The Conservative Cave
Current Events => The DUmpster => Topic started by: Texacon on July 06, 2012, 11:47:50 AM
-
Oh the hypocrisy! (http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002908863)
abugg (1,025 posts)
So, the economy is still ADDING jobs but that's bad news??
It wasn't what was expected???? Who the hell sets the expectations??? 27 months of adding jobs instead of losing jobs and the President gets a bad rap??? I call "bullshit" on the media who spins everything the GOP way!!!
Brand new thread. I just thought it was funny. How many times did we see them bitching and complaining when jobs were being created under President Bush?!
"Those aren't real jobs!" "There's no benefits to THAT job!" "Those jobs only pay minimum wage!!"
Now O'bama is LOSING jobs but the media spins it as an increase. These goons eat it up.
Anyone have a mole with the ability to search? Wanna bring over 5 or 6 links to the posts where they were complaining when unemployment was at actual, livable levels?
How about some of these links DUmmies?
1/3 of the jobs were TEMPORARY (http://business.time.com/2012/07/06/u-s-hiring-likely-improved-only-modestly-in-june/)
85,000 Go on DISABILITY IN JUNE (http://news.investors.com/article/617233/201207060945/disability-climbs-faster-than-jobs-under-obama.htm)
Black unemployment is at 14.4% (http://www.businessinsider.com/june-nonfarm-payrolls-report-2012-7)
780,000 Fewer women employed since O'bama took office (http://cnsnews.com/news/article/780000-more-women-unemployed-today-when-obama-took-office)
KC
-
Gee, DUmmie, I guess you missed the part where the unemployment rate is STILL at 8.2 % which is a bogus number* anyway.
*it's higher, DUmmies.
-
:lmao:
Atman (23,978 posts)
6. Look at the bizzarro-world take on it...
Brand new thread. I just thought it was funny. How many times did we see them bitching and complaining when jobs were being created under President Bush?!
"Those aren't real jobs!" "There's no benefits to THAT job!" "Those jobs only pay minimum wage!!"
Now O'bama is LOSING jobs but the media spins it as an increase. These goons eat it up.
Anyone have a mole with the ability to search? Wanna bring over 5 or 6 links to the posts where they were complaining when unemployment was at actual, livable levels?
How about some of these links DUmmies?
Okay, got that? Under Bush, America was LOSING 500,000-750,000 PER MONTH, yet he still claimed the unemployment rate was SHRINKING...I think it was near 4.5%-5% when he left office. Yes, the rate kept shrinking even as we hemorrhaged jobs.
But now, we are ADDING jobs, and Obama is back to using the same method of calculating unemployment that had been used prior to Bush, and the unemployment rate is holding steading. Adding jobs, if only 80,000, is still ADDING. LOSING is still LOSING...unless you live in a ****ing Cave.
Yo Atman ... wanna comment on the links I put up above? Hmmm. No? Aw come on, why not?
When did PRESIDENT Bush start losing jobs? Hmmm? No answer? How about AFTER we got a democratically controlled congress. That couldn't be correct could it? Naw.
:rotf:
Thanks for the shout out! It's appreciated. We add new members everytime you goons do that.
Oh, how long has unemployment figures been above 8%? Sheesh. O'bama has done a wonderful job!
Here's another for you Atman.
99Forever (854 posts)
5. When you factor in..
.. population growth into the figures, it is still a net loss for those of us seeking jobs. Finger pointing aside, that is the reality for those of us that have had the rug yanked out from under us, after a lifetime of working our asses off and doing the right thing.
So no, my friend, word games about "adding jobs" when the reality is that there are less available jobs for us, is insulting to our intelligence. I can't pay my bills with spin. I NEED a decent paying job and can't even get an interview. Every one I hear saying how things aren't really "that bad," has a job.
Even your own members recognize a snow job when they see it. Can you say PRESIDENT Romney? I knew that you could.
:-)
KC
-
Oh, by the way Atman .... That OP has 10 replies right now and 4 of them are calling a spade a spade. 40% of the thread knows they're being lied to.
:tongue:
KC
-
Oh, by the way Atman .... That OP has 10 replies right now and 4 of them are calling a spade a spade. 40% of the thread knows they're being lied to.
:tongue:
KC
When 40% of dUmmies wise up on the #1 campaign issue, I feel better about my landslide predictions.
-
abugg (1,025 posts)
So, the economy is still ADDING jobs but that's bad news??
It wasn't what was expected???? Who the hell sets the expectations??? 27 months of adding jobs instead of losing jobs and the President gets a bad rap??? I call "bullshit" on the media who spins everything the GOP way!!!
You need between 150 and 200 THOUSAND new jobs per month just to keep up with population growth, and that's just to remain stagnant with no change in the unemployment number. 80 thousand ain't shit, DUmbass.
-
You need between 150 and 200 THOUSAND new jobs per month just to keep up with population growth, and that's just to remain stagnant with no change in the unemployment number. 80 thousand ain't shit, DUmbass.
You forgot to factor in the 1.2 mil. "new" Mescan workers ABM is giving amnesty to.
-
It still doesn't escape the fact that Obama still has a negative job growth. He swore that passing the stimulus would make the unemployment rate stay below 7%, it has yet to go below 8%. So if they think that adding 70,000 jobs a week, when we should be adding 500,000 jobs a week, is a good thing, then they are smoking way too much crack.
And as stated above about Bush. If Obama was a Republican, they would be crucifying him right now.
-
So, the economy is still ADDING jobs but that's bad news??
80,000 new jobs were added, 1/3rd are temp jobs, and 85,000 people went on disability in June, so more were added to the disability roll then the job rolls.
And WTF are we going to do with people going on disability? how the heck are we going to pay for this? does anyone besides us not think about that?
-
Yo Atman ... wanna comment on the links I put up above? Hmmm. No? Aw come on, why not?
When did PRESIDENT Bush start losing jobs? Hmmm? No answer? How about AFTER we got a democratically controlled congress. That couldn't be correct could it? Naw.
:-)
(http://i271.photobucket.com/albums/jj140/RepublicanandProud/Democratstookover.jpg)
Would you mind Tex if I added these also?
(http://i271.photobucket.com/albums/jj140/RepublicanandProud/foodstampparticipation.jpg)
(http://i271.photobucket.com/albums/jj140/RepublicanandProud/welfarebenefits.jpg)
(http://i271.photobucket.com/albums/jj140/RepublicanandProud/obamaeconomicrecord.jpg)
(http://i271.photobucket.com/albums/jj140/RepublicanandProud/bush.jpg)
-
(http://i271.photobucket.com/albums/jj140/RepublicanandProud/bush.jpg)
Yes, please come back!
-
^5 BG!! Only because I couldn't give you 5 more!
:-*
Atman, would you like to post these at the DUmp? Or maybe come sign up again and discuss??
KC
-
Yes Pedro...ask O what losing means.
He knows what it feels like. :lmao:
-
Atman
... and Obama is back to using the same method of calculating unemployment that had been used prior to Bush...
No he's not. What a liar.
Poor Pedro.
.
-
Uh oh!
After the economy added 310,000 jobs in May 2004 and the unemployment rate was 5.6%, then-candidate Barack Obama used the Democrat weekly radio address to attack the Bush administration for citing good economic numbers.
[youtube=425,350]6Ae2Anha7ig[/youtube]
-
Uh oh!
[youtube=425,350]6Ae2Anha7ig[/youtube]
He is doing everything that he was accusing Bush of. Things are different not that the shoe is on the other foot.
-
And what about the almost 400000 jobs that were LOST last month?
-
And what about the almost 400000 jobs that were LOST last month?
They aren't looking at that. They are only looking at what was created.
-
They aren't looking at that. They are only looking at what was created.
Not to mention those "saved".
-
abugg (1,025 posts)
So, the economy is still ADDING jobs but that's bad news??
Yeah, because it's like being a German in April 1945 and trying to get worked up over an increase in V2 production...'waaaay not enough, and 'way too late, to matter.
-
Below are some links to check out concerning the DUmps thoughts on the economy and those terrible unemployment numbers under President Bush between 2001 and 2007. The last link is a Google search.
DUmp explanations on unemployment numbers under Bush (http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x1623263)
More DUmp explaining of unemployment under Bush (http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=114x11497)
The economy under Bush about the time the dems started "helping" it (http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x2940261)
Terrible jobs under Bush. The economy sucks. (http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x2594682)
Look for yourself for more examples: Google DU search from 2001 to 2007 (http://www.google.com/search?q=unemployment+site%3Ademocraticunderground.com&hl=en&lr=&safe=off&as_qdr=all&sa=X&ei=bln3T4GuOYWk9ASd-_jHBg&ved=0CAkQpwUoBg&source=lnt&tbs=cdr%3A1%2Ccd_min%3A1%2F1%2F2001%2Ccd_max%3A11%2F30%2F2007&tbm=#q=unemployment+site:democraticunderground.com&hl=en&lr=&safe=off&as_qdr=all&tbs=cdr:1,cd_min:1/1/2001,cd_max:11/30/2007&prmd=imvns&ei=jVn3T6umBIK68ASY9YjeBg&start=10&sa=N&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.,cf.osb&fp=85aec98b99f31513&biw=1715&bih=1184)
-
Atman
15. No, not the "last few months." Not true.
Read the link at reply #1 (you too, Cave dwellers). This was going on for quite a while, not just at the bitter end of the Bush nightmare.
Pedro, Pedro, Pedro.
Let me explain it to you in terms even someone as stupid as you *might* be able to understand.
What's the current unemployment figure? 8.2%. What is real unemployment counting those who are so depressed they have quit looking for work? Most conservative estimates I've seen say around 13.5% to 15%.
Dear Leader has had 3.5 years to do something. What should the unemployment figures be if he were competent and could lead? Less than 5%.
What is the price of gas currently? $3+. What should it be if Dear Leader was competent? Less than $2.
Have food prices greatly inflated over the past 3.5 years? Yes.
80K jobs a month is nothing. It's like having liver cancer and someone hands you a 5 cent coupon for a box of bandaids.
You see, there's a track record there. Things are getting worse exponentially. Dear Leader is the CEO, ergo he's to blame. He doesn't want to accept the blame. He doesn't like to accept responsibility for all the bad that's happening because of his stupidity. Bad leaders do that type of thing.
.
-
Atman --
Obama's economy is like a man trying to outrun a train. The train is moving at 120 Mph down the tracks. The runner is moving along at 15 Mph down the tracks in front of the train. The train strikes the runner at a net speed of 105 Mph. The end.
You are cheering the runner - while ignoring the train. Understand ?
-
Hey Toast! Why don't you refute the facts here with one of the 800,000 mole accounts you set up when traveling 0bama's 57 states?
-
Just to remind posters what kind of conspiracy quack Pedro is...
Atman
Yesterday, the advance jobs number was 170,000
This morning, CNN is reporting they expect it to be a meager 95,000.
Of course, it fits much better into their pro-Rmoney narrative, and allows them to have Republicans on to slam Obama, even though they admit they don't know what the actual number will be.
Gotta love cable news!
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002907975
BTW Pedro, actual number is a lousy 80,000.
.
-
Below are some links to check out concerning the DUmps thoughts on the economy and those terrible unemployment numbers under President Bush between 2001 and 2007. The last link is a Google search.
DUmp explanations on unemployment numbers under Bush (http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x1623263)
More DUmp explaining of unemployment under Bush (http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=114x11497)
The economy under Bush about the time the dems started "helping" it (http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x2940261)
Terrible jobs under Bush. The economy sucks. (http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x2594682)
Look for yourself for more examples: Google DU search from 2001 to 2007 (http://www.google.com/search?q=unemployment+site%3Ademocraticunderground.com&hl=en&lr=&safe=off&as_qdr=all&sa=X&ei=bln3T4GuOYWk9ASd-_jHBg&ved=0CAkQpwUoBg&source=lnt&tbs=cdr%3A1%2Ccd_min%3A1%2F1%2F2001%2Ccd_max%3A11%2F30%2F2007&tbm=#q=unemployment+site:democraticunderground.com&hl=en&lr=&safe=off&as_qdr=all&tbs=cdr:1,cd_min:1/1/2001,cd_max:11/30/2007&prmd=imvns&ei=jVn3T6umBIK68ASY9YjeBg&start=10&sa=N&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.,cf.osb&fp=85aec98b99f31513&biw=1715&bih=1184)
They were saying the same things about Bush as we are saying about Obama now, but since Obama is in office, it is not true. That do hate it when the shoe is on the other foot, don't they?
-
But were those 80,000 added jobs some of those that Mexicans do because Americans refuse to do them ...or more accurately, don't have to do?
-
They were saying the same things about Bush as we are saying about Obama now, but since Obama is in office, it is not true. That do hate it when the shoe is on the other foot, don't they?
But, the big difference is the actual unemployment rate was lower under President Bush, and the big job losses didn't start happening until the DemonRats took congress.
-
LINK (http://www.theblaze.com/stories/dont-read-too-much-into-it-june-jobs-report-marks-31st-time-the-white-house-advises-voters-to-ignore-data/)
‘DON’T READ TOO MUCH INTO IT’: JUNE JOBS REPORT MARKS 31ST TIME THE WHITE HOUSE ADVISES VOTERS TO IGNORE DATA
After the Labor Department announced on Friday that only 80,000 jobs were added in June, the Obama administration was quick to assure voters that this is somehow a “step in the right direction†and that we shouldn’t read too much into the data.
..snip..
June 2012: “Therefore, it is important not to read too much into any one monthly report and it is informative to consider each report in the context of other data that are becoming available.â€
May 2012: “Therefore, it is important not to read too much into any one monthly report and it is helpful to consider each report in the context of other data that are becoming available.â€
April 2012: “Therefore, it is important not to read too much into any one monthly report and it is helpful to consider each report in the context of other data that are becoming available.â€
March 2012: “Therefore, it is important not to read too much into any one monthly report, and it is helpful to consider each report in the context of other data that are becoming available.â€
February 2012: “Therefore, as the Administration always stresses, it is important not to read too much into any one monthly report; nevertheless, the trend in job market indicators over recent months is an encouraging sign.â€
January 2012: “Therefore, as the Administration always stresses, it is important not to read too much into any one monthly report; nevertheless, the trend in job market indicators over recent months is an encouraging sign.â€
December 2011: “Therefore, as the Administration always stresses, it is important not to read too much into any one monthly report.â€
November 2011: “Therefore, as the Administration always stresses, it is important not to read too much into any one monthly report.â€
October 2011: “The monthly employment and unemployment numbers are volatile and employment estimates are subject to substantial revision. There is no better example than August’s jobs figure, which was initially reported at zero and in the latest revision increased to 104,000. This illustrates why the Administration always stresses it is important not to read too much into any one monthly report.â€
September 2011: “Therefore, as the Administration always stresses, it is important not to read too much into any one monthly report.â€
August 2011: “Therefore, as the Administration always stresses, it is important not to read too much into any one monthly report.â€
July 2011: “Therefore, as the Administration always stresses, it is important not to read too much into any one monthly report.â€
June 2011: “Therefore, as the Administration always stresses, it is important not to read too much into any one monthly report.â€
May 2011: “Therefore, as the Administration always stresses, it is important not to read too much into any one monthly report.â€
April 2011: “Therefore, as the Administration always stresses, it is important not to read too much into any one monthly report.â€
March 2011: “Therefore, as the Administration always stresses, it is important not to read too much into any one monthly report.â€
February 2011: “Therefore, as the Administration always stresses, it is important not to read too much into any one monthly report.â€
January 2011: “Therefore, as the Administration always stresses, it is important not to read too much into any one monthly report.â€
December 2010: “Therefore, as the Administration always stresses, it is important not to read too much into any one monthly report.â€
November 2010: “Therefore, as the Administration always stresses, it is important not to read too much into any one monthly report.â€
October 2010: “Given the volatility in monthly employment and unemployment data, it is important not to read too much into any one monthly report.â€
September 2010: “Given the volatility in the monthly employment and unemployment data, it is important not to read too much into any one monthly report.â€
July 2010: “Therefore, it is important not to read too much into any one monthly report, positive or negative. It is essential that we continue our efforts to move in the right direction and replace job losses with robust job gains.â€
August 2010: “Therefore, it is important not to read too much into any one monthly report, positive or negative.â€
June 2010: “As always, it is important not to read too much into any one monthly report, positive or negative.â€
May 2010: “As always, it is important not to read too much into any one monthly report, positive or negative.â€
April 2010: “Therefore, it is important not to read too much into any one monthly report, positive or negative.â€
March 2010: “Therefore, it is important not to read too much into any one monthly report, positive or negative.â€
January 2010: “Therefore, it is important not to read too much into any one monthly report, positive or negative.â€
November 2009: “Therefore, it is important not to read too much into any one monthly report, positive or negative.â€
-
LINK (http://www.theblaze.com/stories/dont-read-too-much-into-it-june-jobs-report-marks-31st-time-the-white-house-advises-voters-to-ignore-data/)
At least they're consistent about one thing, even if they are lying about it.
-
LINK (http://www.breitbart.com/Breitbart-TV/2012/07/06/Flashback-Obama-Dismisses-310000-New-Jobs-In-Bush-Era)
After the economy added 310,000 jobs in May 2004 and the unemployment rate was 5.6%, then-candidate Barack Obama used the Democrat weekly radio address to attack the Bush administration for citing good economic numbers.
According to affirmative action DUmmies, 80,000 jobs created with 8.2% unemployment is better than 310,000 jobs created with 5.6% unemployment.
-
According to affirmative action DUmmies, 80,000 jobs created with 8.2% unemployment is better than 310,000 jobs created with 5.6% unemployment.
Wait until they revise it downward in August. Again.
US economic growth revised down as jobs data disappoint (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/economics/9303157/US-economic-growth-revised-down-as-jobs-data-disappoint.html)
-
LOL. Y'all have done an outstanding job as usual!
Ok Atman, bring your bad self on over here and 'splain to us knuckle dragging' mouth breathing 'Muricans why we're wrong. Heh
KC
-
FYI...a bugg..more people got on disability this month then jobs were created. Just an fyi though..dumb ass
-
Not to mention those "saved".
Has got to be the most ambiguous, impossible to quantify, non-statistic ever created. Then again, .....it's been awhile since I read "1984".
God help and forgive me, I so hate these people.
-
LINK (http://www.breitbart.com/Breitbart-TV/2012/07/06/Flashback-Obama-Dismisses-310000-New-Jobs-In-Bush-Era)
According to affirmative action DUmmies, 80,000 jobs created with 8.2% unemployment is better than 310,000 jobs created with 5.6% unemployment.
Yeah, I can see where they would come up with that. ::)
*Head ---------> Desk*
-
Has got to be the most ambiguous, impossible to quantify, non-statistic ever created. Then again, .....it's been awhile since I read "1984".
God help and forgive me, I so hate these people.
Have ya checked out Benny Parrish?
-
Not to mention those "saved".
That is a false number that Obama invented to make himself look good. Only the liberal retards and DUmp douchebags fall for that crap.
But, the big difference is the actual unemployment rate was lower under President Bush, and the big job losses didn't start happening until the DemonRats took congress.
This is true, none of this trouble started until we had a Dem controlled congress and senate. At which point they started to push things through (Like Dodd and Frank with the house loans being given to people who can't afford them) - Example: A buddy of mine had a minimum wage job at McDonalds. He was the only one working as his wife was pregnant and on bed rest - Side story is that he as also going to college - He applied for a house loan to see what he can get because him and his wife were living in little one bedroom studio apartment. The bank told him that because of his income he was eligible for $100,000.00. Explain that to me? He didn't take it because he knew working at McDonalds and making minimum wage, he would never be able to afford the payment. The bank, of course, tried to pressure him into taking it.
FYI...a bugg..more people got on disability this month then jobs were created. Just an fyi though..dumb ass
You will see that the rate of Disability claims has skyrocketed since Obama took office. People can't find a job, so they are trying to do whatever they can to get that guaranteed paycheck.