Some are still in the dark on Obama

If the Daytona 500 could only be attended by new people filing jobless claims last month, they would have to hold two races!

LOL, if every doublewide in Slapout could be inhabited by the laughs I get from Dixie, they would have to be split-level...
 
And if every person who got a job added since Obama was sworn in was seated, how many stadiums would that take. Mr. Non-sequitur?

It wouldn't take ANY, because you have to count people who are entering the workforce for the first time. If you didn't have to count those millions of people, then maybe you'd have some people to put in a stadium, but once you factor in those, the stadium would be empty. In fact, the stadium personnel who worked at the stadium before Obama was elected, aren't even there anymore.
 
If "New Jobless Claims" were an American Idol contestant, they would likely win!

Ooo... here's a good one....

If some obscure left-wing radical blog had 300k new hits last month, they wouldn't need to pay \\\||/// to run around the Internet trying to generate traffic for the site!
 
If "New Jobless Claims" were an American Idol contestant, they would likely win!

If making claims unsupported by factual evidence were an Olympic event, Dixie would take the gold.
 
It wouldn't take ANY, because you have to count people who are entering the workforce for the first time. If you didn't have to count those millions of people, then maybe you'd have some people to put in a stadium, but once you factor in those, the stadium would be empty. In fact, the stadium personnel who worked at the stadium before Obama was elected, aren't even there anymore.

Show me the figures...link up.
 
If making claims unsupported by factual evidence were an Olympic event, Dixie would take the gold.

http://www.cnbc.com/id/47098817

New U.S. claims for unemployment benefits fell less than expected last week, according to a government report on Thursday that could dampen hopes of a pick-up in job creation in April after March's slowdown.


Getty Images
Initial claims for state unemployment benefits slipped 2,000 to a seasonally adjusted 386,000, the Labor Department said. But the prior week's figure was revised up to 388,000 from the previously reported 380,000.

The four-week moving average for new claims, considered a better measure of labor market trends, rose 5,500 to 374,750.

Economists polled by Reuters had forecast claims falling to 370,000 last week.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------


If 300k+ people who filed new jobless claims were chunks of pwned \\\||/// ass on a wall, they would look like my den!
 
http://www.cnbc.com/id/47098817

New U.S. claims for unemployment benefits fell less than expected last week, according to a government report on Thursday that could dampen hopes of a pick-up in job creation in April after March's slowdown. Initial claims for state unemployment benefits slipped 2,000 to a seasonally adjusted 386,000, the Labor Department said. But the prior week's figure was revised up to 388,000 from the previously reported 380,000. The four-week moving average for new claims, considered a better measure of labor market trends, rose 5,500 to 374,750. Economists polled by Reuters had forecast claims falling to 370,000 last week. If 300k+ people who filed new jobless claims were chunks of pwned \\\||/// ass on a wall, they would look like my den!

LOL, so explain how this CNBC article "pwns" me?
 
LOL, so explain how this CNBC article "pwns" me?

You wanted a cite and I gave you one, now you want to complain about the cite?

Google "Jobless Claims" and pick your own source! Go fucking find a source that contradicts my claim of 300k new jobless claims last month! If you find one, I'll admit you lived up to the challenge and weren't thoroughly and convincingly PWNED! Until then, you are pissing in the wind.
 
You wanted a cite and I gave you one, now you want to complain about the cite? Google "Jobless Claims" and pick your own source! Go fucking find a source that contradicts my claim of 300k new jobless claims last month! If you find one, I'll admit you lived up to the challenge and weren't thoroughly and convincingly PWNED! Until then, you are pissing in the wind.

I didn't complain about your citation, Dixie.

I asked to to explain how it "pwns" me.

Can you do that, or not?
 
http://www.cnbc.com/id/47098817

New U.S. claims for unemployment benefits fell less than expected last week, according to a government report on Thursday that could dampen hopes of a pick-up in job creation in April after March's slowdown.


Getty Images
Initial claims for state unemployment benefits slipped 2,000 to a seasonally adjusted 386,000, the Labor Department said. But the prior week's figure was revised up to 388,000 from the previously reported 380,000.

The four-week moving average for new claims, considered a better measure of labor market trends, rose 5,500 to 374,750.

Economists polled by Reuters had forecast claims falling to 370,000 last week.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------


If 300k+ people who filed new jobless claims were chunks of pwned \\\||/// ass on a wall, they would look like my den!

great legion pwn dixie!
 
This whole tread is so funny!
Trying to hold Obama's 3 yrs responsible for 30 yrs of failed conservative ideology is idiotic. 30 yrs of outsourcing, trickle-down, deregulation which led us on our current economic situation, allowing speculators to make huge profits from gas and blaming it on Obama, unfunded wars, deficits don't matter (remember?) and on and on. To say any president is responsible for the failure of the past 30 yrs is just ignorant and very Republicon. I remember when wing nuts said the right was the party of responsibility, remember? well take responsibility and admit you represent the very wealthy and are responsible for the ideology that got us into this mess.


It will take time to beat back the fascists and restore this country to greatness. Face it Dix, our govt is not here to make sure international corporations in China make a profit.
 
Jeez, I really thought the examples I gave were good enough, but I guess not... let me try again...

If "Jobless Claims" had a Facebook page, they would have gained 300,000 new friends last month!

Oh you can ramble on and on til the cows come home and it won't matter until you come up with some SUBSTANTIATION to back up your bullshit.
 
I'm curious, Yurts - in your estimation - have we not gained jobs, and are things worse than they were?

why on earth aren't you aware we have not gained jobs......is it just something you've chosen to ignore or do you not understand simple math?......
 
why on earth aren't you aware we have not gained jobs......is it just something you've chosen to ignore or do you not understand simple math?......

It's cute to go w/ net jobs, but if you're going w/ that, whoever you spend days campaigning for - if they win - will not see a net gain in their admin, either. That's because we lost many millions of jobs after the crash.

But, the condition of gaining jobs - as in, the economy adding jobs instead of losing them - is an improving condition. It's pretty simple.
 
Three hundred thousand.... I typed it out because I want you to ruminate on that number for a bit. Now, if you had 300k M&M's, you would say you had "a lot" of M&M's, correct? If you had 300k friends on facebook, it would be "a lot" of friends, wouldn't it? If you gained 300k friends in one month, that would be pretty phenomenal, wouldn't it? Three hundred thousand.... that's how many NEW people filed jobless claims last month! Now, generally speaking, in order to file a jobless claim, one has to be jobless. So we can take this information and presume that at least 300k more people this month, than last month, are without jobs. Were jobs created? Yes...BUT...new people also came into the workforce... people graduated college or turned 18, etc. When everything is accounted for, 300k more people filed jobless claims. We have NOT CREATED JOBS!



For the most part, the Dow Jones is rich people swapping money around! Those mean and greedy SOB's who make up the 1% you are always bitching about! THOSE people are doing rather well in this shitty economy, because they have the capital to buy up stocks at pennies on the dollar. Now this might present some sort of advantage for liberals if they hadn't already crucified these people and could possibly win their votes, but that isn't the case. But good luck going after the stock mogul vote, I'm sure you'll do very well with that demographic! Meanwhile, everyone else is suffering.

Of course Obama can't force companies to hire people instead of robots, but neither could McCain have prevented that, or Bush, or Romney, or anyone else, that is called PROGRESS. We're going to always advance in technology and productivity, it's been going on for quite some time. Believe it or not, they once built automobiles without the help of robots! The thing is, in spite of this universal factor which plagues every president, Mr. Obama campaigned and won on the promise he could do something, and he has failed.

You're missing a very important point. While you're right Obama can't force companies to hire people and you're right there will always be advances in technology and productivity and you're right there will always be people losing their job what Obama can and is doing is to ensure one does not lose their medical insurance at the same time. It's referred to as social programs. Not Socialism.

So, as the nation and society advances and the resultant situations arise, namely job loss or job change, Obama is trying to ensure people can cope with the change without losing everything they worked for up to that point. Why would any rational thinking person object to that?
 
It's cute to go w/ net jobs, but if you're going w/ that, whoever you spend days campaigning for - if they win - will not see a net gain in their admin, either. That's because we lost many millions of jobs after the crash.

But, the condition of gaining jobs - as in, the economy adding jobs instead of losing them - is an improving condition. It's pretty simple.

I swear, if Obama had only created one job and lost a million, you'd brag about the job he created.....
 
I swear, if Obama had only created one job and lost a million, you'd brag about the job he created.....

No. I just understand what "gaining jobs" means in the common language. The economy was losing millions of jobs - because of the crash. Remember that? I don't think there is any policy that would have turned that around quickly.

Now, the economy is gaining jobs. The momentum has clearly shifted - not as quickly as anyone would like, but companies are hiring instead of firing.

You're just too much of a hack. You refuse to see what is obvious.
 
You're missing a very important point. While you're right Obama can't force companies to hire people and you're right there will always be advances in technology and productivity and you're right there will always be people losing their job what Obama can and is doing is to ensure one does not lose their medical insurance at the same time. It's referred to as social programs. Not Socialism.

So, as the nation and society advances and the resultant situations arise, namely job loss or job change, Obama is trying to ensure people can cope with the change without losing everything they worked for up to that point. Why would any rational thinking person object to that?

Well, in spite of Mr. Obama's (and your) best intentions and efforts, at least 300k more people are without insurance this month because they lost their jobs. The shrinking number of people who still have jobs with insurance, are watching their premiums rise 300 percent or more. The whole idea and concept has been a total and complete economic disaster and clusterfuck from Day 1.
 
Back
Top