MORE BAD NEWS: U.S. Economy Adds 295,000 jobs, Unemployment falls to 5.5 %

[Cigar]

Yet another Month of POSITVE EMPLOYMENT NUMBERS ...

Source: New York Times

The Labor Department reported on Friday that employers added 295,000 workers to their payrolls in February and that unemployment fell to 5.5 percent.

The report was a big improvement from January’s, when employment rose to a newly revised 239,000 jobs and the unemployment rate was 5.7 percent.

Economists were generally positive about the state of the nation’s recovery from the recession, despite its relatively sluggish pace.

“While there are a lot of risks out there, it feels less risky than in the past 25 to 30 years,” Mark Zandi, chief economist for Moody’s Analytics, said before Friday’s release. “It feels really, really good out there.”


Read more: http://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/07/business/economy/jobs-report-unemployment-february.html?_r=0


:riot: Put it in the Hole Put it in the Hole

[texan]

Awesome, I will take good news...........I am sure those that got a job are appreciative. I am sure that pipeline deal that would have created many for a few years would have also helped. Don't know why we would block that! Other than politics, there havent any major issues with our pipelines over the years.

[Bo-4]

Bu-Bu-BUT --- Benghazi, emails, golf, IRS, and he's cooking the books! :cool:

[Cigar]

Bu-Bu-BUT --- Benghazi, emails, golf, IRS, and he's cooking the books! :cool:


It sure would be nice to have an Election Campaign that discusses real issues that real Americans give a shit about.

[Peter1469]

From the OP:


Also in February, the labor force participation rate fell slightly, dropping to 62.8 percent, from 62.9 percent.

But we don't count the losers that choose not to look for work. Why would we? That would make unemployment go up. :shocked:

[Cigar]

Awesome, I will take good news...........I am sure those that got a job are appreciative. I am sure that pipeline deal that would have created many for a few years would have also helped. Don't know why we would block that! Other than politics, there havent any major issues with our pipelines over the years.

I'm all for including the Pipeline with a Full milti-year Infrastructure Bill ... how about you?

After all ... workers have to drive the same roads to get to work.

[exotix]

<------------ Doom ... Gloom ---------->

[Cigar]

From the OP:



But we don't count the losers that choose not to look for work. Why would we? That would make unemployment go up. :shocked:

If I don't feel like working anymore, how are YOU going to make me GO? :huh:

[Cigar]

<------------ Doom ... Gloom ---------->


How any streight months of Job Growth would ot take for them to say thats a a good thing?

[Bo-4]

From the OP:

But we don't count the losers that choose not to look for work. Why would we? That would make unemployment go up. :shocked:

A tenth of one percent because people are retiring? Leave it to Peter to find a tiny dark clown in a sea of blue sky. :-o

[exotix]

How any streight months of Job Growth would ot take for them to say thats a a good thing?
You'd think they would finally find some happiness ... LOL


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jccGXNL0TXs

[Bo-4]

You'd think they would finally find some happiness ... LOL

They're amazing no? And before they even took over the Senate!

They take a lot of credit for the 60 straight months of private sector jobs growth and saving Detroit too!! :rolleyes:

[Reason10]

Nope.

90 MILLION are out of work.

Those moronic burger flipping job numbers are bullshit.

You lose again.

[Captain Obvious]

Nope.

90 MILLION are out of work.

Those moronic burger flipping job numbers are bullshit.

You lose again.

I don't wholly agree with this opposite extreme but reality is somewhere in the middle.

[Peter1469]

If I don't feel like working anymore, how are YOU going to make me GO? :huh:

I won't make you. But I would count you as unemployed (assuming you are not able to support yourself).

[Common]

No matter how they whine, the economy is improving under obama and under bush it was murdered

[texan]

It sure would be nice to have an Election Campaign that discusses real issues that real Americans give a $#@! about.


I agree we should leave out illegal aliens that seem to want to influence the elections.

[texan]

Bu-Bu-BUT --- Benghazi, emails, golf, IRS, and he's cooking the books! :cool:

You saw where I gave credit, but do you really think either party is presenting in context?

[Cigar]

http://upload.democraticunderground.com/imgs/2015/150306-on-jobs-obamas-reality-crushes-gops-best-campaign-fantasy.jpg

The Labor Department reported on Friday that employers added 295,000 workers to their payrolls in February and that unemployment fell to 5.5 percent.



60 Straight Months Of Private Sector Job Growth

http://www.dpcc.senate.gov/files/images/DPCCPrivateSectorPayroll030615.png


Under President Obama's leadership, the economy has added private sector jobs for 60 straight months. During this span, 12 million private sector jobs have been created.

In the Senate, Democrats are fighting to continue this positive trend and help speed along the economic recovery.
Click here (http://www.dpcc.senate.gov/?p=job_creation) to see examples of jobs-boosting measures enacted so far by the Senate:

- See more at: http://www.dpcc.senate.gov/?p=blog&id=172#sthash.NZvUGlNy.dpuf

[BB-35]

No matter how they whine, the economy is improving under obama and under bush it was murdered


No,under a democrat congress it was Bush was a lame duck,remember?

[Bo-4]

No,under a democrat congress it was Bush was a lame duck,remember?

No, he had Congress his first six years and his sixth year policies wormed their way into his 7th and even 8th.

Then he vetoed or littered with signing statement everything Dems put sent up those last two years.

See dumb unfunded wars, a trillion in unfunded script bennies, deregulation of financials and ginormous government -- then get back to us.

[domer76]

Nope.

90 MILLION are out of work.

Those moronic burger flipping job numbers are bullshit.

You lose again.
I don't have the exact numbers in fromt of me and I'm on my phone. But multiple tens of millions of your number are high school and college students and retirees. That's been pointed out to you before, so now you're moving from the realm of the bullshitter into to liar category.

[Peter1469]

The LFP rate (http://termsexplained.com/927402/labor-force-participation-rate)doesn't include non-working age people. Nor people in jail. Nor people under 16.

[BB-35]

No, he had Congress his first six years and his sixth year policies wormed their way into his 7th and even 8th.

Then he vetoed or littered with signing statement everything Dems put sent up those last two years.

See dumb unfunded wars, a trillion in unfunded script bennies, deregulation of financials and ginormous government -- then get back to us.
oh stop whining.

[Cigar]

congress authorized funding for the war,it was ONE war,not 'wars'

Where are the People in Chaege? :laugh:

[BB-35]

Where are the People in Chaege? :laugh:
non sequitur

[lynn]

I went to the local mall the other day and I was shocked at how many empty spaces there were. In all the years i went to the mall every space was filled up. So I really do not believe the employment numbers at all.

[Common]

I went to the local mall the other day and I was shocked at how many empty spaces there were. In all the years i went to the mall every space was filled up. So I really do not believe the employment numbers at all.

Thats not only the economy doing that Lynn, malls are just not the hotspots they were 30 yrs ago. People realized the prices in malls are far higher than other outlets.

[lynn]

No matter how they whine, the economy is improving under obama and under bush it was murdered


The economy was not growing at all from 2000 to 2003, the housing bubble created many jobs even though it was temporary while the corporations were sliding out the back door hoping nobody would notice. In 2007 we had the most salary and wage earners according to the IRS tables at 120 million workers.

Under Obama, every employer out there were busy stripping full timers to part timers and cutting unnecessary staff due to Obamacare. The only reason why the economy may be improving now is because employers can hire foreigners without having to provide insurance coverage. The American born worker is still out of work.

[PolWatch]

I went to the local mall the other day and I was shocked at how many empty spaces there were. In all the years i went to the mall every space was filled up. So I really do not believe the employment numbers at all.

maybe the people who would hang at malls are now working somewhere? What time of the day? Day of the week? Normal work hours compared to the same day/time when you saw it so full? If I went to the mall on Sunday morning it would be very empty....but Saturday afternoon would see large crowds.

[The Xl]

These numbers without context are meaningless

[Chris]

Here’s What The Unemployment Rate Looks Like If You Add Back Labor Force Dropouts (http://thefederalist.com/2015/03/06/heres-what-the-unemployment-rate-looks-like-if-you-add-back-labor-force-dropouts/)

http://i.snag.gy/F7nCm.jpg

[Common Sense]

I wonder how that graph accounts for the people who have actually left the labor force in the last 6 years. Estimates indicate that about 4 million baby boomers retire every year. So that's 24 million people since 2009.

[exotix]

http://www.bushtoll.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/bls-avg-annual-job-growth-by-pres-12-11-2014.png

[Chris]

I wonder how that graph accounts for the people who have actually left the labor force in the last 6 years. Estimates indicate that about 4 million baby boomers retire every year. So that's 24 million people since 2009.

I would expect it includes those who naturally drop out and those who have done so because of bad government policy.

[Common Sense]

I would expect it includes those who naturally drop out and those who have done so because of bad government policy.

So I wonder what accounts for the gap. I would wager the biggest factor are those who have retired.

[Howey]

Here’s What The Unemployment Rate Looks Like If You Add Back Labor Force Dropouts (http://thefederalist.com/2015/03/06/heres-what-the-unemployment-rate-looks-like-if-you-add-back-labor-force-dropouts/)

http://i.snag.gy/F7nCm.jpg

I didn't even need to read the posts to know this silliness would be in here somewhere...

How many of those are baby boomers? Read on...

http://philadelphiafed.org/research-and-data/publications/research-rap/2013/on-the-causes-of-declines-in-the-labor-force-participation-rate.pdf


One well-known long-term factor is the aging of the labor force. Because older workers’
participation rates are lower, the increase in the share of old workers by itself pushes down the aggregate participation rate. 4 One can conduct an accounting exercise to calculate the contribution of demographic factors on the decline in the aggregate participation rate.5 However, no matter how one splits the data (say, not just by demographics, but also by education, etc.), the exercise does not answer the question of why the participation rate within each group has
changed in a certain manner.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/wp/2014/01/09/how-much-is-obama-to-blame-for-the-worst-labor-participation-rate-in-40-years/


When Obama took office in January, 2009, the workforce participation rate was 65.7 percent. So there has certainly been a decline. But the rate had already been on a steady downward track since it hit a high of 67.3 percent in the last year of Bill Clinton’s presidency.

A key reason? The composition of the labor force has been affected by the retirement of the leading edge of the Baby Boom generation. (Our colleague Brad Plumer has written extensively on this issue.)

In the first five years of George W. Bush’s presidency, the rate fell 1.2 percentage points. (At the time, Democrats might have tried to claim that under the “Bush economy” the labor participation rate was “the worst in two decades.”) Five years into Obama’s presidency, the rate has fallen 2.7 percentage points.

[Howey]

/\/\/\/\


So I wonder what accounts for the gap. I would wager the biggest factor are those who have retired.

Yup

[Chris]

I would expect it includes those who naturally drop out and those who have done so because of bad government policy.

Let me restate that. The red line takes into account 2009 BLSpredictions of natural retirement rate, and shows those forced to drop out earlier than usual because of bad government policy. Make sense?

[Chris]

So I wonder what accounts for the gap. I would wager the biggest factor are those who have retired.

It's all who have been forced to retire early. You wouldn't count those who have retired natually as part of the work force just as you wouldn't count those too young to work. The rate is alays those working over those eligible or expected to work.

[Common Sense]

Let me restate that. The red line takes into account 2009 BLSpredictions of natural retirement rate, and shows those forced to drop out earlier than usual because of bad government policy. Make sense?

How do you know that? I can't find that information in the link or even the link inside the link.

[Howey]

It's all who have been forced to retire early. You wouldn't count those who have retired natually as part of the work force just as you wouldn't count those too young to work. The rate is alays those working over those eligible or expected to work.

So you didn't read my links.

Color me unsurprised.

[Safety]

maybe the people who would hang at malls are now working somewhere? What time of the day? Day of the week? Normal work hours compared to the same day/time when you saw it so full? If I went to the mall on Sunday morning it would be very empty....but Saturday afternoon would see large crowds.

That's why anecdotal stories are anecdotal...

[Peter1469]

Link?

Here is another chart: (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jobs_created_during_U.S._presidential_terms#mediav iewer/File:U.S._Employment_Changes_-_Total_Non-Farm_1970_to_Present.png)
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/2/29/U.S._Employment_Changes_-_Total_Non-Farm_1970_to_Present.png



http://www.bushtoll.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/bls-avg-annual-job-growth-by-pres-12-11-2014.png

[Peter1469]

So I wonder what accounts for the gap. I would wager the biggest factor are those who have retired.

That is an incorrect assumption. I posted this article (http://www.forbes.com/sites/realspin/2014/01/15/u-s-unemployment-retirees-are-not-the-labor-exodus-problem/) when it was first published and attempted to explain it. The participation rate of those over 55 has increased over the last decade- likely because they don't have enough money to really retire. The big drop in the participation rate is at the younger end of the age range. And that is dangerous for our long term economic health.


Meaning, retirement cannot be thought to have played much of a role in the participation rates up until that point, and may only be tangentially affecting it now.


On the other side are those such as senior fellow and director of Economics21 at the Manhattan Institute, Diana Furchtgott-Roth who, in a Jan. 14 piece for RealcCearMarkets.com (http://www.realclearmarkets.com/articles/2014/01/14/who_is_dropping_out_of_the_labor_force_and_why_100 840.html) noted that “since 2000 the labor force participation rates of workers 55
and over have been rising steadily, and the labor force participation rates of workers between 16 and 54 have been declining.”


Which is absolutely true. Since 2003, those 65 years and older have seen their labor force participation rate rise from 13.99 percent to 18.7 percent. Those aged 55-64 saw their rate rise from 62.44 percent to 64.36 percent, a recent Americans for Limited Government (ALG) study of Bureau data from 2003-2013 shows (http://getliberty.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/LaborForceParticipation2003-2013.csv).


Meanwhile, participation by those aged 16-24 dropped from 61.56 percent in 2003 to 55.05 percent in 2013, and for those aged 25-54, it dropped from 82.98 percent to 82.01 percent.

[Peter1469]

Incorrect, see my post above this.

I didn't even need to read the posts to know this silliness would be in here somewhere...

How many of those are baby boomers? Read on...

http://philadelphiafed.org/research-and-data/publications/research-rap/2013/on-the-causes-of-declines-in-the-labor-force-participation-rate.pdf



http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/wp/2014/01/09/how-much-is-obama-to-blame-for-the-worst-labor-participation-rate-in-40-years/

[Chris]

How do you know that? I can't find that information in the link or even the link inside the link.


It's just the way the LFPR is calculated. The labor force consists of everyone expected to be working, say between 16 (I forget labor laws) and 65. Because it looks better, the government not so long ago change the definition to everyone between 16 and 65 ACTIVELY looking for work.

Given that you don't count people over 65 it really doesn't matter that because of the baby boom rise more are retiring at 65, they're not counted.

What the red line shows is those who would be expected to be part of the labor force between 16 and 65 including those who have retired early, dropped out of the labor force, are not longer actively seeking employment.

You could say the red line follows the old LFPR and the blue the new definition.


I'm not saying the baby boom wave doesn't affect the number who seek early retirement, I'm sure that's a factor. But the main factor is the poor economy, the lingering, prolonged Great Recession, coupled with increased unemployment insurance and other benefits that incentivize early retirement.

[Common Sense]

Well, boomers have had a big impact on the participation rate.

http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2014/07/17/baby-boomers-are-a-big-part-of-labor-participation-rate-decline

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/12/09/study-retirees-can-explain-the-entire-drop-in-the-labor-force-since-2012/

http://www.businessinsider.com/labor-force-participation-not-a-problem-2014-1

[Common Sense]

It's just the way the LFPR is calculated. The labor force consists of everyone expected to be working, say between 16 (I forget labor laws) and 65. Because it looks better, the government not so long ago change the definition to everyone between 16 and 65 ACTIVELY looking for work.

Given that you don't count people over 65 it really doesn't matter that because of the baby boom rise more are retiring at 65, they're not counted.

What the red line shows is those who would be expected to be part of the labor force between 16 and 65 including those who have retired early, dropped out of the labor force, are not longer actively seeking employment.

You could say the red line follows the old LFPR and the blue the new definition.


I'm not saying the baby boom wave doesn't affect the number who seek early retirement, I'm sure that's a factor. But the main factor is the poor economy, the lingering, prolonged Great Recession, coupled with increased unemployment insurance and other benefits that incentivize early retirement.

But that rate was at 2009. Many of those people...perhaps even 4 million, are now retired.

[Chris]

So you didn't read my links.

Color me unsurprised.

I'm actually replying to both common sense and you, howey, and anyone else who cares to read what I post. You beef was the same ad common sense's, it's the baby boomers! But it's not. In fact Peter just demonstrated the baby boomers account for more 55 and ups working.

Smartass remarks are usually not worth responding to.

[Chris]

But that rate was at 2009. Many of those people...perhaps even 4 million, are now retired.

Yes, pre-Great Recession expectations/predictions of the LFPR.

More people retiring at 65 as expected doesn't matter, they are not counted in the Labor Force, never have been.

[Common Sense]

Yes, pre-Great Recession expectations/predictions of the LFPR.

More people retiring at 65 as expected doesn't matter, they are not counted in the Labor Force, never have been.

Yes, but in 09' those people were counted as part of the labor force.

[Chris]

Look, I'm not arguing the economy is not picking up and improving. Even the red line in the chart is dropping, there are less and less drop outs no matter how you look at it.

http://i.snag.gy/F7nCm.jpg

[Common Sense]

Look, I'm not arguing the economy is not picking up and improving. Even the red line in the chart is dropping, there are less and less drop outs no matter how you look at it.

http://i.snag.gy/F7nCm.jpg

LOL...yes, the red line is dropping. Is that a bad thing? It's the unemployment rate.

[Chris]

Yes, but in 09' those people were counted as part of the labor force.

The red line is BLS predictions were people to retire as normal. But because of the recession, increased employment insurance and benefits, etc, more have dropped out earlier than expected. It is not because they retire at 65 but because they stop looking for work earlier.

[Chris]

LOL...yes, the red line is dropping. Is that a bad thing? It's the unemployment rate.

Where have I said anything about it's being bad? I don't share your agenda, nor the opposite. I simply see facts brought together. I see no point in making the government look good as Dems or as Reps. Things are getting better, just not as good as the OP wants us to think.

[Common]

The economy is doing better than it has in the last several years. It could be alot better but its better than it was in 2008 for sure

[Chris]

The economy is doing better than it has in the last several years. It could be alot better but its better than it was in 2008 for sure


It could be alot better but its better than it was in 2008 for sure

That's the point of the graph.

[zelmo1234]

They're amazing no? And before they even took over the Senate!

They take a lot of credit for the 60 straight months of private sector jobs growth and saving Detroit too!! :rolleyes:

Have you been to Detroit?

And the bail out did not save the auto companies. the structured bankruptcy is what saved them. The bailout saved the Unions and the funding for the DNC

[Newpublius]

Look, I'm not arguing the economy is not picking up and improving. Even the red line in the chart is dropping, there are less and less drop outs no matter how you look at it.

http://i.snag.gy/F7nCm.jpg

Look at this month. They announce +295 .... Wow, right, but look at the other survey. Total employed is only +96

The total number of people employed is increasing but its the ratios that matter. Growth in employment is largely failing to keep up with population growth.

[Newpublius]

Yes, but in 09' those people were counted as part of the labor force.

And the reverse is true for the then-15 year olds. People exit the labor force and people enter it as a result of age. US still actually has a growing population. ...the important point is that economic growth still needs to be compared to population growing, a growing economy that doesn't keep up with population growth is a step back and we're a whole lotta Sideways over here

[Common]

Have you been to Detroit?

And the bail out did not save the auto companies. the structured bankruptcy is what saved them. The bailout saved the Unions and the funding for the DNC

Detroit is on a big comeback zelmo, I was watching a min documentary it showed billionaires investing in detroit as we speak buying up buildings and beginning rebuilding they claim detroit is going make a comeback in a big way. Of course theres something in it for them

[Newpublius]

Forget Reagan, Bush, Clinton, Bush, Obama.....there's a long trend on place since the advent of affordable air conditioning. Go to Florida, Texas, Phoenix, AZ and look at demographics with tens of millions of people moving south and west.

The Snow Belt/Rust Belt is OVER. Look at the vast majority of cities in the area from Detroit to Wilkes-Barre to Youngstown to Erie......then look at long term demographics, -10%, -20%.....sometimes more.

[Chris]

Look at this month. They announce +295 .... Wow, right, but look at the other survey. Total employed is only +96

The total number of people employed is increasing but its the ratios that matter. Growth in employment is largely failing to keep up with population growth.


And government will always pick the numbers that make it look better, or invent and redefine them to do so.

[Peter1469]

The economy is doing better than it has in the last several years. It could be alot better but its better than it was in 2008 for sure

Not necessarily. As my post above indicates the drop in the labor force participation rate is at the lower age range. If that is correct, that is not an indication of a healthy economy. An entire generation will be behind the earning curve and that can create a very long economic turn down as consumption drops.

[Reason10]

Anyone who believes those phony jobless numbers is a fcking MORON.

[Chris]

Anyone who believes those phony jobless numbers is a fcking MORON.

Great post, reason, lol.

[Chris]

Here's some more numbers from Today's Jobs Report: Three Things That Haven't Changed (http://www.forbes.com/sites/abbymccloskey/2015/03/06/todays-jobs-report-three-things-that-havent-changed/):

http://i.snag.gy/gNOQv.jpg

http://i.snag.gy/LTG40.jpg

http://i.snag.gy/sq3X4.jpg

[Reason10]

Great post, reason, lol.

Sometimes, ya just gotta smack a low information douchebag with a 2x4.

[Common]

Sometimes, ya just gotta smack a low information douchebag with a 2x4.

Your right, just like sometimes you have to be blunt with the toothless trailer trash too but most of the time nothing works with that crowd, once the brain is dead theres no coming back

[Chris]

Sometimes, ya just gotta smack a low information douchebag with a 2x4.

Except you're not doing that. You come off like that.

[Ransom]

Not necessarily. As my post above indicates the drop in the labor force participation rate is at the lower age range. If that is correct, that is not an indication of a healthy economy. An entire generation will be behind the earning curve and that can create a very long economic turn down as consumption drops.

Jim Webb policies would reverse that, huh?

[Peter1469]

Jim Webb policies would reverse that, huh?
What do you think?

[Ransom]

What do you think?

I think you answer a question with another question all too often. I think his policies would mirror Obama's....because his voting record more often than not mirror's Obama's. And I think his voting record........and I'm the only one to link to it....other's we must translate a "much" of this policy or "some" of that policy....Webb's voting record tells me the Labor participation rate wouldn't recover under his leadership as it didn't under his term as Senator. My thinking leads me to believe he not only voted for, but agrees with policies held by the two justices he voted for.....but agrees with Obamacare, government job creation, and deficit spending.

Your floor, Sir. Do you believe the policies of Jim Webb...based on his voting record(fairly strong evidence)...qualify him to be President. Based on his voting record now, Pete.

[Ransom]

What do you think?

I also think you f'cked up again, Pete. As I said, anything you write here can and will be held against you. The claim you'd vote for this man quite stunning and unless you'd like to retract the statement...I'll assume your claim stands. Incoming is the advice I've for you, Governor. Shields up, Jr.

[Peter1469]

I think you answer a question with another question all too often. I think his policies would mirror Obama's....because his voting record more often than not mirror's Obama's. And I think his voting record........and I'm the only one to link to it....other's we must translate a "much" of this policy or "some" of that policy....Webb's voting record tells me the Labor participation rate wouldn't recover under his leadership as it didn't under his term as Senator. My thinking leads me to believe he not only voted for, but agrees with policies held by the two justices he voted for.....but agrees with Obamacare, government job creation, and deficit spending.

Your floor, Sir. Do you believe the policies of Jim Webb...based on his voting record(fairly strong evidence)...qualify him to be President. Based on his voting record now, Pete.

A stupid question, oh well. Is Webb qualified to be president? Yes.* Would I vote for him, very likely no.

*
Qualifications (http://www.presidentsusa.net/qualifications.html)for the Office of President





Age and Citizenship requirements - US Constitution, Article II, Section 1
No person except a natural born citizen (http://www.usconstitution.net/consttop_citi.html), or a citizen of the United States, at the time of the adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the office of President; neither shall any person be eligible to that office who shall not have attained to the age of thirty-five years, and been fourteen years a resident within the United States.Term limit amendment - US Constitution, Amendment XXII, Section 1 - ratified February 27, 1951
No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice, and no person who has held the office of President, or acted as President, for more than two years of a term to which some other person was elected President shall be elected to the office of the President more than once.

[Peter1469]

I also think you f'cked up again, Pete. As I said, anything you write here can and will be held against you. The claim you'd vote for this man quite stunning and unless you'd like to retract the statement...I'll assume your claim stands. Incoming is the advice I've for you, Governor. Shields up, Jr.

You are kidding right? You have been caught lying twice this morning. You have made no intelligent claims or arguments. Your debate tactics are lacking.

[Ransom]

A stupid question, oh well. Is Webb qualified to be president? Yes.* Would I vote for him, very likely no.

*

Of course you wouldn't vote for him, Pete. His voting record the reason why. Now, do remember to change your clock tonight, ok. Spring forward, Pete. And rest assured.....spring won't be any different than winter....nor the fall...nor last summer or spring......absolute ridiculous nonsense is going to be rolled up on this forum...and set on fire. Jim Webb voted for every single f'n massive liberal entitlement, has been a rubber stamp for Obama policies, and is in no way shape or form qualified to be President. Now....you run along...butt sore and red faced corrected, so be it. Throw bull dung out on these tables Pete....and Ransom is going to bulldoze it right back into the stall it came out of. And you.....you tighten up.

[Ransom]

You are kidding right? You have been caught lying twice this morning. You have made no intelligent claims or arguments. Your debate tactics are lacking.

Only one to link to fact. Not the member using "some" of this policy or "much" of that. Showing you that Webb was a rubber stamp, showing you his voting record, and then quoting the infamous Pete claiming should the Dems run him, he'd vote for him.

Statement retracted, forced to by Ransom's awesome artillery barrage of the facts, we move on.

I called for the retraction and got it. You stood corrected, Pete. Further embarrassment at your expense not necessary.

[Howey]

Only one to link to fact. Not the member using "some" of this policy or "much" of that. Showing you that Webb was a rubber stamp, showing you his voting record, and then quoting the infamous Pete claiming should the Dems run him, he'd vote for him.

Statement retracted, forced to by Ransom's awesome artillery barrage of the facts, we move on.

I called for the retraction and got it. You stood corrected, Pete. Further embarrassment at your expense not necessary.

http://i.imgur.com/NpfAr6W.gif

[Peter1469]

I already pointed out which polices of Webb's that I like. Yet you keep arguing other policies. What is wrong with you? Everyone can see you failing here. Don't you have any dignity?

Most of my clocks change time automatically. Even my Casio watch. Very nice one.

I think my microwave and oven are the two I have to manually change.


Of course you wouldn't vote for him, Pete. His voting record the reason why. Now, do remember to change your clock tonight, ok. Spring forward, Pete. And rest assured.....spring won't be any different than winter....nor the fall...nor last summer or spring......absolute ridiculous nonsense is going to be rolled up on this forum...and set on fire. Jim Webb voted for every single f'n massive liberal entitlement, has been a rubber stamp for Obama policies, and is in no way shape or form qualified to be President. Now....you run along...butt sore and red faced corrected, so be it. Throw bull dung out on these tables Pete....and Ransom is going to bulldoze it right back into the stall it came out of. And you.....you tighten up.

[Ransom]

I already pointed out which polices of Webb's that I like. Yet you keep arguing other policies. What is wrong with you? Everyone can see you failing here. Don't you have any dignity?

You've walked your bull dung back, that's enough for me.


Most of my clocks change time automatically. Even my Casio watch. Very nice one.

Your "much" of this and "some of that" cow dung argument automatically changed when I presented the facts as well.


I think my microwave and oven are the two I have to manually change.

Microwaves for leftovers...all you'd have to given a Webb Presidency. You're welcome, Pete. Tread...carefully from now on.

[Chris]

No one wins an argument on the internet but ransom is the sort who thinks he does. He doesn't even argue but says he wins.

[donttread]

Yet another Month of POSITVE EMPLOYMENT NUMBERS ...

Source: New York Times

The Labor Department reported on Friday that employers added 295,000 workers to their payrolls in February and that unemployment fell to 5.5 percent.

The report was a big improvement from January’s, when employment rose to a newly revised 239,000 jobs and the unemployment rate was 5.7 percent.

Economists were generally positive about the state of the nation’s recovery from the recession, despite its relatively sluggish pace.

“While there are a lot of risks out there, it feels less risky than in the past 25 to 30 years,” Mark Zandi, chief economist for Moody’s Analytics, said before Friday’s release. “It feels really, really good out there.”


Read more: http://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/07/business/economy/jobs-report-unemployment-february.html?_r=0


:riot: Put it in the Hole Put it in the Hole


How many million burgers will they flip?

[Common]

How many million burgers will they flip?

Not as many as the decent paying jobs that were outsourced to make chinese hamburger flippers middle class communists by our corporate pigs.

[Chris]

Not as many as the decent paying jobs that were outsourced to make chinese hamburger flippers middle class communists by our corporate pigs.


So the Chinese are flipping burgers now. By the time they ship here they'd be cold and rotten.

[Ransom]

No one wins an argument on the internet but ransom is the sort who thinks he does. He doesn't even argue but says he wins.

:Skeert:

What should I do, what decision should I make, what where when why who......what up, FS??!!

[Chris]

:Skeert:

What should I do, what decision should I make, what where when why who......what up, FS??!!

I can't help you decide.

Here's your MO: Half of your posts consists of you insisting you're right and everyone else is wrong. Half the remaining half consists of you making things up about other to try and troll them with insults to distract from discussion. Half the remaining half consists of you arguing about spelling, word usage, grammar and rhetoric. Half the remaining half--well that's too small to consider.

[Cigar]

How many million burgers will they flip?

As many as your Fat Ass will buy. :grin:

[Chris]

I can't help you decide.

Here's your MO: Half of your posts consists of you insisting you're right and everyone else is wrong. Half the remaining half consists of you making things up about other to try and troll them with insults to distract from discussion. Half the remaining half consists of you arguing about spelling, word usage, grammar and rhetoric. Half the remaining half--well that's too small to consider.



Here's a chart so even ransom can understand what I said about the content of his posts:

http://i.snag.gy/Dwdyi.jpg

[Ransom]

I can't help you decide.

Here's your MO: Half of your posts consists of you insisting you're right and everyone else is wrong. Half the remaining half consists of you making things up about other to try and troll them with insults to distract from discussion. Half the remaining half consists of you arguing about spelling, word usage, grammar and rhetoric. Half the remaining half--well that's too small to consider.

Your MO = :Skeert:

[Chris]

Your MO = :Skeert:

That falls under made up insult (lie):

http://i.snag.gy/Dwdyi.jpg

[Ransom]

Here I try to keep you as informed as I possibly can and you dislike me for it, Chris. Why is that?

[Chris]

Here I try to keep you as informed as I possibly can and you dislike me for it, Chris. Why is that?

Looks like I need to make a new category, just plain outright making things up, lying. I don't dislike you, ransom, you're not important enough, so why would you make up that lie?

As for informing, facts, that's the smallest wedge of your MO.

http://i.snag.gy/Dwdyi.jpg

[Mr. Right]

I'm not going to go through 10 pages to see if this has been posted.

http://cnsnews.com/news/article/ali-meyer/628-labor-force-participation-has-hovered-near-37-year-low-11-months

Hands up, don't shoot the messenger!