Initial jobless claims increase ""unexpectedly""

[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...