Record 94,610,000 Americans Not in Labor Force...
Participation Rate Lowest Since 1977...
Record 56,647,000 Women Not Working...
'Payrolls Disaster'...
'Fed never going to raise rates'...
IT'S UGLY!
FLASHBACK: IT'S GOING TO BE GREAT...
Markets at 'panic levels'...
[FONT=ARIAL,VERDANA,HELVETICA][SIZE=+7]
JOBS DRY UP [/SIZE][/FONT]
Jobs report: An utter disaster
But what else can you expect with a Stuttering Clusterfuck of a Miserable Failure in office?
And so the "most important payrolls number" at least until the October FOMC meeting when the Fed will once again do nothing because suddenly the US is staring recession in the face, is in the history books, and as previewed earlier today, at 142K it was a total disaster, 60K below the consensus and below the lowest estimate.
Just as bad, the August print was also revised far lower from 173K to 136K (JD: shocking!). And while it is less followed, the household survey was an unmitigated disaster, with 236,000 jobs lost in September.
- - - - -
Also, market futures just fell off a cliff. Down almost 200 points already...within minutes of the announcement.
This continues the pattern of the last few years. The labor force dropped by 350k, and the number of people not in the labor force increased by 579k. Anyone who knows the first thing about business cycles understands that in a true recovery, the unemployment rate is a lagging indicator. As conditions improve, people naturally reenter the labor force...and it takes a little time to happen. The exact opposite has happened here, which has got to be the slowest recovery in history. The true unemployment rate (U6) is in excess of 10 percent, and the market reacted to this sorry ass employment report.
Where is the fat Alaskan drunk to defend this?
But what else can you expect with a Stuttering Clusterfuck of a Miserable Failure in office?
And so the "most important payrolls number" at least until the October FOMC meeting when the Fed will once again do nothing because suddenly the US is staring recession in the face, is in the history books, and as previewed earlier today, at 142K it was a total disaster, 60K below the consensus and below the lowest estimate.
Just as bad, the August print was also revised far lower from 173K to 136K (JD: shocking!). And while it is less followed, the household survey was an unmitigated disaster, with 236,000 jobs lost in September.
- - - - -
Also, market futures just fell off a cliff. Down almost 200 points already...within minutes of the announcement.
This continues the pattern of the last few years. The labor force dropped by 350k, and the number of people not in the labor force increased by 579k. Anyone who knows the first thing about business cycles understands that in a true recovery, the unemployment rate is a lagging indicator. As conditions improve, people naturally reenter the labor force...and it takes a little time to happen. The exact opposite has happened here, which has got to be the slowest recovery in history. The true unemployment rate (U6) is in excess of 10 percent, and the market reacted to this sorry ass employment report.
Where is the fat Alaskan drunk to defend this?
How many of W's policies were implemented, which directly resulted in the recession over which he presided? The correct answer is zero, but go ahead and counter if you want. I can cite several of the Stuttering Clusterfuck's policies which are a giant wet blanket on hiring.
Besides, dimocraps controlled the purse strings AND the regulatory AND legislative instruments by holding majorities in both the house and the Senate...which means Bush effectively had nothing at all to do with this (or any) recession.
If he did, surely you could have stopped it when you had your dimocrap SUPER MAJORITY with control of the House, Senate, the executive & judicial branches as well as the Federal Reserve.
You've seen me tear plenty of R's to shreds when they do dumb shit. It happens all the time with the asshat RINOs we have running around Congress.
So, I'll ask again. Which of W's policies contributed to the recession? I can cite plenty which our current asshat POTUS put into effect that dragged down the economy.
Incidentally, who is the one and only candidate I would trust to turn this all around from an economic perspective?
You've seen me tear plenty of R's to shreds when they do dumb shit. It happens all the time with the asshat RINOs we have running around Congress.
So, I'll ask again. Which of W's policies contributed to the recession? I can cite plenty which our current asshat POTUS put into effect that dragged down the economy.
Incidentally, who is the one and only candidate I would trust to turn this all around from an economic perspective?
deregulation of Wall Street
2 wars
tax cuts for the wealthy
you think any of those did damage?
trump is questionable.....we shall see. I don't think he can win though
You lose.....www.cbpp.org/research/economic-downturn-and-legacy-of-bush-policies-continue-to-drive-large-deficits
do you want more?
How about this one? No tax cut for wealthy....Hahahahaha
www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonkblog/wp/2013/01/02/the-legacy-of-the-bush-tax-cuts-in-four-charts/
www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonkblog/wp/2013/01/02/the-legacy-of-the-bush-tax-cuts-in-four-charts/
