Tune in here to learn of next weeks excuse for more job losses.

Last weeks excuse for job losses that the Urkle Administration is responsible for was some crap about the Verizon Union hacks going back to work.

This weeks excuse for job losses will be the earthquake.

Next week, the Urkle Administration will blame .....

Wait for it....

Hurricane Irene!
Yes, somehow those people displaced by Hurricane Irene will rush back into the unemployment office that lost it's roof and has sea weed on the seats, magically fire up the water logged computers, and start signing up all those people for unemployment.
http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/I/IRENE?SITE=CAVIC&SECTION=HOME&TEM...
How's that hopey changey thing working out for you Liberals?

No votes yet

What "losses" are you referring to? We've had 17 straight months of private sector job growth

Pink Slip

These job losses. Published weekly by mommy Gubberment on an official government website.

Last week, the Odumbo administration blamed the Verizon strike for job losses.

"In the week ending August 20, the advance figure for seasonally adjusted initial claims was 417,000, an increase of 5,000 from the previous week's revised figure of 412,000. The 4-week moving average was 407,500, an increase of 4,000 from the previous week's revised average of 403,500."

http://www.dol.gov/opa/media/press/eta/ui/current.htm

Don't blame me,
I didn't vote for a
socialist.

So you're pointing to a revised figure of unemployment claims? This only shows that there people who are unemployed--duh, we knew that. You completely ignore the fact that there are 17 straight months of increased jobs from the private sector.

Pink Slip

Read the official Government website for god's sake. Just vomiting up what your union puppet-masters tell you to say shows your ignorance to the world.

Since you obviously did not read the official Government press release and instead just swallowed the load of crap that Jon Stewart fed you, I'll point it out so everyone else on the internet can laugh at you too.

"In the week ending August 20, the advance figure for seasonally adjusted initial claims was 417,000, an increase of 5,000 from the previous week's revised figure of 412,000. The 4-week moving average was 407,500, an increase of 4,000 from the previous week's revised average of 403,500."

So you are saying that increase of 5,000 newly unemployed people from the previous week is somehow "creating jobs"?

Don't blame me,
I didn't vote for a
socialist.

This is why I usually don't respond to you. You don't even understand what you're posting. Yes, the number of requests for unemployment insurance was adjusted up--meaning that there are more people requesting unemployment than what they originally thought. Bravo for you! This does NOT address my point that the private sector has created jobs for 17 straight months. These are NOT losses. They are gains. There can be job gains, and people still requesting unemployment at the same time. Now go run off to your psycho convention.

Pink Slip

We currently have MORE long term unemployed than during the great depression dumbass...here...right from a libtard site..

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2011/06/06/982607/-Long-term-unemployment-...

Save your Obama propaganda for the other libtards, your bullshit wont work anymore....

“Political correctness is a doctrine, fostered by a delusional, illogical minority, and rabidly promoted by an unscrupulous mainstream media, which holds forth the proposition that it is entirely possible to pick up a turd by the clean end.”

I guess you're right.
My mistake. Apparently, if you nitpick what the mainstream media tells you, you are correct just like Nancy Pelosi said.

If you get technical about what you are being spoon-fed by your brainwashers and decide that the information that the United States Government publishes is BS, then you are right.

I guess that the " private sector has created jobs for 17 straight months." Yep, for each 3 jobs lost, the private sector is creating one job. Too bad the Private Sector is not creating jobs faster than your commie-pinko administration is LOOSING THOSE JOBS.

You have obviously been indoctrinated into the collective and cannot think for yourself. It's almost no fun for me to point out what a moron you are because it's so easy.

Nanci Pelosi tried to claim the exact same crap you are trying to pass off as "fact". In a Bloomberg interview on May 16th, 2011, Nancy Pelosi claimed that there were 847,000 jobs created between January 2009 through January 2010. But don't forget, Nancy, that during the same exact time frame, the economy shed almost 4.2 million private-sector jobs.

"According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the economy shed almost 4.2 million private-sector jobs during the first year of the Obama administration -- January 2009 through January 2010."
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2011/may/17/nancy-pel...

Don't blame me,
I didn't vote for a
socialist.

"According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the economy shed almost 4.2 million private-sector jobs during the first year of the Obama administration -- January 2009 through January 2010."

That's absolutely right. Now do this--start with March 2010 (which is AFTER the period you cited), and count the number of months between then and now. Guess what?? IT'S SEVENTEEN MONTHS! And in everyone of those months, we've had private sector GAINS--not losses.

http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6149/6011256843_d5ec22e3ab_z.jpg

Pink Slip

You must be kidding me. Nobody can be so blind or stupid. Let's take ONLY July of this year to prove what a worthless liar you are. I did notice that the cute little "chart" you stole says right on it that it comes from the "Office of the Democratic Leader" and I found the exact same pretty picture you stole on some Liberal owned website named http://democratsforprogress.com/forum/showthread.php?tid=8678
Now, let's toss out your slobbering lap-dog crap and use real mainstream media outlets for information. Like I used ABC News and CNN News.

In July of this year, there were 154,000 jobs created. The documentation and proof is below.
But in ONE WEEK of July this year, there were 398,000 newly unemployed people. Again, the documentation and proof is below.
So, you are correct. The economy added 154.000 jobs in July of this year. BUT the same economy LOST 398,000 jobs in the same month of the same year.

To put it in words even a stupid fking Liberal like you can understand, 398,000 America LOST THEIR JOBS IN JULY BUT ONLY 154,000 FOUND NEW JOBS. THEREFORE 244,000 AMERICANS ARE STILL UNEMPLOYED JUST FROM JULY OF THIS YEAR.

Unemployment claims drop below 400,000
By: CNNMoney.com Staff Reporter Annalyn Censky

New York (CNNMoney) – Finally, some better news about the job market: the number of first-time filers for unemployment benefits fell below 400,000 for the first time since early April.

There were 398,000 initial unemployment claims filed in the week ended July 23, the Labor Department said Thursday. That marks the first time since April 2, that the weekly initial claims number has fallen below 400,000, a level typically associated with payroll growth and a lower unemployment rate.

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2011/07/28/unemployment-claims-drop...

Got that? There were 398,000 initial unemployment claims filed in the week ended July 23 Let's repeat that for you. 398,000 initial unemployment claims filed in the week ended July 23

And, yes, the economy also added jobs in July. Yep, a whopping 154,000 jobs were added the entire month of July

The private sector, which factors out government layoffs and hiring, saw 154,000 workers added to payrolls
http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2011/08/july-sees-117k-jobs-added-u...

Don't blame me,
I didn't vote for a
socialist.

"In July of this year, there were 154,000 jobs created. The documentation and proof is below. But in ONE WEEK of July this year, there were 398,000 newly unemployed people. Again, the documentation and proof is below."

Oh, I see the problem now--you're stupid. You see, the number of jobs created is usually calculated by taking the total number of new jobs, and subtracting the jobs lost. If the result is a positive number, that means there was job growth. For instance--if there 2.5 million total jobs created and 1.5 million people lost their jobs....that means there were 1 million jobs created. And that 1 million number is the number reported. I hope you learned something today.

Pink Slip

Show me, on an official government website, where they say "the number of jobs created is usually calculated by taking the total number of new jobs, and subtracting the jobs lost".

How simplistic and incredibly wrong you are. Yet you post that drivel like you actually believe it and make it too easy to prove what a moron you truly are. And you hope that the rest of us are as easy to lead around as you. There is no "usual" way that job creation is calculated. THERE IS ONE AND ONLY ONE WAY IT IS DONE AND IT IS DEFINED BY THE WHITEHOUSE OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET (OMB)

The rest of us who don't depend on a Union Steward to do our thinking know the crap you posted isn't true. It's just more proof that you are a typical Liberal Democrat. You need either a Union or Mommy Gubberment to do your thinking for you.

How the Government calculates the number of jobs created is explained here on this official government website, the White House Office of Management and Budget. There is no "usually calculated" way to figure out how many jobs are created. It is a formula that the United States Office of Management and Budget has created. http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/recovery_faqs_contractors

The following has lots of words and numbers, so I know you won't read it. It has something to do with what everyone who graduated high school calls the FTE.

If you can untie your mommys apron strings for a bit, you can look up THE LEGAL DEFINITION of "Full Time Equivlent" and how it is used to calculate job creation. That information is from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) in Section 5.3 of “Implementing Guidance". It's freely available since the Odumbo Administration changed how job creation is measured.
http://recovery.commerce.gov/JobCreationGuidance
Or here on the EPA website is the short version.
http://www.epa.gov/recovery/supplement2.html

And here is how the Government calculates the number of unemployed.
http://www.bls.gov/cps/cps_htgm.htm

And that's why I usually don't bother responding to your posts. You aren't worth the time to try and educate. Some people, including you, are always going to be boldly ignorant. And you wear it well. No wonder you are in a Union. There is absolutely no way you could get a job outside of McDonalds.

Don't blame me,
I didn't vote for a
socialist.

I'm not in a union, dummy. God--you can't even insult people without fucking up. You need to learn the difference between gross and net. Suffice it to say, newly unemployed people are included in the overall (net) number reported by the BLS.

Try this--it's right from the BLS (it's a quarterly report on private sector gains):

http://www.bls.gov/news.release/cewbd.t03.htm

Let's pick the quarter ending Dec 2010 as an example. Notice the gross job gains are 6,954 (in thousands). The gross job losses are 6,391. The NET employment change is the difference of those two numbers--563. That number--563--is the one that is reported.

If you can't understand that, then I can't help you.

Pink Slip

"Suffice it to say, newly unemployed people are included in the overall (net) number reported by the BLS."

But long term unemployed are not.....and there are now more long term unemployed since the great depression.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2011/06/06/982607/-Long-term-unemployment-...

A fact you cannot deal with...even when it comes from a libtard website...

“Political correctness is a doctrine, fostered by a delusional, illogical minority, and rabidly promoted by an unscrupulous mainstream media, which holds forth the proposition that it is entirely possible to pick up a turd by the clean end.”

"A fact you cannot deal with"

Not sure why you think I can't deal with it. It's certainly a problem. Despite the fact that there's been private sector job growth, it's not enough. There needs to be a bigger focus on jobs--there's no way I would deny that.

Pink Slip

The United States Bureau of Labor Statistics keeps track of unemployment numbers several different ways. Those different ways are discussed here.
"Economists distinguish between various overlapping types of and theories of unemployment, including cyclical or Keynesian unemployment, frictional unemployment, structural unemployment and classical unemployment.[48] Some additional types of unemployment that are occasionally mentioned are seasonal unemployment, hardcore unemployment, and hidden unemployment. The U.S. BLS measures six types of unemployment, U1-U6."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unemployment

The number we are looking for is the U6. The U6 is the unemployment rate when YOU DO NOT subtract people who are working part time but want full time, people who stopped looking for jobs, people who ran out of unemployment insurance etc.
http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.t15.htm
The bottom line in table A-16 shows the U6 unemployment rate. That number includes ALL unemployed and also those working part time but looking for full time employment. If what you say is true, that jobs are being added faster than jobs are being lost, then the U6 Unemployment number should be going down.

Click on the picture and it will open the BLS Real Unemployment rate chart.

The U6 Unemployment rate is going up.
Mar. Apr. May June July
15.7 15.9 15.8 16.2 16.1

Don't blame me,
I didn't vote for a
socialist.

"the U6 Unemployment number should be going down"

It DID just go down--but generally speaking, it all depends. It's hard to make a declarative statement when growth has been so slow--there's a lot of movement with people entering and exiting the civilian labor force.

Jobs created and unemployment can both increase at the same time. Or they can both go down at the same time.

Pink Slip

No comments on how I showed the entire world what a joke you are?

C'mon. The mind control experts at the Huffington Post must have instructed you on what to say when someone calls you out for your obvious lies.

Don't blame me,
I didn't vote for a
socialist.

LOL...no dude...the end of that road is always no reply...

That's how you know you won the argument....they just blow away for awhile...

The thundering sound of crickets....

“Political correctness is a doctrine, fostered by a delusional, illogical minority, and rabidly promoted by an unscrupulous mainstream media, which holds forth the proposition that it is entirely possible to pick up a turd by the clean end.”

"We've had 17 straight months of private sector job growth"

Thank God for Governor Perry!"

MikeyA

"Thank God for Governor Perry!"

MikeyA--that is a very refreshing attitude. I'm assuming you know of all the GOVERNMENT jobs that have been created in Texas

http://jaredbernsteinblog.com/texas-and-the-gov%E2%80%99t-better-friends...

So, as public sector jobs in the US continue to shrink--they just keep growing in Texas

http://thinkprogress.org/yglesias/2011/08/16/296986/socialism-texas-style/

Keynes would be proud

Pink Slip

"I'm assuming you know of all the GOVERNMENT jobs that have been created in Texas." Yes but I'm sure you're aware of the population growth in Texas. So more people will ultimately mean more government jobs because the beaurocracy will keep pace. And I'm sure you're aware that despite the population growth the unemployment in Texas has remained stable which means that private sector growth is outgrowing public sector growth.

Additionally Texas has been growing numbers entry level positions which while they rank in the low income bracket show hope for younger workers, which again bucks the national trend.

Oh and while your Mr. Bernstein is attempting that as a product of keyesian economics then explain why Texas receives less per capita from stimulus money than similar sized states? Texas $1,000 per, California $1,400 per, New York $1,200. So why can't California and New York consistently keep pace despite spending 20-40% more if keyesian economics works so well?

And as I initially intended to show the private sector job growth you keep touting the majority of it comes in..... Texas! Oh and this is not a new trend. http://www.twc.state.tx.us/svcs/commrs/012510chr.pdf

And if the job gains were so robust due only to the public sector why would this be occuring? http://www.businessweek.com/ap/financialnews/D9MEDHVO0.htm

So again you've taken a liberal talking point that cherry picks facts and used it as your own idea. Again I can prove it false with a few nonpartisan references.

MikeyA

And despite the energy boom in Texas--due to natural resources, not Rick Perry--unemployment there is still 8.4% which is higher than New York's. And the jobs they are created are low-paying. The median income in Texas is well below the national average. And Texas was facing a large state budget gap, but Perry used $6.5 billion in stimulus funds to close this gap--which propped up government jobs. Now that the stimulus funds have been spent, they'll have to cut public sector jobs like everyone else. You see, nationally many of the gains in the private sector were offset by losses in the public sector. Perry shielded Texas from these public sector losses by using stimulus funds. And the unemployment there is still 8.4% vs 9.1% nationally. What a miracle.

Pink Slip

You don't really prove what I said wrong now did you... Let's analyze
"And despite the energy boom in Texas--due to natural resources, not Rick Perry--" That boom is not in the public sector. Additionally energy jobs in the area have been hindered by the President's moratorium on drilling. Which makes the boom even more impressive.

"The median income in Texas is well below the national average." Maybe the public sector isn't paying enough then since you claim that's where the jobs are.

"And Texas was facing a large state budget gap, but Perry used $6.5 billion in stimulus funds to close this gap--which propped up government jobs. Now that the stimulus funds have been spent, they'll have to cut public sector jobs like everyone else." Now you're talking out of both sides of your mouth. If stimulus funds closed a gap how does that create gov't jobs? In fact closing the gap is not much different than the majority of other states have done which is why the unemployment rate continued to rise despite massive gov't hiring.

Additionally those jobs will only be cut if they are not necessary. As I've noted Texas has experienced population growth. More people does mean more more public servants because there's more public and thus more taxpayers. Time will tell if the jobs are to be cut but only that which is not necessary will be cut first because money will need to be better spent.

"Perry shielded Texas from these public sector losses by using stimulus funds. And the unemployment there is still 8.4% vs 9.1% nationally. What a miracle." Again I will call your attention to California, a similar sized state. California has not seen a massive increase in private sector and because of which is experiencing huge population loss. They did not use stimulus funds to close their budget gaps and now the state is stealing from local gov'ts to attempt to fill budget gaps (it's not working). California is on the verge of bankruptcy yet Texas has made much wiser decisions and is not talking default.

MikeyA

I used the word "boom" sarcastically. Unemployment in Texas is 8.4%, the highest it's been in decades.

In Oct 2009, unemployment in the US was 10.1%. In Texas, it was 5.4%. This is due mainly to Texas using stimulus funds to protect public sector jobs. Now that the money is spent, Texas will have to start cutting these same jobs--which is exactly what we're seeing (the cutting of these jobs has already started). Now the unemployment in the US is 9.1% and in Texas, it's 8.4%. Unemployment in the US overall has gone down. In Texas, it's gone up.

"California is on the verge of bankruptcy yet Texas has made much wiser decisions and is not talking default."

One of those "wise" decisions in Texas was strict regulation mortgage lending. Hardly a "free market" decision.

Pink Slip

"What "losses" are you referring to? We've had 17 straight months of private sector job growth"

LMFAO!!!!!!!!

WOW...I can think of no better example of a complete and total disconnect from reality.....

“Political correctness is a doctrine, fostered by a delusional, illogical minority, and rabidly promoted by an unscrupulous mainstream media, which holds forth the proposition that it is entirely possible to pick up a turd by the clean end.”

This is all you need to know.

http://www.minneapolisfed.org/publications_papers/studies/recession_pers...

Click on every post WWII recession and compare them.

MikeyA

ABSOLUTELY NO JOBS CREATED IN AUGUST. ZERO ZILTCH NADA NONE
But congratulations to the liberal ass-kissers. ZERO IS NOT A NEGATIVE NUMBER! So that means Odumbo has made his drooling little minions happy to parrot the Huffington Post again.
IT'S NOW 18 STRAIGHT MONTHS OF PRIVATE SECTOR JOB GROWTH!

Direct from the Associated Press
http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_ECONOMY?SITE=WWL&SECTION=HOME&...

Sep 2, 5:27 PM EDT
Hiring standstill points to growing recession risk
By PAUL WISEMAN and CHRISTOPHER S. RUGABER
AP Economics Writers
WASHINGTON (AP) -- Employers added no jobs in August - an alarming setback for the economy that renewed fears of another recession and raised pressure on Washington to end the hiring standstill.
Worries flared Friday after release of the worst jobs report since September 2010. Total payrolls were unchanged, the first time since 1945 that the government reported a net job change of zero. The unemployment rate stayed at 9.1 percent.

The stock market plunged in response. The Dow Jones industrial average fell 253 points, or more than 2 percent.

Don't blame me,
I didn't vote for a
socialist.

17,000 jobs gained in the private sector
17,000 jobs lost in the public sector

Isn't this exactly what conservatives want--growth in the private sector, and less government jobs? You should be happy.

Pink Slip

What I read that was printed in the AP article was " Employers added no jobs in August", " Total payrolls were unchanged", "Companies are mostly keeping their payrolls intact. They're not laying off many workers. But they're not hiring, either."

Where did you pull that statement "17,000 jobs gained in the private sector"? It obviously was not in this article. This article says "Employers added no jobs in August". This article says "Companies are mostly keeping their payrolls intact" This article says "They're not laying off many workers". This article says "But they're not hiring". This article says "Even before it (hiring) stalled last month, job growth had been sputtering."

And, to make matters worse, this article says what I' ve been saying and what you refuse to accept. "Roughly 14 million Americans are unemployed. An additional 11.4 million are either working part time but want full-time jobs or have given up looking for work and aren't counted as unemployed." Meaning that the ONLY reason the unemployment rate has not gone up as a percentage are that more people have given up until after the empty suit, golfer-in-chief, bastard child is booted out off office.

I did see the article mentioned that "federal, state and local governments have erased 290,000 government jobs this year, including 17,000 in August", but like I'm sure your Huffington Post owners told you to do, you forgot to mention these OBVIOUS FACTS PRINTED BY THE AP The unemployment rate for black men jumped a full percentage point in August to 18 percent. That's the highest level for that group since March 2010. And unemployment for black people as a whole surged from 15.9 percent to 16.7 percent even as unemployment for white Americans ticked down to 8 percent from 8.1 percent.

So, according to the article, 17,000 government jobs were lost, the private sector is keeping employees they already have and not hiring any more, and the ones who are suffering most under Democrat rule are black men.

Once again, let me point out the obvious that you cannot see through your Liberal colored glasses, IF WHAT YOU SAY IS TRUE, IF 17,000 JOBS WERE LOST AND 17,000 JOBS WERE GAINED, THEN THE UNEMPLOYMENT FOR BLACk PEOPLE WOULD NOT HAVE GONE UP FROM 15.9% TO 16.7%.

Don't blame me,
I didn't vote for a
socialist.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.