Oh no, another tea partier from the "dollars are sentient and know who spends them" school.
Spending almost always creates jobs. The issue is what you spend on. If you spend on the military you produce few jobs. If you spend on education, infrastructure, health care, you produce a lot. Join the modern world and modern economy!
No .. you're mistaken .. .. but so are a lot of people, apparently including many news reporters, either that or their editors are blocking the truth for some reason.What on Earth are you talking about? The reference week in December was the week of December 9-15 and the reference week in January was the week of January 6-12. November has nothing to do with it. The reference week is almost always the week that contains the 12th (November 2012 used the week of 4-10 because otherwise the interviewers would have been trying to get hold of people Thanksgiving week.
Something else the BLS economist told me was that estimates of those who drop off the radar of their interview process are way off, as they simply assume that the people in a household that's unreachable for the interview in a given month are all in the same status they were previously but they're simply dropped from the reports.Please show your math on that. Even if you include everyone not in the labor force who says they want a job, regardless of ability to accept or if they've ever looked for work, that rate would only be 11.7%* Untrue. Hell, more people were added to the population due to revisions to Census population controls. So more people were counted than last month. No idea where you're getting the idea that anyone "dropped off" unless you're looking at the increase in Not in the Labor Force and think that means people leaving the labor force.
Or we need to build and/or repair ore bridges or something. (Broken Window Fallacy) Obama's Stimulus spending primarily went to existing jobs in education. It didn't create jobs.
It has a fiscal multiplier of 1 (meaning it didn't create any wealth. It only created more debt/waste we can never recover) The 6 trillion he has borrowed/spent in 4 years hasn't created a single net job. It only added to the deficit. We are still in negative job growth since the day he took office.
There is nothing "modern" about Obama's economic policies. They've been tried many times, and they always fail. We need to go back to the economic policies of Reagan, which created unprecedented economic growth and a net gain of 20 million jobs within 8 years. It also ushered in the peace dividend, which both Clinton and Bush SR took advantage of for even more record job growth.
According to current revisions of job growth for the year; there are 2.17
million more jobs in our current economy than there were a year ago, or an average monthly job creation of 180,833.
Fractions.How can unemployment "jump" to 7.9 while adding jobs in the process? Oh yeah it can't.
Lol...mass hysteria event. Its happening now.
8,500,000 people have dropped out of the work force, given up and they're not counted.
You lack of objectivity, your apparent pathalogical death grip on a bankrupt agenda, your cherry picking of data just so you can convince yourself ( your'e not making an impression on any one with a brain ) that you haven't wasted countless hours parroting tallking points is a testament to the desperation the left is feeling now.
How can unemployment "jump" to 7.9 while adding jobs in the process? Oh yeah it can't.
Of course progressives will somehow try to portray that it can...
I love how they never talk about how many jobs were lost. Sorry but 1 + -3 is -2.. but hip-hop hurray for the +1.
Fractions.
Perhaps you need to rethink your ability to use math to explain a point regarding macro economic phenomena.
I never brought up macroeconomics, as a matter of fact I brought up microeconomics and clearly stated the government needs to adhere to those ideas.
One cannot spend more than what they take in... Apparently that is a difficult concept to understand for some.
Comparing the government to a household makes no sense. I continue to find your comments hilarious; we are discussing unemployment which IS a macro topic. :lamo
Please, present your understanding of how the economy works...
That is a strange request. I will ask you this: does a household have the ability to issue debt in a perpetual manner? Does a households income depend (in a linear fashion) on the income level of the aggregate economy?
I'll answer anything you want, after you have answered the question asked...
Comparing the government to a household makes no sense. I continue to find your comments hilarious; we are discussing unemployment which IS a macro topic. :lamo
You asked a rather broad question. My questions were rhetorical ;-)
You asked a rather broad question. My questions were rhetorical ;-)
Oh so now it's rhetoric?
Good to know.
It's amazing how this country still exists.
Got it, but I need an indication of your understanding of economics. The question wasn't really that broad given what you were asking...
Take a peek of my post history if you want an insight on my perspective.
Your history doesn't interest me; your answer might...
Your question doesn't interest me.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?