Championship Subdivision Football | FCS Football | Stadiums | Blogs | Forums

Only in Obamaland:

Jobless Claims in U.S. Climb for Second Week to One-Month High

"The number of Americans filing applications for unemployment benefits climbed last week to a one-month high, showing little progress in the labor market.

Jobless claims rose by 4,000 for a second week to reach 372,000 in the period ended Aug. 18, Labor Department figures showed today in Washington. The median forecast of 41 economists surveyed by Bloomberg called for 365,000. The four-week moving average, a less volatile measure, increased to 368,000.

Companies may be keeping payrolls lean after slashing headcounts during the recession while waiting for further assurances that economic growth will pick up. The European debt crisis and slowdown in Asia remain headwinds to investor and business confidence.

“It’s still very sluggish, and growth itself is implying we should not see any acceleration in hiring at this point,” Yelena Shulyatyeva, a U.S. economist at BNP Paribas in New York, said before the report.

Estimates in the Bloomberg survey ranged from 355,000 to 373,000. The Labor Department revised the previous week’s figure up to 368,000 from an initially reported 366,000."

You actually gotta go out and look for work. Jobs are growing in South Carolina.

Taxes have remained low, there are less federal regulations than under Bush, there are still no policies that address off-shoring, tax shelters, or subsidies to big industries such as oil. so tell me...why is the private sector failing so miserably? They should STFU and start creating jobs already.

there are less federal regulations than under Bush,

Where did you get that one? I'm pretty skeptical about that one. Can you name one federal regulatory requirement that has been rescinded since Bush left office?

kalm wrote:Taxes have remained low, there are less federal regulations than under Bush, there are still no policies that address off-shoring, tax shelters, or subsidies to big industries such as oil. so tell me...why is the private sector failing so miserably? They should STFU and start creating jobs already.

JohnStOnge wrote:

there are less federal regulations than under Bush,

Where did you get that one? I'm pretty skeptical about that one. Can you name one federal regulatory requirement that has been rescinded since Bush left office?

His arse.

JohnStOnge wrote:

there are less federal regulations than under Bush,

Where did you get that one? I'm pretty skeptical about that one. Can you name one federal regulatory requirement that has been rescinded since Bush left office?

Where are the job, Psycho?

BDKJMU wrote:

JohnStOnge wrote:
Where did you get that one? I'm pretty skeptical about that one. Can you name one federal regulatory requirement that has been rescinded since Bush left office?

His arse.

Where are the jobs, supply side conk fuck?

BDKJMU wrote:

JohnStOnge wrote:
Where did you get that one? I'm pretty skeptical about that one. Can you name one federal regulatory requirement that has been rescinded since Bush left office?

His arse.

Oops...you might be on to something here.

Kalm's ass reports...you decide.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fac ... _blog.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Still, as the article suggests, there hasn't been that much of change in this regard. Obama has reduced some redundancy in regulations and increased regulations elsewhere. And some regulations actually have a net positive on the overall economy.

Ouch, I know that one's gotta hurt for you conks.

Public sector jobs have gone way down which should increase demand for private sector jobs. So again...when will the private sector start creating jobs?

kalm wrote:

BDKJMU wrote:
His arse.

Oops...you might be on to something here.

Kalm's ass reports...you decide.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fac ... _blog.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Still, as the article suggests, there hasn't been that much of change in this regard. Obama has reduced some redundancy in regulations and increased regulations elsewhere. And some regulations actually have a net positive on the overall economy.

Ouch, I know that one's gotta hurt for you conks.

Public sector jobs have gone way down which should increase demand for private sector jobs. So again...when will the private sector start creating jobs?

I bring in 10 -- H2A foreign workers to work for me because no Americans want to work. I have 10......10 jobs that could go to anyone that would want them here in NW MN but most people are too lazy to work. Ya, work.

kalm wrote:

BDKJMU wrote:
His arse.

Oops...you might be on to something here.

Kalm's ass reports...you decide.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fac ... _blog.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Still, as the article suggests, there hasn't been that much of change in this regard. Obama has reduced some redundancy in regulations and increased regulations elsewhere. And some regulations actually have a net positive on the overall economy.

Ouch, I know that one's gotta hurt for you conks.

Public sector jobs have gone way down which should increase demand for private sector jobs. So again...when will the private sector start creating jobs?

This article, again.

Sunstein was wise not to get too far into the weeds by being specific, and the Fact Checker did an decent job of pointing that fact out. Nevertheless, what the article points out is that Sunstein is very good yes man for the administration, and the Obama administration increased the number of "economically significant" regulations by 40% in his first three years versus the last three years of the Bush administration.

psychoCAT wrote:You actually gotta go out and look for work. Jobs are growing in South Carolina.

Are you in South Carolina?

Let see, the Dow is over 13K, close to it's all-time high, and corporate profits have never been higher. Sounds like a pretty strong private sector to me.


Now where's all that trickle down.....?

houndawg wrote:Let see, the Dow is over 13K, close to it's all-time high, and corporate profits have never been higher. Sounds like a pretty strong private sector to me.


Now where's all that trickle down.....?

*crickets*

houndawg wrote:Let see, the Dow is over 13K, close to it's all-time high, and corporate profits have never been higher. Sounds like a pretty strong private sector to me.


Now where's all that trickle down.....?

Good!

My 401K and mutual funds are doing well.....

Keep it going "corporate America".....

houndawg wrote:Let see, the Dow is over 13K, close to it's all-time high, and corporate profits have never been higher. Sounds like a pretty strong private sector to me.


Now where's all that trickle down.....?

The corporations are holding onto their cash right now; this was a big topic about a year ago. When you include liquid assets as profit, then corporate profits ARE up, but not because of revenue. The accounting systems that determine corporate "profits" are somewhat wonky, and include some voodoo math.

The bottom line is that right now, right or wrong, corporate America does not trust the current administration to refrain from economic policies that will ultimately hurt economic growth. The Dow is around 13000, but the Dow will always be in some stage of increase, unless we REALLY screw the pooch. Remember, we are not experiencing negative growth, just less rapid positive growth. The reason this hurts the economy is because it affects our ability to cover our debts "on time", if you will. This is why outside entities are considering downgrading our credit rating, and those entities are usually rather apolitical.

Simply pointing to corporate balance sheets and the volume of the Dow during an acknowledged recession is way oversimplifying things.

One thing is very clear- and it is partially due to pragmatism and also partially politics: if Romney is elected you will see a bump in hiring as these companies loosen their grip on their cash reserves. If Romney is not elected, I guarantee that we will not see a job recovery. In fact, if Obama gets a second term, just watch what happens to the world markets in December-January. Confidence is low around the world when it comes to our helmsmanship these days.

I'll bet that low confidence was really bolstered by Romney's brilliant foreign tour.

CID1990 wrote:

houndawg wrote:Let see, the Dow is over 13K, close to it's all-time high, and corporate profits have never been higher. Sounds like a pretty strong private sector to me.


Now where's all that trickle down.....?

The corporations are holding onto their cash right now; this was a big topic about a year ago. When you include liquid assets as profit, then corporate profits ARE up, but not because of revenue. The accounting systems that determine corporate "profits" are somewhat wonky, and include some voodoo math.

The bottom line is that right now, right or wrong, corporate America does not trust the current administration to refrain from economic policies that will ultimately hurt economic growth. The Dow is around 13000, but the Dow will always be in some stage of increase, unless we REALLY screw the pooch. Remember, we are not experiencing negative growth, just less rapid positive growth. The reason this hurts the economy is because it affects our ability to cover our debts "on time", if you will. This is why outside entities are considering downgrading our credit rating, and those entities are usually rather apolitical.

Simply pointing to corporate balance sheets and the volume of the Dow during an acknowledged recession is way oversimplifying things.

One thing is very clear- and it is partially due to pragmatism and also partially politics: if Romney is elected you will see a bump in hiring as these companies loosen their grip on their cash reserves. If Romney is not elected, I guarantee that we will not see a job recovery. In fact, if Obama gets a second term, just watch what happens to the world markets in December-January. Confidence is low around the world when it comes to our helmsmanship these days.

They didn't trust the last administration either, and there is no guarantee or reason to expect that they will trust the next one. If Barack is Obushma, then Mitt will be Rombama. The only difference that the President makes these days is Supreme Court nominations.

BlueHen86 wrote:

CID1990 wrote:
The corporations are holding onto their cash right now; this was a big topic about a year ago. When you include liquid assets as profit, then corporate profits ARE up, but not because of revenue. The accounting systems that determine corporate "profits" are somewhat wonky, and include some voodoo math.

The bottom line is that right now, right or wrong, corporate America does not trust the current administration to refrain from economic policies that will ultimately hurt economic growth. The Dow is around 13000, but the Dow will always be in some stage of increase, unless we REALLY screw the pooch. Remember, we are not experiencing negative growth, just less rapid positive growth. The reason this hurts the economy is because it affects our ability to cover our debts "on time", if you will. This is why outside entities are considering downgrading our credit rating, and those entities are usually rather apolitical.

Simply pointing to corporate balance sheets and the volume of the Dow during an acknowledged recession is way oversimplifying things.

One thing is very clear- and it is partially due to pragmatism and also partially politics: if Romney is elected you will see a bump in hiring as these companies loosen their grip on their cash reserves. If Romney is not elected, I guarantee that we will not see a job recovery. In fact, if Obama gets a second term, just watch what happens to the world markets in December-January. Confidence is low around the world when it comes to our helmsmanship these days.

They didn't trust the last administration either, and there is no guarantee or reason to expect that they will trust the next one. If Barack is Obushma, then Mitt will be Rombama. The only difference that the President makes these days is Supreme Court nominations.

Yup. And that's the little meme that conks cling to. Fact is, corporations will hire if there is demand...period.

kalm wrote: Fact is, corporations will hire if there is demand...period.

One day you will realize that your textbook version of the world does not exist.

houndawg wrote:Let see, the Dow is over 13K, close to it's all-time high, and corporate profits have never been higher. Sounds like a pretty strong private sector to me.


Now where's all that trickle down.....?

All those numbers look good for the rich and government employees, but salaries are low, house values are low, groceries, taxes and gas are high. It doesn't look as good from where the average person sits.

kalm wrote:

BlueHen86 wrote:
They didn't trust the last administration either, and there is no guarantee or reason to expect that they will trust the next one. If Barack is Obushma, then Mitt will be Rombama. The only difference that the President makes these days is Supreme Court nominations.

Yup. And that's the little meme that conks cling to. Fact is, corporations will hire if there is demand...period.

...........or they get a tax benefit.

Cluck U wrote:

kalm wrote: Fact is, corporations will hire if there is demand...period.

One day you will realize that your textbook version of the world does not exist.

Not to get into it again, but if there is money to be made and the hiring of an employee to meet that demand will ultimately increase revenue beyond the employee's wage, then a job will be created. Don't be so scared of simplicity Cluckster.

houndawg wrote:I'll bet that low confidence was really bolstered by Romney's brilliant foreign tour.

Actually, I question whether or not you actually know what Romney said. Let's not get into discussions about feckless foreign policy.

He spoke the truth about culture in the Middle East and he pissed off the Palestinians. BIG DEAL. Considering that Israel is the #1 recipient of US foreign aid, and that the #1 goal of the Palestinians (and others) is the complete destruction of Israel, I'd say that not pissing off the Palestinians is not a foreign policy priority, but if you are the hyperbolic type (and you are, HD) then sure, it is earth shattering.

The other thing Romney did was called the security company screw up was "disconcerting".

Oh my God! Let's all go to DEFCON 4!!

The British Army had to be called in to cover the gap, so I think Romney's decision to say anything at all was a little off, but what he did say was perfectly appropriate.

Romney's comments were a non-event for everyone except low information partisans like you.

CID1990 wrote:

houndawg wrote:I'll bet that low confidence was really bolstered by Romney's brilliant foreign tour.

Actually, I question whether or not you actually know what Romney said. Let's not get into discussions about feckless foreign policy.

He spoke the truth about culture in the Middle East and he pissed off the Palestinians. BIG DEAL. Considering that Israel is the #1 recipient of US foreign aid, and that the #1 goal of the Palestinians (and others) is the complete destruction of Israel, I'd say that not pissing off the Palestinians is not a foreign policy priority, but if you are the hyperbolic type (and you are, HD) then sure, it is earth shattering.

The other thing Romney did was called the security company screw up was "disconcerting".

Oh my God! Let's all go to DEFCON 4!!

The British Army had to be called in to cover the gap, so I think Romney's decision to say anything at all was a little off, but what he did say was perfectly appropriate.

Romney's comments were a non-event for everyone except low information partisans like you.

Well I guess you must know, being a career government employee and all.

I was referring to his diplomatic triumph of going to England and telling them they weren't ready for the Olympics.

You seem a little dyspeptic today sydney, did those 11 year old vietnamese girls raise the price of poon or something?