unemployment drops to 7.8%

[nando]

change the argument
just like a girl LOL

there's no argument, you're using the same flawed reasoning here as you were in the "no warming in 16 years" chart. From when U6 peaked in 2009 to present it has decreased, has it not? was the cause of the financial crisis 10 years of disasterous GWB policies or did Obama cause it 3 months before taking office?

[rwh11385]

change the argument
just like a girl LOL

It's not the changing of the argument, it is a direct question to you about your interpretation of unemployment charts. Isn't that the subject at hand?

Trying to say I'm like a girl because I ask questions you don't want to or cannot answer is a weak move. It shows how desperate you are to 'argue' when you are crippled by bias and lack any logical reasoning ability.

Even Bill Clinton can't evade a basic question that well

Yup. He's a clown, mixed with some elements of McCarthyism. "If you don't see the world as I see it with my biased eyes, you are the enemy"

[Thizzelle]

arguing over points of a percent LOL

[gwb72tii]

rwh injected himsself into my point and changed the frame of reference
i said from 2009, and clearly i'm right
rwh choses a different point in time, mid 2009, which was not my original point
further, rwh, it always amusing to see you call names instead of making points, which is what you always do, to me, and any other schmuck that happens to have the poor luck of you responding to a thread with your bloated ego in hand

or is it fucking sarcasm?

[rwh11385]

rwh injected himsself into my point and changed the frame of reference
i said from 2009, and clearly i'm right
rwh choses a different point in time, mid 2009, which was not my original point
further, rwh, it always amusing to see you call names instead of making points, which is what you always do, to me, and any other schmuck that happens to have the poor luck of you responding to a thread with your bloated ego in hand

or is it fucking sarcasm?

There are multiple people that think you are being ridiculous and trying to cherry pick a data point before the major job losses caused by you and other FAs could be subsided. You said since 2009. So after Dec 2009 which you are wrong. If you wanted to cherry pick a data point again you should have said since Obama took office or as you say in your RWNJ manner, messiah took his throne. But again, that ignores that Bush left office with monthly job losses at a peak. Of course, considering that is too much effort for your thick head.

No, I think you are a closeminded crackpot. Not name calling. You have proven time and again that you are devoid of logic and reason.

Would you re-elect the other president I posted based on the unemployment chart? Or is it important to consider context and situation going in?

[rwh11385]

http://www.gallup.com/poll/158060/unadjusted-unemployment-mid-october.aspx

U.S. unemployment, as measured by Gallup without seasonal adjustment, is 7.3% in mid-October, down considerably from 7.9% at the end of September and at a new low since Gallup began collecting employment data in January 2010. Gallup's seasonally adjusted unemployment rate is 7.7%, also down from September. October's adjusted mid-month measure is also more than a percentage point lower than October 2011.

[rwh11385]

But if you take the 4 week average its on par with how its been for some time.

To follow-up on this,

In the week ending October 20, the advance figure for seasonally adjusted initial claims was 369,000, a decrease of 23,000 from the previous week's revised figure of 392,000. The 4-week moving average was 368,000

[nando]

it makes you wonder if QE3 is actually being effective. to be honest, I didn't expect it to be, at least not directly.

we all know the extreme right would rather stand still with their heads in the sand and thumbs up their asses than take *any* action at all. The US seems to be the only country willing to do *something* for the economy, despite all the wailing and gnashing of teeth. But we won't really know how this all plays out for another 10-20 years.

There is irony in what is happening that nobody thought would happen - the rest of the world is falling behind and the USA the becoming main driver behind the global recovery (even if it's slower than ideal). Everyone expected us to stagnate and China to take over.. except 1/3rd of China's economy relies on the EU, and we all know how well it's going over there.

we've been hiring here for the first time since 2008. we have enough work lined up for the next 5 years. it's not 2007 but it's better than it was in 2010. We are confident albeit still uneasy. of course, our industry is very used to upturns and downturns out of nowhere.

[gwb72tii]

the "right" took over the house in 2010 promising to hold obama in check. its what the public wanted.

besides, obama got every program he wanted until 2010. with the "election" of franken in early 2009, your side had 60 votes in the senate so republicans could not do anything about whatever democrats chose to do.
as Rahm Emanuell said after Franken won, "We have the votes, fuck 'em" (meaning fuck the republicans). and its somehow all on the republicans with their thumbs up the arses?

[rwh11385]

There is irony in what is happening that nobody thought would happen - the rest of the world is falling behind and the USA the becoming main driver behind the global recovery (even if it's slower than ideal). Everyone expected us to stagnate and China to take over.. except 1/3rd of China's economy relies on the EU, and we all know how well it's going over there

Europe looks pretty dang ugly to me, and china is pretty shadowy. I actually think the USA is what will pull us out of this. Assuming Washington doesn't totally screw it up.. which is a big risk, of course.

Warren Buffet seems to agree too.

your side had 60 votes in the senate so republicans could not do anything about whatever democrats chose to do.

I don't think nando has identified in his post that he's a liberal, even if you think everyone isn't a bullshit-devouring RWNJ must be a leftie like joshh does.

[nando]

I did say extreme right. There are of course moderates, but most of the moderates on both sides have become frustrated and dropped out of politics altogether. heck, we get a moderate president and he gets labeled a hippy liberal communist.

I have a plan for voting, I'm going to cover the "preferred party" of each canidate, then go through the booklet and vote for the people I agree with most.

I assume most on the extreme right will just vote for those with an "R" after their title..

[BraveUlysses]

the "right" took over the house in 2010 promising to hold obama in check. its what the public wanted.

besides, obama got every program he wanted until 2010. with the "election" of franken in early 2009, your side had 60 votes in the senate so republicans could not do anything about whatever democrats chose to do.
as Rahm Emanuell said after Franken won, "We have the votes, fuck 'em" (meaning fuck the republicans). and its somehow all on the republicans with their thumbs up the arses?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W-A09a_gHJc

[gwb72tii]

obama is NOT a moderate president. he was the most liberal senator in the senate, by his voting record (when he actually voted anything other than "present").

BTW - i don't think there is anything wrong with not being a moderate. opposing points of view are good, strongly held beliefs are good. its just that the democrates are just as much to blame as republicans for the lack of compromise in govt.

[Dermeister3]

Not sure if this has been posted yet, not looking through 7 pages...

But the unemployment rate is calculated depending on how many people are actively looking for work. So the same number of people may still be employed as the past year, but some may have just given up searching for a job and thus, the unemployment raet will lower.

[rwh11385]

obama is NOT a moderate president. he was the most liberal senator in the senate, by his voting record (when he actually voted anything other than "present").

BTW - i don't think there is anything wrong with not being a moderate. opposing points of view are good, strongly held beliefs are good. its just that the democrates are just as much to blame as republicans for the lack of compromise in govt.

Yes, because his actions as a senator defines his actions as president... If you think Obama is a liberal President, Romney is in the same boat. I mean, the third debate they spent most of the time agreeing.

Of course you would say that, you think biased slinging of insults and arguing based on opinion is good, instead of actually being able to intelligently discuss topics and come to compromise instead of nearly having the country go into default and having the credit rating dropped because of the assclowns in Congress being more polarized and unable to accomplish anything.

Not sure if this has been posted yet, not looking through 7 pages...

But the unemployment rate is calculated depending on how many people are actively looking for work. So the same number of people may still be employed as the past year, but some may have just given up searching for a job and thus, the unemployment raet will lower.

Um, duh dude.