View Full Version : Breaking News!!!
GoldenRivet
06-05-09, 11:43 PM
MORE GLOOM AND DOOM AS ONLY 90.6% OF AMERICANS HAVE JOBS!
http://www.dailyfinance.com/2009/06/05/job-losses-slow-in-may-but-unemployment-hits-9-4-percent/
nikimcbee
06-05-09, 11:55 PM
Look out Miiiiii-chigan! Ore-gone is going to push you out of the #1 spot in unemployment, as we want to raise taxes on everything! A proven ,sound economic strategy!:yeah:
We're #1!
We're #1!
:woot:
Aramike
06-06-09, 03:32 AM
MORE GLOOM AND DOOM AS ONLY 90.6% OF AMERICANS HAVE JOBS!
http://www.dailyfinance.com/2009/06/05/job-losses-slow-in-may-but-unemployment-hits-9-4-percent/You know what sucks about the concept of this thread?
It's that it minimizes the problem.
90.6% of Americans do NOT have jobs - that's not how unemployment statistics are kept. In fact, look further down the article and you'll find this:
Further, a separate unemployment gauge, which includes workers who can find only part-time work and discouraged workers, rose to a record in 16.4 percent in May from 15.8 percent in April. That index was at 15.6 percent in March. What's more, the number of workers forced to work part-time because they can not secure full-time work increased 164,000 in May to 9.1 million.We are losing jobs at a breakneck pace. To be honest, with the current administration's policy of governmental interference in the private sector, this will continue.
bookworm_020
06-06-09, 07:00 AM
So how many have there pink slips in the mail????:hmmm:
So how many have there pink slips in the mail????:hmmm:
Not me, not yet anyways and I hope I don't as I just committed to a quarter of a million dollar house mortgage! :o
Frame57
06-06-09, 10:01 AM
Lemme see...I still see help wanted signs dang near every where i go....:woot:
SUBMAN1
06-06-09, 10:51 AM
During he Clinton years, anything over 90% was considered good! People forget fast these days.
-S
Aramike
06-06-09, 01:56 PM
During he Clinton years, anything over 90% was considered good! People forget fast these days.
-SWhere did you get that statistic from?
For as much as I dislike Clinton, the worst unemployment rate he faced was 7%, I believe - and that's when he took office. In '99 is was closer to 4%.
No one is "forgetting" anything, here. The employment situation is the worst its been in, what, 30 years?
SUBMAN1
06-06-09, 02:25 PM
Where did you get that statistic from?
For as much as I dislike Clinton, the worst unemployment rate he faced was 7%, I believe - and that's when he took office. In '99 is was closer to 4%.
No one is "forgetting" anything, here. The employment situation is the worst its been in, what, 30 years?
Some info for Bush:
Despite the recession he inherited, 9-11, stock market scandals, Hurricane Katrina and two wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, the unemployment rate during the Bush years averaged out to 5.27%.Clinton I think was 7%. I was using sarcasm.
Some intersting info:
The US has lost 16,000 jobs each day since Democrats passed their MASSIVE Generational Theft Act (http://michellemalkin.com/2009/01/07/the-generational-theft-act-of-2009/), the largest redistribution of wealth from the private sector to government officials in US history.
http://michellemalkin.com/2009/01/07/the-generational-theft-act-of-2009/
And the number of illegal immigrants has risen to What percent of the population?
And we give benefits to everyone?
Sounds like a conspiracy to me...:o
Aramike
06-06-09, 02:28 PM
Some info for Bush:
Clinton I think was 7%. I was using sarcasm.Umm, no - Clinton's unemployment average rate was 5.4%. They were as damned close to statistically tied as they could be.
But remember: Bush inherited a 3.7% unemployment rate. Clinton started with well over 7%. So, for them to be practically tied it stands to reason that Clinton did better regarding unemployment during his presidency.
Quite frankly, I don't attribute much of those numbers to the presidents, anyway. My point is that we must be honest to maintain credibility.
SUBMAN1
06-06-09, 02:39 PM
Umm, no - Clinton's unemployment average rate was 5.4%. They were as damned close to statistically tied as they could be.
But remember: Bush inherited a 3.7% unemployment rate. Clinton started with well over 7%. So, for them to be practically tied it stands to reason that Clinton did better regarding unemployment during his presidency.
Quite frankly, I don't attribute much of those numbers to the presidents, anyway. My point is that we must be honest to maintain credibility.
Yeah. He passed it on to the next guy. He is responsible for the .com bubble and the Fannie and Freddie problems. He pushed through laws that gave us the current problem we are in now. Nice job Clinton!
He also gave us the wiretapping freedoms that Bush is accused for. Obama expanded on them yet I don't hear the left complaining when he did it. Only when Bush did it. Only the EFF is standing up to it.
But we are all getting used to the double standards from the left.
-S
Aramike
06-06-09, 02:44 PM
Yeah. He passed it on to the next guy. He is responsible for the .com bubble and the Fannie and Freddie problems. He pushed through laws that gave us the current problem we are in now. Nice job Clinton!
He also gave us the wiretapping freedoms that Bush is accused for. Obama expanded on them yet I don't hear the left complaining when he did it. Only when Bush did it. Only the EFF is standing up to it.
But we are all getting used to the double standards from the left.
-SI don't dispute most of that, even though presidents are never really responsible for economic bubbles.
I'm not in any way, shape, or form a fan of Clinton. That being said, I believe it is absolutely wrong to make up statistics in order to support one's arguments. How do you expect anyone to take you seriously if you back your assertions with nonsense rather than facts?
Credibility is important.
PS: It also annoys me when people complain about presidents "passing it on to the next guy". That's kind of what they all have to do, considering term limits and such. Frankly, I'm fine with that.
I don't dispute most of that, even though presidents are never really responsible for economic bubbles.
I'm not in any way, shape, or form a fan of Clinton. That being said, I believe it is absolutely wrong to make up statistics in order to support one's arguments. How do you expect anyone to take you seriously if you back your assertions with nonsense rather than facts?
Credibility is important.
PS: It also annoys me when people complain about presidents "passing it on to the next guy". That's kind of what they all have to do, considering term limits and such. Frankly, I'm fine with that.
Well said. Agree 100%
sunvalleyslim
06-06-09, 06:52 PM
Man, I thank my lucky stars to be retired on a 88.25% pension.........
There now claiming that the middle class is disappearing. This is due to the jobs being lost are the high paying jobs like auto workers. You might see help wanted signs, but what are the wages?
There now claiming that the middle class is disappearing. This is due to the jobs being lost are the high paying jobs like auto workers. You might see help wanted signs, but what are the wages?
Auto worker is not and should never have been considered a middle class job.
vBulletin® v3.8.11, Copyright ©2000-2025, vBulletin Solutions Inc.