Unemployment rises to 8.2%

135

Comments

  • kenny olav
    kenny olav Posts: 3,319
    The unemployment rate was still high during FDR's first two terms, much higher than it is now, but the American people didn't blame him for it then. They'll understand this time that Mitt Romney's policies would be the same as Bush's, if not worse.

    425020_10151016438582908_1106274610_n.jpg
  • Jason P
    Jason P Posts: 19,327
    kenny olav wrote:
    The unemployment rate was still high during FDR's first two terms, much higher than it is now, but the American people didn't blame him for it then.
    Well, then we just need to start WWIII and all our problems will be over. ;)
    Be Excellent To Each Other
    Party On, Dudes!
  • kenny olav
    kenny olav Posts: 3,319
    Jason P wrote:
    kenny olav wrote:
    The unemployment rate was still high during FDR's first two terms, much higher than it is now, but the American people didn't blame him for it then.
    Well, then we just need to start WWIII and all our problems will be over. ;)

    Yeah! We could build a huge drone air fleet. Although we'd probably outsource those jobs to India too... :think:

    It is quite stunning how unemployment dropped as soon as the U.S. entered the war...

    US_Unemployment_1910-1960.gif
  • Byrnzie
    Byrnzie Posts: 21,037
    Yep, it's all Obama's fault:


    http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/21/us/po ... emeal.html
    For the second time in 10 days, the Senate on Thursday rejected Democratic efforts to take up a jobs bill championed by President Obama.

    The vote to advance the bill was 50 to 50. Democrats needed 60 votes to overcome a Republican filibuster.

    This time, the bill was narrowed to provide $35 billion to state and local governments to prevent layoffs of teachers, police officers and firefighters. To offset the cost, the bill would impose a surtax of 0.5 percent, starting in 2013, on income in excess of $1 million.


    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/11/0 ... 74539.html

    'Republicans in the Senate Thursday dealt President Barack Obama the third in a string of defeats on his stimulus-style jobs agenda, blocking a $60 billion measure for building and repairing infrastructure like roads and rail lines.

    Supporters of the failed measure said it would have created tens of thousands of construction jobs and lifted the still-struggling economy. But Republicans unanimously opposed it for its tax surcharge on the wealthy..'
  • CH156378
    CH156378 Posts: 1,539
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ArRj-dQXX3Y
  • EdsonNascimento
    EdsonNascimento Posts: 5,531
    Byrnzie wrote:
    Yep, it's all Obama's fault:


    http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/21/us/po ... emeal.html
    For the second time in 10 days, the Senate on Thursday rejected Democratic efforts to take up a jobs bill championed by President Obama.

    The vote to advance the bill was 50 to 50. Democrats needed 60 votes to overcome a Republican filibuster.

    This time, the bill was narrowed to provide $35 billion to state and local governments to prevent layoffs of teachers, police officers and firefighters. To offset the cost, the bill would impose a surtax of 0.5 percent, starting in 2013, on income in excess of $1 million.


    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/11/0 ... 74539.html

    'Republicans in the Senate Thursday dealt President Barack Obama the third in a string of defeats on his stimulus-style jobs agenda, blocking a $60 billion measure for building and repairing infrastructure like roads and rail lines.

    Supporters of the failed measure said it would have created tens of thousands of construction jobs and lifted the still-struggling economy. But Republicans unanimously opposed it for its tax surcharge on the wealthy..'

    Obama is like an angry wife.....She knows you're swimming in debt, but she's going to prove what a jerk you are for not going out and getting a 5th job to pay down the debt by spending money on a couch to replace the broken couch that could be fixed less expensively with a little attention. :roll:
    Sorry. The world doesn't work the way you tell it to.
  • inmytree
    inmytree Posts: 4,741
    EdsonNascimento wrote:
    Byrnzie wrote:
    Yep, it's all Obama's fault:


    http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/21/us/po ... emeal.html
    For the second time in 10 days, the Senate on Thursday rejected Democratic efforts to take up a jobs bill championed by President Obama.

    The vote to advance the bill was 50 to 50. Democrats needed 60 votes to overcome a Republican filibuster.

    This time, the bill was narrowed to provide $35 billion to state and local governments to prevent layoffs of teachers, police officers and firefighters. To offset the cost, the bill would impose a surtax of 0.5 percent, starting in 2013, on income in excess of $1 million.


    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/11/0 ... 74539.html

    'Republicans in the Senate Thursday dealt President Barack Obama the third in a string of defeats on his stimulus-style jobs agenda, blocking a $60 billion measure for building and repairing infrastructure like roads and rail lines.

    Supporters of the failed measure said it would have created tens of thousands of construction jobs and lifted the still-struggling economy. But Republicans unanimously opposed it for its tax surcharge on the wealthy..'

    Obama is like an angry wife.....She knows you're swimming in debt, but she's going to prove what a jerk you are for not going out and getting a 5th job to pay down the debt by spending money on a couch to replace the broken couch that could be fixed less expensively with a little attention. :roll:

    that was random and nonsensical response.... :lol:
  • EdsonNascimento
    EdsonNascimento Posts: 5,531
    inmytree wrote:
    EdsonNascimento wrote:
    Byrnzie wrote:
    Yep, it's all Obama's fault:


    http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/21/us/po ... emeal.html
    For the second time in 10 days, the Senate on Thursday rejected Democratic efforts to take up a jobs bill championed by President Obama.

    The vote to advance the bill was 50 to 50. Democrats needed 60 votes to overcome a Republican filibuster.

    This time, the bill was narrowed to provide $35 billion to state and local governments to prevent layoffs of teachers, police officers and firefighters. To offset the cost, the bill would impose a surtax of 0.5 percent, starting in 2013, on income in excess of $1 million.


    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/11/0 ... 74539.html

    'Republicans in the Senate Thursday dealt President Barack Obama the third in a string of defeats on his stimulus-style jobs agenda, blocking a $60 billion measure for building and repairing infrastructure like roads and rail lines.

    Supporters of the failed measure said it would have created tens of thousands of construction jobs and lifted the still-struggling economy. But Republicans unanimously opposed it for its tax surcharge on the wealthy..'

    Obama is like an angry wife.....She knows you're swimming in debt, but she's going to prove what a jerk you are for not going out and getting a 5th job to pay down the debt by spending money on a couch to replace the broken couch that could be fixed less expensively with a little attention. :roll:

    that was random and nonsensical response.... :lol:

    Was it? Maybe, that's the problem. You don't understand.

    Hint: Gov't jobs are not sustainable without RECURRING revenue. That's not creating jobs. It's creating DEBT.
    Sorry. The world doesn't work the way you tell it to.
  • inmytree
    inmytree Posts: 4,741
    EdsonNascimento wrote:
    Was it? Maybe, that's the problem. You don't understand.

    Hint: Gov't jobs are not sustainable without RECURRING revenue. That's not creating jobs. It's creating DEBT.

    Yes...

    and you don't understand...

    a job is job...

    whoa...mind blown.... :lol::lol:
  • EdsonNascimento
    EdsonNascimento Posts: 5,531
    inmytree wrote:
    EdsonNascimento wrote:
    Was it? Maybe, that's the problem. You don't understand.

    Hint: Gov't jobs are not sustainable without RECURRING revenue. That's not creating jobs. It's creating DEBT.

    Yes...

    and you don't understand...

    a job is job...

    whoa...mind blown.... :lol::lol:

    :lol::lol: Keep laughing. Who's paying for those jobs and how?

    Whoa....mind blown.... :lol::|
    Sorry. The world doesn't work the way you tell it to.
  • PJ_Soul
    PJ_Soul Vancouver, BC Posts: 50,772
    EdsonNascimento wrote:
    inmytree wrote:
    EdsonNascimento wrote:
    Was it? Maybe, that's the problem. You don't understand.

    Hint: Gov't jobs are not sustainable without RECURRING revenue. That's not creating jobs. It's creating DEBT.

    Yes...

    and you don't understand...

    a job is job...

    whoa...mind blown.... :lol::lol:

    :lol::lol: Keep laughing. Who's paying for those jobs and how?

    Whoa....mind blown.... :lol::|
    Yeah. Screw the firefighters, teachers, and police officers. Who need 'em anyway??
    With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
  • EdsonNascimento
    EdsonNascimento Posts: 5,531
    PJ_Soul wrote:
    EdsonNascimento wrote:
    inmytree wrote:
    Yes...

    and you don't understand...

    a job is job...

    whoa...mind blown.... :lol::lol:

    :lol::lol: Keep laughing. Who's paying for those jobs and how?

    Whoa....mind blown.... :lol::|
    Yeah. Screw the firefighters, teachers, and police officers. Who need 'em anyway??

    Yeah. I love how that debate gets twisted that way. Nobody is saying we don't need or value firefighters, teachers, et. al. Of course.

    But Odumba standing up and saying - look!!! I'm creating jobs with your credit card which has been shredded is diverting from the real problem.

    If you have more people to tax (i.e. more people working), you have more revenue to create these jobs. Simply raising taxes is not the answer.


    But, don't worry - it's easier to make one side look stupid than understand what is clearly meant.
    Sorry. The world doesn't work the way you tell it to.
  • inmytree
    inmytree Posts: 4,741
    EdsonNascimento wrote:
    inmytree wrote:

    Yes...

    and you don't understand...

    a job is job...

    whoa...mind blown.... :lol::lol:

    :lol::lol: Keep laughing. Who's paying for those jobs and how?

    Whoa....mind blown.... :lol::|

    the taxpayer is paying gov't employees to perform a service...i.e., Job...

    boom... 8-)
  • inmytree
    inmytree Posts: 4,741
    EdsonNascimento wrote:

    Yeah. I love how that debate gets twisted that way. Nobody is saying we don't need or value firefighters, teachers, et. al. Of course.

    But Odumba standing up and saying - look!!! I'm creating jobs with your credit card which has been shredded is diverting from the real problem.

    If you have more people to tax (i.e. more people working), you have more revenue to create these jobs. Simply raising taxes is not the answer.


    But, don't worry - it's easier to make one side look stupid than understand what is clearly meant.

    you feel stupid because you're wrong...that's what you meant, right...? don't beat yourself up, buddy...you'll be fine...
  • PJ_Soul
    PJ_Soul Vancouver, BC Posts: 50,772
    EdsonNascimento wrote:
    PJ_Soul wrote:
    EdsonNascimento wrote:

    :lol::lol: Keep laughing. Who's paying for those jobs and how?

    Whoa....mind blown.... :lol::|
    Yeah. Screw the firefighters, teachers, and police officers. Who need 'em anyway??

    Yeah. I love how that debate gets twisted that way. Nobody is saying we don't need or value firefighters, teachers, et. al. Of course.

    But Odumba standing up and saying - look!!! I'm creating jobs with your credit card which has been shredded is diverting from the real problem.

    If you have more people to tax (i.e. more people working), you have more revenue to create these jobs. Simply raising taxes is not the answer.


    But, don't worry - it's easier to make one side look stupid than understand what is clearly meant.
    Not trying to do that. But frankly, saying that creating those kinds of jobs is stupid makes zero sense, especially in a country where there is a big need for firefighters, teachers, and police officers.
    With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
  • gimmesometruth27
    gimmesometruth27 St. Fuckin Louis Posts: 24,440
    https://sphotos-b.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos- ... 3263_n.jpg
    "You can tell the greatness of a man by what makes him angry."  - Lincoln

    "Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
  • Byrnzie
    Byrnzie Posts: 21,037
    gimmesometruth27 wrote:
    https://sphotos-b.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-prn1/539809_501187083240141_851263263_n.jpg

    That about sums it up. Though reading the comments by a lot of Republicans here, you'd think none of that ever happened. They must think we have the same memory spans as fish.
  • EdsonNascimento
    EdsonNascimento Posts: 5,531
    PJ_Soul wrote:
    EdsonNascimento wrote:
    :lol::lol: Keep laughing. Who's paying for those jobs and how?

    Whoa....mind blown.... :lol::|
    Yeah. Screw the firefighters, teachers, and police officers. Who need 'em anyway??

    So, the FEDERAL gov't is going to step in and take money out of everyone's pockets to create jobs the LOCAL gov't has deemed it can't afford based on the desires of the LOCAL people?

    How does that make sense? So, now instead of being an angry wife, he's the enabling mother in law that won't allow her daughter to learn fiscal responsibility?

    Again - nobody is saying these aren't important jobs. It's just that the last time I checked, all those things were LOCAL items. If Joe Public in East Podunk, IA thinks his town can't afford that teacher, why should someone in East Hampton, Long Island pay for it?

    How does that make any sense (other than to the satirical political cartoon folks)?
    Sorry. The world doesn't work the way you tell it to.
  • gimmesometruth27
    gimmesometruth27 St. Fuckin Louis Posts: 24,440
    EdsonNascimento wrote:
    How does that make any sense (other than to the satirical political cartoon folks)?
    i know this was a dig at me. yes or no, would you argue against the assertion that the gop would rather just sink the ship to eliminate the captain??
    "You can tell the greatness of a man by what makes him angry."  - Lincoln

    "Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
  • EdsonNascimento
    EdsonNascimento Posts: 5,531
    gimmesometruth27 wrote:
    EdsonNascimento wrote:
    How does that make any sense (other than to the satirical political cartoon folks)?
    i know this was a dig at me. yes or no, would you argue against the assertion that the gop would rather just sink the ship to eliminate the captain??

    Oh, there's no doubt the GOP wants the GOP to win the next election. But, isn't that the same for the Donkeys? Aren't they doing things to keep their Ass in office?
    Sorry. The world doesn't work the way you tell it to.

Categories