| Name: |
MAJ USA RET
-
|
|
| Subject: |
Sub-prime
|
|
Date:
|
12/5/2009 10:59:18 AM
|
"...The no-reguletion (sic) crowd gave the banks and money centers the "freedom" to do what they did but in the final analysis it was they what done it."
Archie, please explain the sub-prime mortgage system. Why and how did such imbecility get started? Was it over-regulation to boost affirmative action? Who was instituting home ownership as a new entitlement? Whose idea was it?
Did the banks suddenly jump up and say, “Hey, let’s lend money to unqualified folks for houses they can’t afford.”
When the obvious danger of this debacle came to light, who warned the Legislature of the impending failure of this program? How was the warning received? How was the warning acted upon?
|
| Name: |
MartiniMan
-
|
|
| Subject: |
Wrong as always
|
|
Date:
|
12/6/2009 1:08:24 PM
|
Archie: Two points. First, you are wrong about blaming the current financial crisis on deregulation. Even the loony leftists in the government media no longer deny that the governmental distortions of the financial markets caused the meltdown. This has been proven over and over again on this forum and yet your tendency toward invincible ignorance and your use of Dem talking points seems to run unabated even in the face of facts.
Second, the economy can and will in fact be profoundly affected by who controls government. If it is conservatives the economy will once again recover fully and we will return to economic dominance. If it is controlled by fiscal liberals and statists we will find ourselves with a European type economy where 10% unemployment is the accepted norm, where tax burdens stymie innovation and entrepreneurs and mediocrity and malaise are the order of the day. NOTE I DID NOT SAY DEM OR REPUBLICAN! While I know of no Dem fiscal conservative you never know when one might appear on the horizon. And I know of lots of Republican fiscal liberals.
|
|
New Post
Search
Off-Topic Forum
Reply
»
Texas Lakes
»
North Fork Buffalo Creek Reservoir
Login
|
Home
