OBAMA's 2nd TERM Discussion Thread
hokiefando you need me to break it down for you so you can understand?
unemployment rate dropping because people are exiting the labor market and instead opting for government assistance.
labor force has decreased dramatically, rate would go up if people started looking for work again, but they are not, and they don't want to, they can stay home and make free money instead from you and I.
Sequester isn't hurting DHS

unemployment rate dropping because people are exiting the labor market and instead opting for government assistance.
labor force has decreased dramatically, rate would go up if people started looking for work again, but they are not, and they don't want to, they can stay home and make free money instead from you and I.
http://cnsnews.com/news/article/first-term-americans-not-labor-force-increased-8332000

SpinelliIm not exactly the brightest apple but when i looked up the word sequester it seems to have multiple meanings. is it possible we are made to think it means one thing when the elite actually mean something totally different?
^^ You may be right Spin, to the elite, it may mean "Keep spending"

SpinelliWhat is a sequestration?
sequestration: the act of segregating or sequestering; the action of forming a chelate or other stable compound with an ion or atom or molecule so that it is no longer available for reactions; a writ that authorizes the seizure of property
just a possibly non legit usage of the term, but arent we all just molecules and guns are our property we use to react sometimes?
*before anyone gets offended i dont own a gun.
sequestration refers to a budget tool which was put in place in order for Obama to be granted a higher debt limit for the US. The sequestration is automatic cuts which kicked on on March 1st. Most federal agencies faced these automatic cuts. Apparently DHS didn't get the memo
.

wormdogg10At first blush the jobs report released by the Bureau of Labor Statistics on Friday looked pretty good, catching establishment economists off-guard by about 80,000 new jobs. Instead of the 160,000 new jobs expected in February, the BLS reported 236,000, which pushed down the unemployment rate to 7.7 percent. This came on top of a drop in claims for unemployment insurance as well, with the four-week moving average of 348,750 new claims declining to the lowest level since March 2008.
Some saw the numbers as exposing as overwrought claims by President Obama and Fed Chairman Bernanke that the sequester cuts would cost the economy some 750,000 jobs. John Crudele, writing in the New York Post, considered these happy numbers as a “blow to the area below Obama’s gut. It’s hard to rev up fear in people about the job market when they've just heard that things may be getting better.”
Not so fast. Though the administration has deceptively fanned the flames of fear regarding the sequester cuts, it must also be kept in mind that the job numbers now in the news do not tell the whole story.
First of all, reports early in the new year are usually fairly robust. In January and February 2012 the BLS reported nearly 600,000 new jobs, but then the economy stalled, with growth in GDP essentially flat-lining in the last quarter of the year.
According to the household survey, where the BLS asks how many are working in a household, 170,000 new jobs were added in February of this year — despite the addition of an astounding 446,000 part-time jobs. What this means is that some 276,000 full-time jobs were lost in February. A Gallup survey released the day before the Labor Department’s report noted:
Although fewer people are unemployed now than a year ago, they are not migrating to full-time jobs for an employer. In fact, fewer Americans are working full-time for an employer than were doing so a year ago, and more Americans are working part time.
This may be an effect of the ObamaCare rule that employees working 30 hours a week or more must be covered with health insurance, and as a result of that more and more employers are cutting hours and hiring more part-time people. And as hours are cut, more and more people are seeking a second job to make up the difference. That would be another of those “unintended consequences” of government interference in the marketplace.
An editorial in the New York Times successfully saw past the rosy surface numbers reported on Friday as well. It looked around at where job growth might come from. Housing? Some growth there, from a percentage basis. But when one is at the bottom, everything looks up from there. Car sales? Not so much. Rising wages? Not much help there either.
The Times also noted that the labor force is shrinking, so that whatever numbers the BLS reports aren't real:
Most of the decline [in unemployment] reflects a shrinking labor force rather than new hiring. In fact, if hiring were more robust, the unemployment rate would hold steady or even rise as the estimated four million Americans who are not working or looking for work rejoined the ranks of job seekers, where they would be counted in the official unemployment rate.
Furthermore, those who have been out of work for six months or more actually increased last month. If the economy were healthy, surely that number would be declining.
Even if one could believe that the unemployment report from Friday was accurate, it still falls below the estimated 250,000 jobs needed every month just to absorb new job seekers. It would take many more than that to bring the unemployment rate down significantly, and that just isn't on the horizon.
Until the debate about how to grow the economy changes significantly in Washington from “how do we grow jobs?” to “how do we get out of the way of jobs growth?” the unemployment rate will remain high, extending the impact of the Great Recession far into the future.
Thenewamerican.com might as well have posted a quote from Imdumbasshitandmynameishokie.com! How could you be a dick head and be mad that employment is lower since 2008 and the Stock Market is higher then it has been in many years? I know the reason but you arent man enough to let your nuts hang and say it! COWARD!
do you need me to break it down for you so you can understand?
unemployment rate dropping because people are exiting the labor market and instead opting for government assistance.
labor force has decreased dramatically, rate would go up if people started looking for work again, but they are not, and they don't want to, they can stay home and make free money instead from you and I.
I dont need you to break anything down to me I can read I know you think we cant comprehend, but I do ok.
Do you need to break down my post for you? Reread it and then talk to me like a man! Trying to be condescending and shit
wormdogg10http://www.naturalnews.com/038407_ammunition_homeland_security_civil_war.html
If its a true story then it happened way before 3/1/2013
hokiefanAt first blush the jobs report released by the Bureau of Labor Statistics on Friday looked pretty good, catching establishment economists off-guard by about 80,000 new jobs. Instead of the 160,000 new jobs expected in February, the BLS reported 236,000, which pushed down the unemployment rate to 7.7 percent. This came on top of a drop in claims for unemployment insurance as well, with the four-week moving average of 348,750 new claims declining to the lowest level since March 2008.
Some saw the numbers as exposing as overwrought claims by President Obama and Fed Chairman Bernanke that the sequester cuts would cost the economy some 750,000 jobs. John Crudele, writing in the New York Post, considered these happy numbers as a “blow to the area below Obama’s gut. It’s hard to rev up fear in people about the job market when they've just heard that things may be getting better.”
Not so fast. Though the administration has deceptively fanned the flames of fear regarding the sequester cuts, it must also be kept in mind that the job numbers now in the news do not tell the whole story.
First of all, reports early in the new year are usually fairly robust. In January and February 2012 the BLS reported nearly 600,000 new jobs, but then the economy stalled, with growth in GDP essentially flat-lining in the last quarter of the year.
According to the household survey, where the BLS asks how many are working in a household, 170,000 new jobs were added in February of this year — despite the addition of an astounding 446,000 part-time jobs. What this means is that some 276,000 full-time jobs were lost in February. A Gallup survey released the day before the Labor Department’s report noted:
Although fewer people are unemployed now than a year ago, they are not migrating to full-time jobs for an employer. In fact, fewer Americans are working full-time for an employer than were doing so a year ago, and more Americans are working part time.
This may be an effect of the ObamaCare rule that employees working 30 hours a week or more must be covered with health insurance, and as a result of that more and more employers are cutting hours and hiring more part-time people. And as hours are cut, more and more people are seeking a second job to make up the difference. That would be another of those “unintended consequences” of government interference in the marketplace.
An editorial in the New York Times successfully saw past the rosy surface numbers reported on Friday as well. It looked around at where job growth might come from. Housing? Some growth there, from a percentage basis. But when one is at the bottom, everything looks up from there. Car sales? Not so much. Rising wages? Not much help there either.
The Times also noted that the labor force is shrinking, so that whatever numbers the BLS reports aren't real:
Most of the decline [in unemployment] reflects a shrinking labor force rather than new hiring. In fact, if hiring were more robust, the unemployment rate would hold steady or even rise as the estimated four million Americans who are not working or looking for work rejoined the ranks of job seekers, where they would be counted in the official unemployment rate.
Furthermore, those who have been out of work for six months or more actually increased last month. If the economy were healthy, surely that number would be declining.
Even if one could believe that the unemployment report from Friday was accurate, it still falls below the estimated 250,000 jobs needed every month just to absorb new job seekers. It would take many more than that to bring the unemployment rate down significantly, and that just isn't on the horizon.
Until the debate about how to grow the economy changes significantly in Washington from “how do we grow jobs?” to “how do we get out of the way of jobs growth?” the unemployment rate will remain high, extending the impact of the Great Recession far into the future.
Thenewamerican.com might as well have posted a quote from Imdumbasshitandmynameishokie.com! How could you be a dick head and be mad that employment is lower since 2008 and the Stock Market is higher then it has been in many years? I know the reason but you arent man enough to let your nuts hang and say it! COWARD!
do you need me to break it down for you so you can understand?
unemployment rate dropping because people are exiting the labor market and instead opting for government assistance.
labor force has decreased dramatically, rate would go up if people started looking for work again, but they are not, and they don't want to, they can stay home and make free money instead from you and I.
I dont need you to break anything down to me I can read I know you think we cant comprehend, but I do ok.
Do you need to break down my post for you? Reread it and then talk to me like a man! Trying to be condescending and shit
i re-read your post. i still feel you do not comprehend what is going on. i get a dns error when I try to access Imdumbasshitandmynameishokie.com, so the newamerican.com obviously is not like that. yeah, the stock market is high, high on federal reserve pumping. main street is still feeling the pain.

First

