Politics
- Thread starter BobD
- Start date
Black Irish
Wise Guy
- Messages
- 3,769
- Reaction score
- 602
It's only confusing because you're racist.
phgreek
New member
- Messages
- 6,956
- Reaction score
- 433
two word answer to the question regarding the nature of unemployment benefits...no other discussion needed.
phgreek
New member
- Messages
- 6,956
- Reaction score
- 433
...I love these...always make me laugh out loud...
Polish Leppy 22
Well-known member
- Messages
- 6,594
- Reaction score
- 2,009
Wheeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee. Maybe Congress should pass another "jobs bill." Morons.
Growth in Jobs Slows Sharply to 3-Year Low
By NELSON D. SCHWARTZJAN. 10, 2014
Just when it seemed as if the economy was finally accelerating, the latest employment figures once again confounded expectations of better days ahead.
The government said on Friday that employers added jobs at the slowest pace in three years in December, reversing three months of steadily rising hiring that had persuaded economists and policy-makers at the Federal Reserve that the labor market had finally turned the corner.
Wintry weather, however, may have exaggerated the weakness, and the unexpectedly grim data immediately set off a debate among economists as to whether they were an anomaly or an indication of a more significant slowdown in the economy.
But even after accounting for factors like cold temperatures and snow that may have inhibited hiring, many experts cautioned that other trends, like average hourly earnings and the labor participation rate, were hardly encouraging.
“What it does say is that we’re not in takeoff mode in the labor market,” said Julia Coronado, chief United States economist at BNP Paribas. “It’s not so much weakness in hiring as lack of vitality. We’re treading water.”
On Capitol Hill, the lackluster economic picture in December may strengthen the hand of Democrats who are pushing to extend unemployment benefits to 1.3 million Americans whose coverage expired at the end of the year.
Since midsummer, the job market had been trending upward, with employers adding 241,000 workers in November, a robust performance that helped persuade the Fed to begin easing its vast stimulus program. But the latest data called into question whether the central bank’s optimism was premature.
Employers added just 74,000 jobs last month, the Labor Department said, a far cry from the 200,000 that economists had been looking for, and well below the monthly average increase of 182,500 over the course of 2012 and 2013.
The one apparent bright spot in Friday’s report — a sharp drop in the unemployment rate to 6.7 percent from 7 percent — was tarnished because it largely resulted from people exiting the work force rather than because they landed jobs. The work force shrank by 347,000 in December, reversing a big gain from November, and returning the proportion of Americans in the labor force to its October level of 62.8 percent, the lowest in 35 years.
While some of that decline is because of demographic factors like an aging population and rising retirements, Ms. Coronado said she was particularly troubled by how many prime-age workers were dropping out.
Among workers aged 45 to 54, the participation rate dropped 0.4 percentage point to 79.2 percent, the lowest since 1988. For workers 55 and older, the participation rate edged down only 0.1 percentage point. “It just keeps dropping and dropping,” she said. “It’s depressing, as it’s not just older workers retiring.”
After initially dropping in the wake of the Labor Department report Friday morning, stocks recovered later in the day as investors shifted their focus away from the labor market to what they hope will be more buoyant results as companies report fourth-quarter earnings in the next few weeks.
Some economists, impressed by other recent data showing steadily rising economic output, private surveys showing healthier payroll gains, a growing manufacturing sector, and increased exports, suggested that December’s figures represented a statistical fluke rather than another of the so-called swoons that have been a recurring feature of the fitful recovery that has followed the Great Recession.
“My advice is to ignore this number,” said Nariman Behravesh, chief economist at IHS. “A lot of other indicators are showing strength. It was largely noise last month, and the Fed will see it the same way, unless there is other evidence that gives them pause."
Most experts say the Federal Reserve will stick with its plan to gradually taper its stimulus program when policy-makers meet later this month, but future reductions could be delayed if payroll gains remain weak in February and March.
Even as optimists like Mr. Behravesh insisted that December’s data was not a sign that the recovery was ebbing, they say it makes sense to remain focused on the labor market. “This is the weak spot in the economy,” he said. “Output has recovered and is above the prerecession level. But employment is still about two million below where it was when the recession started.”
Although retailing posted decent gains as the holiday shopping season reached its peak in December, the figures suggested that other areas of the economy that had been healthy for most of 2013 reversed course as the year drew to a close, significantly cutting into overall job creation.
For example, the construction industry lost 16,000 jobs in December, an about-face from the 2013 average monthly gain of 10,000 jobs. Similarly, health care employment fell by 6,000, compared with monthly gains of 17,000 in 2013 and 27,000 in 2012. The average workweek in the private sector fell to 34.4 hours, a drop of a tenth of an hour and another sign of softness in the economy.
Some groups fared better than others, despite the broad weakness in the data. For example, the number of jobs held by women increased 75,000, even as those held by men dropped by 1,000. Men were especially hurt by the construction sector decline, while women benefited more from the growth in retailing. At the same time, the labor participation rate among workers with some college or more rose slightly, but was more than offset by a fall in participation among people with a high school diploma or less.
Economists cautioned that month-to-month volatility in the payrolls report was common, and the numbers could be revised upward in the future. The Labor Department revised the number of jobs created in November to 241,000 from 203,000.
Michael Hanson, senior United States economist at Bank of America Merrill Lynch, estimated that even if weather did subtract 75,000 to 100,000 jobs from payroll gains, December hiring was nevertheless somewhat anemic. Nor does the weather explain why average hourly earnings increased by only 0.1 percent in December, about half the average percentage increase for the last 12 months.
“You can’t say it’s the weather, wash your hands and be done with it,” he said. “Even with a generous interpretation, job growth was softer than it has been recently.”
Growth in Jobs Slows Sharply to 3-Year Low
By NELSON D. SCHWARTZJAN. 10, 2014
Just when it seemed as if the economy was finally accelerating, the latest employment figures once again confounded expectations of better days ahead.
The government said on Friday that employers added jobs at the slowest pace in three years in December, reversing three months of steadily rising hiring that had persuaded economists and policy-makers at the Federal Reserve that the labor market had finally turned the corner.
Wintry weather, however, may have exaggerated the weakness, and the unexpectedly grim data immediately set off a debate among economists as to whether they were an anomaly or an indication of a more significant slowdown in the economy.
But even after accounting for factors like cold temperatures and snow that may have inhibited hiring, many experts cautioned that other trends, like average hourly earnings and the labor participation rate, were hardly encouraging.
“What it does say is that we’re not in takeoff mode in the labor market,” said Julia Coronado, chief United States economist at BNP Paribas. “It’s not so much weakness in hiring as lack of vitality. We’re treading water.”
On Capitol Hill, the lackluster economic picture in December may strengthen the hand of Democrats who are pushing to extend unemployment benefits to 1.3 million Americans whose coverage expired at the end of the year.
Since midsummer, the job market had been trending upward, with employers adding 241,000 workers in November, a robust performance that helped persuade the Fed to begin easing its vast stimulus program. But the latest data called into question whether the central bank’s optimism was premature.
Employers added just 74,000 jobs last month, the Labor Department said, a far cry from the 200,000 that economists had been looking for, and well below the monthly average increase of 182,500 over the course of 2012 and 2013.
The one apparent bright spot in Friday’s report — a sharp drop in the unemployment rate to 6.7 percent from 7 percent — was tarnished because it largely resulted from people exiting the work force rather than because they landed jobs. The work force shrank by 347,000 in December, reversing a big gain from November, and returning the proportion of Americans in the labor force to its October level of 62.8 percent, the lowest in 35 years.
While some of that decline is because of demographic factors like an aging population and rising retirements, Ms. Coronado said she was particularly troubled by how many prime-age workers were dropping out.
Among workers aged 45 to 54, the participation rate dropped 0.4 percentage point to 79.2 percent, the lowest since 1988. For workers 55 and older, the participation rate edged down only 0.1 percentage point. “It just keeps dropping and dropping,” she said. “It’s depressing, as it’s not just older workers retiring.”
After initially dropping in the wake of the Labor Department report Friday morning, stocks recovered later in the day as investors shifted their focus away from the labor market to what they hope will be more buoyant results as companies report fourth-quarter earnings in the next few weeks.
Some economists, impressed by other recent data showing steadily rising economic output, private surveys showing healthier payroll gains, a growing manufacturing sector, and increased exports, suggested that December’s figures represented a statistical fluke rather than another of the so-called swoons that have been a recurring feature of the fitful recovery that has followed the Great Recession.
“My advice is to ignore this number,” said Nariman Behravesh, chief economist at IHS. “A lot of other indicators are showing strength. It was largely noise last month, and the Fed will see it the same way, unless there is other evidence that gives them pause."
Most experts say the Federal Reserve will stick with its plan to gradually taper its stimulus program when policy-makers meet later this month, but future reductions could be delayed if payroll gains remain weak in February and March.
Even as optimists like Mr. Behravesh insisted that December’s data was not a sign that the recovery was ebbing, they say it makes sense to remain focused on the labor market. “This is the weak spot in the economy,” he said. “Output has recovered and is above the prerecession level. But employment is still about two million below where it was when the recession started.”
Although retailing posted decent gains as the holiday shopping season reached its peak in December, the figures suggested that other areas of the economy that had been healthy for most of 2013 reversed course as the year drew to a close, significantly cutting into overall job creation.
For example, the construction industry lost 16,000 jobs in December, an about-face from the 2013 average monthly gain of 10,000 jobs. Similarly, health care employment fell by 6,000, compared with monthly gains of 17,000 in 2013 and 27,000 in 2012. The average workweek in the private sector fell to 34.4 hours, a drop of a tenth of an hour and another sign of softness in the economy.
Some groups fared better than others, despite the broad weakness in the data. For example, the number of jobs held by women increased 75,000, even as those held by men dropped by 1,000. Men were especially hurt by the construction sector decline, while women benefited more from the growth in retailing. At the same time, the labor participation rate among workers with some college or more rose slightly, but was more than offset by a fall in participation among people with a high school diploma or less.
Economists cautioned that month-to-month volatility in the payrolls report was common, and the numbers could be revised upward in the future. The Labor Department revised the number of jobs created in November to 241,000 from 203,000.
Michael Hanson, senior United States economist at Bank of America Merrill Lynch, estimated that even if weather did subtract 75,000 to 100,000 jobs from payroll gains, December hiring was nevertheless somewhat anemic. Nor does the weather explain why average hourly earnings increased by only 0.1 percent in December, about half the average percentage increase for the last 12 months.
“You can’t say it’s the weather, wash your hands and be done with it,” he said. “Even with a generous interpretation, job growth was softer than it has been recently.”
Polish Leppy 22
Well-known member
- Messages
- 6,594
- Reaction score
- 2,009
Fundamental transformation: shrinking workforce, record numbers of citizens living in dependency, Common Core, cutting military benefits, amnesty for 12 million illegal immigrants.
It's a statist utopia.
It's a statist utopia.
Polish Leppy 22
Well-known member
- Messages
- 6,594
- Reaction score
- 2,009
I live in NH and am seeing commercials up here being run by the state of NY. Goal is to attract businesses to their state. Move your business there, start a business there, expand your business there and they are promising no taxes for 10 years.
ACamp1900
Counting my ‘bet against ND’ winnings
- Messages
- 48,944
- Reaction score
- 11,224
Ha...
I get it, but it always burns me how here in Cali the state uses tax dollars to advertise social programs on TV, even during prime slots that cost more than just pennies... Bill boards everywhere... ugh.
Black Irish
Wise Guy
- Messages
- 3,769
- Reaction score
- 602
Briliant. TV ads and roadside billboards to push social programs for people who are too poor to afford cars or televisions.
Corry
Active member
- Messages
- 769
- Reaction score
- 98
wizards8507
Well-known member
- Messages
- 20,660
- Reaction score
- 2,661
Bullshit. A conservative Christian believes in all those things. Your problem is that you equate "help the poor" with "the GOVERNMENT should help the poor."
Sent from my Samsung Galaxy S III using Tapatalk 4
B
Buster Bluth
Guest
The government shouldn't help the poor?
RallySonsOfND
All-Snub Team Snubbed
- Messages
- 2,106
- Reaction score
- 91
the government is terrible at helping the poor.
Private charities handle things much better than the government ever will.
B
Buster Bluth
Guest
I've never seen a charity that can handle Social Security, Medicaid/Medicare, or food stamps.
Wild Bill
Well-known member
- Messages
- 5,517
- Reaction score
- 3,260
The feds can't sustain it either.
Polish Leppy 22
Well-known member
- Messages
- 6,594
- Reaction score
- 2,009
I've seen a federal government wage a 50 year war on poverty, spend trillions of dollars, and have little to show for it. SS, medicaid and medicare are all bankrupt by 2030, says the CBO.
Last edited:
RallySonsOfND
All-Snub Team Snubbed
- Messages
- 2,106
- Reaction score
- 91
I'd rather not pay social security tax and have my financial adviser invest it for me.
IrishJayhawk
Rock Chalk
- Messages
- 7,181
- Reaction score
- 464
One strawman deserves another strawman.
wizards8507
Well-known member
- Messages
- 20,660
- Reaction score
- 2,661
No, and it's very simple why. The government doesn't produce anything and therefore doesn't have any money of its own. Their only source of funding is confiscation of your personal property through taxation. Helping the poor is a noble goal, but it doesn't justify theft. Any child can tell you that two wrongs don't make a right, or that you shouldn't rob Peter to pay Paul, but this whole system is built upon the ends justifying the means. As long as a program is intended to "help the poor" or "keep us safe," they can do whatever they want to us, regardless of the violation of rights or just plain ineffectiveness. Conservatives aren't "greed is good" hypocrites, but Gordon Gekko has been the perfect strawman for liberals for years. Greed is evil, but you have the right to be greedy, since it's not my business to codify my notion of evil into the tax laws.
Sent from my Samsung Galaxy S III using Tapatalk 4
Ultimate Penn St. Hater
Go Irish!
- Messages
- 11,214
- Reaction score
- 377
I hope you and your family never fall on hard times.
Polish Leppy 22
Well-known member
- Messages
- 6,594
- Reaction score
- 2,009
For decades now we have removed basic math and logic and substituted both for emotion. As long as a program makes us "feel good" or noble, for God's sake we have to keep it or even grow it.
What happens in 2030 when these three major programs are BANKRUPT? What then will you say to people who "fall on hard times" and there is no government nanny program to save them? I can promise you three things: there will still be poverty in this country, the government won't be able to fix it, and the taxpayers (you and I included) will have been robbed through taxation and not repaid when those three programs have sunk.
But hey, it makes you feel like you're helping the poor and the Democrats are really in it for the "middle class."
wizards8507
Well-known member
- Messages
- 20,660
- Reaction score
- 2,661
I'd have a much larger safety net to fall back on if I'd been allowed to keep the thousands upon thousands of dollars they take from my paycheck every year. Matter of fact, I'd also be able to do a lot more charitable giving and "economic stimulus," i.e. spending money on shit that creates demand for labor, i.e. jobs.
EDIT: Not to mention that your position takes such a depressing view of humanity. If I fell on hard times, I'd be screwed without government programs? People help people, and they'd be more inclined to help people if they had more economic liberty to do so.
Sent from my Samsung Galaxy S III using Tapatalk 4
Last edited:
DillonHall
Tommy 12-2
- Messages
- 3,093
- Reaction score
- 1,737
I'll never understand why anyone thinks the federal government has a right to tax people at higher rates simply because they have a higher income.
Polish Leppy 22
Well-known member
- Messages
- 6,594
- Reaction score
- 2,009
In past decades it's been referred to as "fairness." The new fluff term from progressives is "social justice."
ACamp1900
Counting my ‘bet against ND’ winnings
- Messages
- 48,944
- Reaction score
- 11,224
Reps... the modern liberal mind in one simple statement...
Ill also say this, helping people refers to providing the most basic needs IMO, I believe we've gone past that and are well into wants.
Last edited:
marv81s
v v v KamaraPolice's GF
- Messages
- 1,463
- Reaction score
- 66
if we ever do, it will be our responsibility to get ourselves through it. If others in our community choose to help us, great. But I do not believe it is the governments 'job' or responsibility to do it. Are you really willing to give up some of your individual liberty for that false sense of security that this government is going to 'take care of you or your family"?
show me where in the Constitution where it states that is one of the responsibilities of the Federal government? Contrary to liberal beliefs, this country didn't start after the New Deal