Initial jobless claims increase ""unexpectedly""

[PaulS]

Just stole this graph

[scottw]

Originally Posted by PaulS

Just stole this graph

the graph states "job lost" on the Bush Side then / "job growth" on the Obama side....the graph is for "job loss" and during the down turn the loss was greatest and eventually you start to run out of jobs to lose...there is no "job growth" represented by the graph, only fewer jobs lost per month(with the exception of 1 month) on the Obama side...this is very disingenuous...the jobs lost per month on the JoBama side are in addition to the jobs lost previously, not an increase in the number of jobs "job growth"...but a glance at the graph would make you think (if you are the Hopey Change type)there's an increase in employment "job growth" and things are on the upswing...we're just shedding jobs at a slower rate....

14. That's how many "rallies" we had in the Great Depression. Real unemployment 21.7%. Federal government spent 334 billion in the first 2 months of 2010 (an all time record), it took in 105 billion. Foreclosures hit all time record in Feb. Moody's warns of the loss of AAA credit rating over debt. Greece teetering on collapse, followed by almost the entire western world.

If you think this is over just wait and see.

have you checked oil prices lately?

[PaulS]

Originally Posted by scottw

the graph states "job lost" on the Bush Side then / "job growth" on the Obama side. - this is very disingenuous...

Couldn't totally follow what you are saying but if the left side of the graph is measuring a different stat that the right side and using the job loss/job growth heading to represent the right and left side, I totally agree that the it is disingenous.

The fact remains that the economy was in a free fall and has started to stablize. Are we out of the woods yet, of course not.

I work in the insurance industry and the insurance companies were hurt by their insured companies laying off people. So if you insured company x in 2009 and it had 5,000 ees in 1/09, by 12/09 they had 4,500 ees. Most insurers are now forecasting enrollment will be flat in 2010 b/c their insureds have stopped laying people off and have slightly starting hiring people back.

[JohnnyD]

Originally Posted by scottw

the graph states "job lost" on the Bush Side then / "job growth" on the Obama side...

The graph states "job lost" below the 0 line and "job growth" above the 0 line. Or are you made at how the graph is titled?

Bush had 800,000 jobs lost in his last month and some of you people are bitching over a report of under 100,000 lost?? So when there was positive job growth, that wasn't to Obama's credit, but the job losses are?

You can't have your cake and eat it too. At least be consistent. If you're going to relate the jobs situation directly to the Dems policies, then that relation is made to all conditions.

If you don't like it, I know someone looking for a roommate in Costa Rica.

[spence]

Originally Posted by JohnnyD

The graph states "job lost" below the 0 line and "job growth" above the 0 line. Or are you made at how the graph is titled?

He's just upset that Obama is on the right...and that he lacks the power to reverse the direction of time.

-spence

[buckman]

Originally Posted by JohnnyD

The graph states "job lost" below the 0 line and "job growth" above the 0 line. Or are you made at how the graph is titled?

Bush had 800,000 jobs lost in his last month and some of you people are bitching over a report of under 100,000 lost?? So when there was positive job growth, that wasn't to Obama's credit, but the job losses are?

You can't have your cake and eat it too. At least be consistent. If you're going to relate the jobs situation directly to the Dems policies, then that relation is made to all conditions.

If you don't like it, I know someone looking for a roommate in Costa Rica.

The jobs created under Obama are goverment jobs. They cost us all more and infringe on our freedoms at worse. Other jobs created through the "stimulas" bill are only funded for a couple of years

I also credit the predicted election of Obama for Bush's last few months of job losses.

[scottw]

Originally Posted by JohnnyD

The graph states "job lost" below the 0 line and "job growth" above the 0 line.no it doesn't , it says "jobs lost vertically and Job Loss/Job Growth above horizontally, are you looking at some other graph?Or are you made at how the graph is titled? both

Bush had 800,000 jobs lost in his last month and some of you people are bitching over a report of under 100,000 lost?? yes, especially if it's your job!!!! So when there was positive job growthit's not positive job growth, it's fewer jobs lost...there's a difference, that wasn't to Obama's credit, but the job losses are? just think of all the jobs he must have saved!!!!

You can't have your cake and eat it too. At least be consistent. you first If you're going to relate the jobs situation directly to the Dems policies, then that relation is made to all conditions.

If you don't like it, I know someone looking for a roommate in Costa Rica.

why don't the communists just move to one of the many communist utopias around the world that would be more than happy to provide oppression instead of ruining this fine country?

[spence]

Originally Posted by scottw

why don't the communists just move to one of the many communist utopias around the world that would be more than happy to provide oppression instead of ruining this fine country?

Why the Obama economics plan is working - BusinessWeek.com- msnbc.com

-spence

[JohnnyD]

Originally Posted by scottw

no it doesn't , it says "jobs lost vertically and Job Loss/Job Growth above horizontally, are you looking at some other graph?

Do you know how to read a graph? That big text at the top in bold, is called the Title. The left side starting at top goes from +100,000 down to 0 then far down into the negatives where jobs lost peaked close to -800,000 during Bush's last month.

There were only two months on that graph that had actual job growth. Dec -07 under Bush and Nov-09 under Obama.

If the words were reversed and said Job Growth / Job Loss (or was removed entirely) no meaning of the graph would change.

Maybe this'll help:

[buckman]

Originally Posted by JohnnyD

Do you know how to read a graph? That big text at the top in bold, is called the Title. The left side starting at top goes from +100,000 down to 0 then far down into the negatives where jobs lost peaked close to -800,000 during Bush's last month.

There were only two months on that graph that had actual job growth. Dec -07 under Bush and Nov-09 under Obama.

If the words were reversed and said Job Growth / Job Loss (or was removed entirely) no meaning of the graph would change.

Maybe this'll help:

Thanks for the lesson JD. Maybe reality is what throws the graph off. I'm just happy we passed "stimulas" so unemployment wouldn't rise over 8%. Whew, that was close. Thank you Obama

[spence]

Originally Posted by buckman

I'm just happy we passed "stimulas" so unemployment wouldn't rise over 8%. Whew, that was close. Thank you Obama

Why do I keep reading about all these economists who think the stimulus bill helped avert a much deeper recession?

Must all be liberals, they're drawn to economics like flies to %$%$%$%$.

-spence

[scottw]

Originally Posted by JohnnyD

Do you know how to read a graph? That big text at the top in bold, is called the Title. The left side starting at top goes from +100,000 down to 0 then far down into the negatives where jobs lost peaked close to -800,000 during Bush's last month.

There were only two months on that graph that had actual job growth. Dec -07 under Bush and Nov-09 under Obama.

If the words were reversed and said Job Growth / Job Loss (or was removed entirely) no meaning of the graph would change.

Maybe this'll help:

umm...that's not the graph that he posted and to which we are referring...so...you must be drinking...


the other bottom line is that it's getting tougher and tougher for these radical leftists to try and claim that they are neither...