Gallup unemployment continues to fall: New low of 7.3%.

You said deficit is the problem and why stalemate isnt good. However since the stalemate, its shrunk and continues to do so.

 

You seem very jealous of anyone who has money and doesn't have to work. If Romney does get elected the Bush tax cuts will be extended and all those those people who take risk and invest will get to keep more of their money. You disagree with that also I'm sure.

 

I hope it IS too late to help Obama. Also, I don't believe it.

 

I wrote a reply and it somehow got lost as happens on in this forum. I'll re-write and post it again.

 

[Re-post]

Not surprised, the right wing media avoided the news like the plague.

I'll save you the trouble. Thanks in part to spending actually decreasing for the second time in three years (something that hasn't happened since Eisenhower was president) the deficit in 2012 dropped 16%, a record $207 billion dollars.

Anticipating your response that means stalemate is good, my response is that the deficit is still too high, and without major structural changes to increase revenues and decrease spending increases it is not likely to continue falling at that rate.

 

We'll lets hope for that. I mean, those poor 1ers have really been struggling.



We need to give them even BIGGER tax breaks so they can stick more of the nation's wealth and income into offshore accounts.

 

This is Pure Politiburo Corruption.
What else explains what Jack Welch is trying to impress.
The Lowest Participation rate since 1981.How convenient given that the lower the
participation rate the lower the Unemployment number.Fewer people in the workforce
leads to leads to better unemployment numbers.
This started back in January where over One Million {1.2M} previously in the total
work force mysteriously vanished.
So this has been an undercover conspiracy since january to manipulate
and exploit numbers.
Now we have the Latest CORRUPT number of { 873,ooo } workers,also
mysteriously being added in September,THE highest one month gain in
employment since 1983.That was during a Reagan Booming economy not a
very sluggish one with GROWTH only 1.3 %.
There is NO way with Growth that low,Unemployment could move .6%
in 2 months.
Inquiring minds no longer want to know.

 

Aren't you someone who pounds the desk hard on not predicting future outcomes?

What are you basing this speculation on?

Arent the results of the past two year stalemate going to tear your own argument up?

 

The numbers being used today largely leave out the most important part of the statistics, the unemployed who are not productive members of society that should be. If they were included the numbers would be much higher, probably somewhere in the neighborhood of between 20-25%. But we can't have that now can we?

Anybody of sound mind or body who is between the ages of 18-65, who isn't a trust fund baby. Does that clear that up for you?

The numbers are not as important as the ways politicians use the numbers to create a particular scenario that helps their agenda. The numbers are "NOT" supposed to be a gauge for measuring a politicians report card any way. They are supposed to be in place to show which areas in the country need assistance to remain self sufficient. IOW to identify problem areas, economically.

 

Do you see it now?

 

Please. Specifically show the law that required banks to loan money to unqualified applicants, or for the banks to falsify loan applications to achieve such a ridiculous goal.

 

Look what happens when you don't give money to unqualified buyers.

http://therealdeal.com/blog/2012/07/12/wells-fargo-slammed-with-a-175-million-discrimination-charge/

 

Good point. The more people working and paying taxes the more revenue the government should have. So why is the deficit still over a trillion dollars this year? It's not much lower than the years both stimulus and TARP spending were in the budget.

 

I saw it the first time. Did you have anything relevant you wanted to say?

 

You apparently didn't because i had to re-post it so many times.

Have you been trained to ignore facts?

 

As a matter of fact, revenues did increase by $150 billion in 2012.

The deficit is a lot lower than last year. It decreased by 16%, $207 billion, a record reduction that is almost double the previous record of $110 billion set by Clinton in 2000.

 

No. Have you been trained not to read?

Did you have anything relevant you wanted to say?

 

Stalemate = conservatism. Wins again.

The last two years have looked almost exactly what fiscal conservatism looks like. Lowered tax rates, lowered deficits, lower unemployment, higher stock markets.

 

Stalemate= conservativism? LOL How made that up.

If that is case, the conservative thing to do would be to re-elect Obama to the WH.

 

It would be if the number of people in the work force was nearly the same, but it's not.

There are 20 time the number of people who have left the work force and no longer looking for work than actually joined the work force with a new job. Explain how that's good news?

 

[video=youtube;FTKLIKrCzno]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FTKLIKrCzno[/video]

 

Actually conservatism would be LESS government intervention. Thats what stalemate would do. Stop the growth, and expansion.

Ideally, Obama wins, and gets 50/50 of reps/dems in house/senate.

Perfect.

 

I didn't say anything about a left wing conspiracy, but lets be honest. Job's don't lead a recovery, they follow a recovery, and declining GDP that now is at 1.3% doesn't indicate a recovery has already happened, does it? I mean, I'm not alone when not one economist saw these numbers coming.

Oh well, we'll see, but I'll stand by my statement that these new numbers seem a little "unbelievable".

 

Nope, Michele Bachmann will say it for me.... in 2009

[video=youtube;FTKLIKrCzno]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FTKLIKrCzno[/video]

 

So is conservativism stalement or LESS government intrusion. Let me know when you make up your mind.