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

People have stopped looking for work at a rapid rate, it seems.

 

Thanks. We can always count on you to give us the irrelevant internet video take.

You will appreciate this:

[video=youtube;slFZ8K2aBoY]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=slFZ8K2aBoY[/video]

 

Both.

-wiki
Fiscal conservatism is a fiscal policy that advocates avoiding deficit spending. Fiscal conservatives often consider reduction of overall government spending and national debt as well as ensuring balanced budget of paramount importance. Free trade, deregulation of the economy, lower taxes, and other conservative policies are also often but not necessarily affiliated with fiscal conservatism.

A stalemate is much closer to conservatism than liberalism.

 

Look who's talking.

Oh well. Can anybody properly explain how unemployment can drop an entire point in one month when the labor force participation rate only climbed .1%?

 

Definition of part time changed. Thats the only thing I can think of.

 

Not quite. U-5, which measures discouraged workers, dropped from 9.6% to 9.3% in September.

 

Someone on another forum tried to tell me that they also revised the count for other months upward. But, to do that they would have had to do it for every month obama's been in office.

 

A stalemate of a trillion dollar deficit doesn't sound conservative to me.

But then the modern meaning of "fiscal conservative" (or at least those who call themselves conservatives) has changed significantly since I was younger. It used to mean balance the budget. Now it means cut taxes and (*)(*)(*)(*) the consequences.

 

You are right about that, it will be too late, and you can bet, Octobers that come out on November 2nd, will not be so inspiring. Obama needs to be replaced, and the poll numbers are reflecting that

 

I don't need to, we add over $1T in debt alone. Its common sense.

 

Actually, DC cut FICA rates, and the deficit shrunk. You are losing the argument. Sorry.

 

Look whose talking.

No one said the UR dropped a whole point, but the explanation is a whole bunch more people got jobs.

 

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704621304576267113524583554.html
Here is a little insight for you....I will even lower the bar to those making less than 1 Mill....

1.65T- 938B......now you do the math.

 

Maybe your self-serving proclamations are impressive to you.

 

You're right. It was .8% from last month.

But, a more likely explanation is that they are cooking the books. That's the only way to explain a .8% drop in unemployment with a .1% rise in employment.

 

Your reply tells us all.

ie - I have nothing to say so now I'll just point and call you a bully.

 

ahh we see you have no response, just blame the article and where it comes from. Move the (*)(*)(*)(*) along. your in the way of real American recovery.

 

Ah, a blog from the Murdoch Street journal. I knew you didn't calculate it. What is "1.65T"? Fabricated math?

 

The fact you have to self-proclaim you "won" because the facts show different tell us all.

 

God(*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*) I just wrote a lengthy post with citations to data analyzing this stuff and it just disappeared! Again.

This is getting really old. : (

 

So tell me, if you get 938Billion by confiscating the income of people making over 380,000, how are you going to pay down the debt? lmao foolish.

 

It must have been garbage.

 

You should have seen the size of the fish I caught the other day. You wouldn't believe it.

 

You havent disputed any facts.

FICA taxes cut, deficit decreased, unemployment came down, stock market went up, GDP still growing.

Conservatism and stalemate wins again.

Stopping Obama's agenda has been great.

 

Again I have to waste my time to reconstruct a post. This doesn't happen in other forums.

The Murdoch Street Journal blog has its facts wrong (e.g. lies). It claims the deficit is $1.65 trillion, but the deficit is and never has been anywhere near that high. It also falsely asserts that the 1% pay 38% of the taxes. Which of course is not true, they pay about 38% of the income taxes, which are less than half of all taxes paid.

After starting with two blatant false statements, lets see if their claim about millionaires is correct.

According to the BEA, gross national income is about $13.3 trillion. http://bea.gov/national/nipaweb/SelectTable.asp?Selected=N Table 2.1

As of 2005, CBO data shows that the minimum income of the richest 0.1% is $1.5 million.

http://cbo.gov/doc.cfm?index=9884&zzz=38400

That same source shows that the richest 0.1% also take a 9.0% share of the nation's income.

That means that the richest 0.1%, who made a minimum of $1.5 million each in 2005, take about $1.2 trillion of gross national income.

The deficit last year was about $1.1 trillion, which means that the richest 0.1%, making over $1.5 million, alone have the income to cover the deficit.

Which establishes the third lie in the Murdoch Street Journal blog, and proves Mike's "common sense" based claim is, once again, wrong.