(09-07-2012 08:59 AM)Ninerfan1 Wrote:  

(09-07-2012 08:52 AM)firmbizzle Wrote:  The first one is pretty tame, the second one you are spiking the football a little bit.

They are both simple statements of fact. Stating a fact is not celebrating unemployment. Stating a fact isn't spiking the football. I didn't say I was happy about it. I didn't say "ha, ha" I simply stated facts and even went so far as to say it wasn't good that it happened. If I was celebrating it I wouldn't say things like that.

You lied. Period.

Uh huh.

(09-07-2012 08:59 AM)firmbizzle Wrote:  Cause and effect.

You're right. Obama's policies are leading to the 31 year low in labor force participation, all time high in food stamp recipients, and the trend of replacing middle class jobs with menial ones. Congrats!

(09-07-2012 08:59 AM)Ninerfan1 Wrote:  

(09-07-2012 08:52 AM)firmbizzle Wrote:  The first one is pretty tame, the second one you are spiking the football a little bit.

They are both simple statements of fact. Stating a fact is not celebrating unemployment. Stating a fact isn't spiking the football. I didn't say I was happy about it. I didn't say "ha, ha" I simply stated facts and even went so far as to say it wasn't good that it happened. If I was celebrating it I wouldn't say things like that.

You lied. Period.

I'm no fan of Niner (see what I did there?), but I think you're off base with this one, Firm.

(09-07-2012 08:50 AM)Max Power Wrote:  Sorry we have 30 straight months of private sector job growth after Obama inherited an economy from your last president losing 25,000 jobs every day, conservatives. Why don't you go argue with furniture?

But seriously it's bad news, although the UE rate drop will grab some headlines which is a gift.

+1
Thank you empty chair.

(09-07-2012 09:02 AM)firmbizzle Wrote:  

(09-07-2012 08:59 AM)Ninerfan1 Wrote:  

(09-07-2012 08:52 AM)firmbizzle Wrote:  The first one is pretty tame, the second one you are spiking the football a little bit.

They are both simple statements of fact. Stating a fact is not celebrating unemployment. Stating a fact isn't spiking the football. I didn't say I was happy about it. I didn't say "ha, ha" I simply stated facts and even went so far as to say it wasn't good that it happened. If I was celebrating it I wouldn't say things like that.

You lied. Period.

Uh huh.

Stay asleep. You humiliate yourself less that way.

(09-07-2012 08:50 AM)Max Power Wrote:  Sorry we have 30 straight months of private sector job growth after Obama inherited an economy from your last president losing 25,000 jobs every day, conservatives.

Every day for 8 years? Or you're taking a short term trend and trying to pretend it would have kept happening indefinitely if anyone but Obama had been in office?

(09-07-2012 09:06 AM)BlazerFan11 Wrote:  

(09-07-2012 08:50 AM)Max Power Wrote:  Sorry we have 30 straight months of private sector job growth after Obama inherited an economy from your last president losing 25,000 jobs every day, conservatives.

Every day for 8 years? Or you're taking a short term trend and trying to pretend it would have kept happening indefinitely if anyone but Obama had been in office?

Do you have proof that it was a short term trend?

http://www.theatlanticwire.com/national/...ort/56611/

Quote:The bad news, of course, is that the reason the rate dropped is because the "labor force participation" rate also dropped by 367,000 workers, the lowest level in more than 30 years. Hopes had been raised slightly after the ADP employment report posted more than 200,000 new jobs just one day ago.

(09-07-2012 09:04 AM)Ninerfan1 Wrote:  

(09-07-2012 09:02 AM)firmbizzle Wrote:  

(09-07-2012 08:59 AM)Ninerfan1 Wrote:  

(09-07-2012 08:52 AM)firmbizzle Wrote:  The first one is pretty tame, the second one you are spiking the football a little bit.

They are both simple statements of fact. Stating a fact is not celebrating unemployment. Stating a fact isn't spiking the football. I didn't say I was happy about it. I didn't say "ha, ha" I simply stated facts and even went so far as to say it wasn't good that it happened. If I was celebrating it I wouldn't say things like that.

You lied. Period.

Uh huh.

Stay asleep. You humiliate yourself less that way.

I don't need polls to see when the president is leading. I can just come to this board and watch your insane posts and threads. Keep crying wolf, keep calling people liars. They all lie!!! Are you Joe Wilson?


http://csnbbs.com/showthread.php?tid=568011

http://csnbbs.com/showthread.php?tid=568011

http://csnbbs.com/showthread.php?tid=581363

http://csnbbs.com/showthread.php?tid=576379

http://csnbbs.com/showthread.php?tid=574290

http://csnbbs.com/showthread.php?tid=572695


Oh and more examples of your celebration.


http://csnbbs.com/showthread.php?tid=537061


http://csnbbs.com/showthread.php?tid=548001

http://csnbbs.com/showthread.php?tid=552652

(09-07-2012 09:08 AM)firmbizzle Wrote:  

(09-07-2012 09:06 AM)BlazerFan11 Wrote:  

(09-07-2012 08:50 AM)Max Power Wrote:  Sorry we have 30 straight months of private sector job growth after Obama inherited an economy from your last president losing 25,000 jobs every day, conservatives.

Every day for 8 years? Or you're taking a short term trend and trying to pretend it would have kept happening indefinitely if anyone but Obama had been in office?

Do you have proof that it was a short term trend?

It's a short term trend because Obama helped stop it. This was the largest financial shock since the Great Depression, and from 1929-1933 we spiraled ever downward as Hoover did nothing. That's what the GOP argued we should do-- nothing. And many independent analysts have determined a second depression would have come on if we did nothing.

Well done firm. You posted yet more threads that show you to be lying. In none to I celebrate bad unemployment news. Not a single one.

Atlantic doesn't even support you on this, and as he stated, he's certainly no fan of mine.

But by all means you keep it up. You're too stupid not to.

In case you moonbats don't read Drudge:

Record 88,921,000 Americans ‘Not in Labor Force’

Only 96K added

368,000 DROPPED OUT

Workforce participation rate for men 69.9% - lowest since 1948...

Question is, is your party really more important than America?

(09-07-2012 09:34 AM)Max Power Wrote:  

(09-07-2012 09:08 AM)firmbizzle Wrote:  

(09-07-2012 09:06 AM)BlazerFan11 Wrote:  

(09-07-2012 08:50 AM)Max Power Wrote:  Sorry we have 30 straight months of private sector job growth after Obama inherited an economy from your last president losing 25,000 jobs every day, conservatives.

Every day for 8 years? Or you're taking a short term trend and trying to pretend it would have kept happening indefinitely if anyone but Obama had been in office?

Do you have proof that it was a short term trend?

It's a short term trend because Obama helped stop it. This was the largest financial shock since the Great Depression, and from 1929-1933 we spiraled ever downward as Hoover did nothing. That's what the GOP argued we should do-- nothing. And many independent analysts have determined a second depression would have come on if we did nothing.

So you're saying we would have kept losing jobs at that rate had Obama not been elected? The economy sucked for a decade after the New Deal's massive intervention (just like it is now), and unemployment spiked after the second wave of New Deal spending. And I wish libs would stop lying about Hoover doing nothing to make their precious gov't central planning look more effective.

Quote:Public projects undertaken by Hoover included the San Francisco Bay Bridge, the Los Angeles Aqueduct, and Hoover Dam. The Republican president won plaudits from the American Federation of Labor for his industrial policy, which included jawboning business leaders to refrain from cutting wages as the economy fell. Referring to counteracting the business cycle and propping up wages, Hoover said: "No president before has ever believed that there was a government responsibility in such cases . . . we had to pioneer a new field." Though he did not coin the phrase, Hoover championed many of the basic ideas -- such as central planning and control of the economy -- that came to be known as the New Deal.

Quote:In his economic policies and his incessant governmental activism, Hoover differed far more sharply with his Republican predecessor than he did with his Democratic successor. Calvin Coolidge, president from 1923 to 1929, made no secret of his disdain for Hoover, who served as his secretary of commerce and won praise from such highly regarded liberals as John Maynard Keynes and Jean Monnet.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122576077569495545.html

How about the depression of 1920-21?

Quote:The economic situation in 1920 was grim. By that year unemployment had jumped from 4 percent to nearly 12 percent, and GNP declined 17 percent. No wonder, then, that Secretary of Commerce Herbert Hoover — falsely characterized as a supporter of laissez-faire economics — urged President Harding to consider an array of interventions to turn the economy around. Hoover was ignored.

Instead of "fiscal stimulus," Harding cut the government's budget nearly in half between 1920 and 1922. The rest of Harding's approach was equally laissez-faire. Tax rates were slashed for all income groups. The national debt was reduced by one-third.

The Federal Reserve's activity, moreover, was hardly noticeable. As one economic historian puts it, "Despite the severity of the contraction, the Fed did not move to use its powers to turn the money supply around and fight the contraction."[2] By the late summer of 1921, signs of recovery were already visible. The following year, unemployment was back down to 6.7 percent and it was only 2.4 percent by 1923.

http://mises.org/daily/3788

(09-07-2012 09:34 AM)Max Power Wrote:  

(09-07-2012 09:08 AM)firmbizzle Wrote:  

(09-07-2012 09:06 AM)BlazerFan11 Wrote:  

(09-07-2012 08:50 AM)Max Power Wrote:  Sorry we have 30 straight months of private sector job growth after Obama inherited an economy from your last president losing 25,000 jobs every day, conservatives.

Every day for 8 years? Or you're taking a short term trend and trying to pretend it would have kept happening indefinitely if anyone but Obama had been in office?

Do you have proof that it was a short term trend?

It's a short term trend because Obama helped stop it. This was the largest financial shock since the Great Depression, and from 1929-1933 we spiraled ever downward as Hoover did nothing. That's what the GOP argued we should do-- nothing. And many independent analysts have determined a second depression would have come on if we did nothing.

It was a short term trend because it was a short term trend. It turned around before Obama had time to do anything but get elected. And since we all know that "employment is a trailing indicator," that graph that you keep posting in different forms shows very clearly that the turnaround was prompted by something other than any of Obama's policies.

Hoover did not "do nothing." Hoover did a fair amount of "stimulus" plus Smoot-Hawley was passed to "protect" American businesses plus a lot of Mexican workers were rounded up and shipped back to Mexico plus there was a bank "bailout" on his watch. None of it worked, just as the same things have not worked or would not work today. FDR's massive spending didn't get us out of it either. We stayed in a funk until WWII. I know you lefites don't like to hear that, but that's just too bad.

As for what "many independent analysts have determined," it's equally true that "many independent analysts" have determined exactly the opposite. Max, you can be relied upon to post consistently the most partisan leftist slant on every event and issue. You're a good advocate, if I got run over by an 18-wheeler in Illinois, I'd probably look you up. But right now what we need is a balanced view that looks at things from multiple directions to see the bigger picture, and that's not in your skill set.

Huh. 8.1%, I didn't really expect that.

(09-07-2012 09:40 AM)Rebel Wrote:  In case you moonbats don't read Drudge:

Record 88,921,000 Americans ‘Not in Labor Force’

Only 96K added

368,000 DROPPED OUT

Workforce participation rate for men 69.9% - lowest since 1948...

Question is, is your party really more important than America?

Gaining 96,000 jobs is better than losing 84,000.

A little historical perspective.

(09-07-2012 09:50 AM)mtsufan561 Wrote:  Huh. 8.1%, I didn't really expect that.

Yeah me either. I thought last month that there was a good chance it might go down, since it went up when we had stronger jobs numbers. We just have to keep adding jobs, keep the momentum going and let it build.

(09-07-2012 09:35 AM)Ninerfan1 Wrote:  Well done firm. You posted yet more threads that show you to be lying. In none to I celebrate bad unemployment news. Not a single one.

Atlantic doesn't even support you on this, and as he stated, he's certainly no fan of mine.

But by all means you keep it up. You're too stupid not to.

Now I'm stupid and a liar, huh?

(09-07-2012 09:55 AM)firmbizzle Wrote:  

(09-07-2012 09:50 AM)mtsufan561 Wrote:  Huh. 8.1%, I didn't really expect that.

Yeah me either. I thought last month that there was a good chance it might go down, since it went up when we had stronger jobs numbers. We just have to keep adding jobs, keep the momentum going and let it build.

Look, Prog, I don't think you're understanding that we need at least 150K PER MONTH just to keep up with population growth and the fact that people are actually dropping out of the labor force is the reason for the drop in the unemployment rate. It doesn't mean they found jobs.

(09-07-2012 09:55 AM)firmbizzle Wrote:  

(09-07-2012 09:50 AM)mtsufan561 Wrote:  Huh. 8.1%, I didn't really expect that.

Yeah me either. I thought last month that there was a good chance it might go down, since it went up when we had stronger jobs numbers. We just have to keep adding jobs, keep the momentum going and let it build.

i really dont think you grasp what is going on