Employment Report-February

The economy added 175,000 jobs in February and the unemployment rate held at 6.7%. The numbers for December and January were increased by 25,000 each month:

http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.nr0.htm

Meanwhile, the highest minimum wage state, Washington, beats US job growth. Some areas of Washington, including Seattle, are looking at $15 an hour:

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-03-05/washington-shows-highest-minimum-wage-state-beats-u-s-with-jobs.html

So much for a hike in the minimum wage being a job killer!

But is that sustainable?

Not exactly like North Dakota—is it?



Drop out from school, and Energy will get you $150,000 in your first year.



Opening the pipeline would increase the boom; but alas, protecting the aquifer is holding that up...

But for how long?




.

The state of Nebraska has done more to hold up the Keystone pipeline than anyone else. Considering the February weather throughout the country I think 175,000 jobs is very good!

How many jobs were lost?

13,000 are new Government workers that shouldn't be counted.

News Buzzard wrote:"...I think 175,000 jobs is very good...!"

Is that statistic "engraved in stone", or the result of Obama's corrupted Government Agencies?

(That we can depend on its changing in about a month).




.

News Buzzard wrote:"...So much for a hike in the minimum wage being a job killer...!"

Writing in the Washington Post, the highly respected columnist Robert Samuelson calls the Obama administration’s push back against the CBO estimate “fairy-tale economics” that defies the facts. To underline the point, Samuelson reiterated the CBO’s main conclusions:

● The higher minimum wage would reduce jobs by about 500,000, or 0.3 percent of projected 2016 employment. The CBO admits that its estimates involve much uncertainty. Job loss, it says, might be as high as 1 million or as low as almost nothing. The half-million figure is its best judgment.

● Up to 25 million workers would receive wage increases, about 16.5 million below the proposed minimum and possibly 8 million more just above it. Wage increases would raise the incomes of families in poverty by about 3 percent, or $300 annually. The effect is muted because most people in poverty don’t have jobs and many low-income workers are part-time (47 percent).

●Higher incomes would lift about 900,000 people above the government’s poverty line in 2016 ($24,100 for a family of four). That’s about 2 percent of the projected 45 million poor. The small impact also reflects the fact that many low-income workers, presumably young, come from middle-class families, including 33 percent from families with incomes exceeding three times the poverty line.

Samuelson goes on to say that an increase in the minimum wage is more compelling as politics than as social policy.





.

5 years of no growth.

At best, we’re treading water. The libs can spin it as a good number but 175,000 is still not a good figure. This kind of report seems to be as good as it gets under Obama.

We are defining success downward.

The only number that matters at all, is the one they’re NOT reporting. 92+Million people NOT working.

Under the prior Administration's wonderful economic agenda we began bleeding out 800,000 jobs per month, and since then the Republicans in Congress have done absolutely nothing to stimulate the economy. Economists predict a stronger economy for the rest of this year and up until the 2016 election, and that's not good news for the Republican Party. Rightfully so!

After all these year's it's still Bush's fault. NB you are just a riot.

WHL wrote:After all these year's it's still Bush's fault.  NB you are just a riot.

That's right, WHL. History doesn't change with the passage of time, and the deadbeat Republicans in Congress have done nothing to help us. Their idea of stimulating the economy is 50 futile attempts at repealing Obamacare, and Paul Ryan just can't keep his foot out of his mouth when he talks about poverty. It's just a Right Wing Circus down in DC!   

News Buzzard wrote:History doesn't change with the passage of time, and the deadbeat Republicans in Congress have done nothing to help us. :

Deadbeat congress’ fault????

OK, let’s follow that logic moment

Give the majority of the credit and/or blame to the party which held a majority (2+) of the three entities which have to work together to pass any bill (House, Senate, Presidency).

ANY bill which affects the economy has to pass both houses of Congress and be signed by the President.

In the last 20 years, there have been only two shifts in the overall balance of power:
1/3/1995
1/3/2007

Give Republicans the majority of the credit and/or blame for 1/3/1995 – 1/3/2007.

And give Democrats the majority of the credit and/or blame for 1/3/2007 – present.

There was no “Great Recession” when the balance of power shifted from Republicans to Democrats on 1/3/2007.
Here is what Obama and his peers “inherited” on 1/3/2007:

1) A FY 2007 deficit of less than $161 Billion, representing 1.2% of GDP (and significantly below the 1947-2007 average deficit of 1.6% of GDP)

2) Total National Debt under $8.7 Trillion.

3) Unemployment 4.4%, with a Labor Force Participation Rate of 66.4%.

4)“Discouraged Workers” (not counted in the unemployment number): 274,000. Now that number is 755,000.

5) Employment-population ratio (% employment for civilian noninstitutional population age 16 years and over): 63.4%. Now it’s been below 59% for 4.5 years!

In 86 months of Democrat majorities, the National Debt has gone now up 101%.

You best stick with yesterday's defense. The President is 100% responsible for what happens during his tenure. Oh yeah...that’s not exactly what you said. You said George W. Bush was 100% RESPONSIBLE for what happened during his terms...and Obama's too.   

Yes the Dems had control of the House AND Senate when Obama was first president. They could have done anything they wanted to then. What happened? Oh right, they passed the disasterous Obamacare...

The backdrop to this forum should be yellow, to match all of the yellow journalism posted here. The 3 biggest contributors to our national debt over the last 30 years were Reagan, Bush and Bush! (especially W)

Supply Side Economics!        

The facts make the backdrop of your claim seem….well a little brown.  

National Debt increases:

Ronald Reagan: $1.66 trillion

George H.W. Bush’s: $1.6 trillion

Bill Clinton: $1.5 trillion

George W. Bush: $4.9 trillion

Obama: $6.6 trillion (projected $10 trillion)

You can say it’s all the Republicans’ fault but that argument really holds no water. The National Debt increased by huge amounts under each of these presidents. However, the largest increase under any President, whether for one or two terms, occurred during Obama’s first term, which saw an increase of $5.806 trillion to the National Debt. If it were not for the party of NO taking the House in 2010, the National Debt would be much worse.

Your numbers are way off, even wrong for Reagan, and you can't charge Bush's wars, recession and tax cuts to Obama. You like to pretend that Bush never happened, at least you wish he never happened.

Hillary in 2016!

What is your source to say they are inaccurate?

Under President George W. Bush and a Republican Congress, employment never went below 62.0%
and ended above average at 63.4%.

Don't get me wrong, George W. Bush was a horrible President...but there again there are degrees of horrible.

Then Pelosi, Reid, and then-Senators Barack Obama, Joe Biden, Hillary Clinton, John Kerry, etc. took majority control of the House and Senate on 1/3/2007, and they drove the economy into the ditch and left it sitting there.

Under Obama and Democrat majorities, we’ve now gone 4.5 years with employment below 59%.

Blaming 1 man in the minority, George W. Bush, for what the Democrat majority (including then-Senator Obama) did to the economy from 1/3/2007 – 1/20/2009 is crazy.

Outerlimits wrote:"...Blaming 1 man in the minority, George W. Bush, for what the Democrat majority (including then-Senator Obama) did to the economy from 1/3/2007 – 1/20/2009 is crazy..."

Why has the price of gasoline has nearly doubled since George “Get the Oil Men Rich Quick” Bush left office?



To increase his failing numbers, will Obama now release oil from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve?




.

Outerlimits wrote:

News Buzzard wrote:History doesn't change with the passage of time, and the deadbeat Republicans in Congress have done nothing to help us. :

Deadbeat congress’ fault????

OK, let’s follow that logic moment

Give the majority of the credit and/or blame to the party which held a majority (2+) of the three entities which have to work together to pass any bill (House, Senate, Presidency).

ANY bill which affects the economy has to pass both houses of Congress and be signed by the President.

In the last 20 years, there have been only two shifts in the overall balance of power:
1/3/1995
1/3/2007

Give Republicans the majority of the credit and/or blame for 1/3/1995 – 1/3/2007.

And give Democrats the majority of the credit and/or blame for 1/3/2007 – present.

There was no “Great Recession” when the balance of power shifted from Republicans to Democrats on 1/3/2007.
Here is what Obama and his peers “inherited” on 1/3/2007:

1) A FY 2007 deficit of less than $161 Billion, representing 1.2% of GDP (and significantly below the 1947-2007 average deficit of 1.6% of GDP)

2) Total National Debt under $8.7 Trillion.

3) Unemployment 4.4%, with a Labor Force Participation Rate of 66.4%.

4)“Discouraged Workers” (not counted in the unemployment number): 274,000. Now that number is 755,000.

5) Employment-population ratio (% employment for civilian noninstitutional population age 16 years and over): 63.4%. Now it’s been below 59% for 4.5 years!

In 86 months of Democrat majorities, the National Debt has gone now up 101%.

You best stick with yesterday's defense.  The President is 100% responsible for what happens during his tenure.  Oh yeah...that’s not exactly what you said.  You said George W. Bush was 100% RESPONSIBLE for what happened during his terms...and Obama's too.   

That's the kind of twisted logic that got Obama reelected easily! People aren't that stupid. They know that Bush let the banks leverage too much of their capital on risky derivatives, resulting in our near financial collapse. It was Bush, not Obama, who stepped up to the microphone in September, 2008 to announce that he failed us as our president.

Here's a news flash: Bush is responsible for almost all of our national debt since he became president, even the debt we incurred during Obama's tenure.

Here's another news flash: Hillary is up by 10 points over every idiot you can possibly run against her!

When the Dems have no other recourse, they blame it on Bush. (Which is most of the time of course.) And NB is one of the best kool aid drinkers I have ever seen.

WHL wrote:When the Dems have no other recourse, they blame it on Bush. (Which is most of the time of course.)  And NB is one of the best kool aid drinkers I have ever seen.

We don't need any other recourse. The Democrats have won! We managed to save Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid from the evil Koch brothers, who have bought the Republican party. We managed to save the economy from disaster, and from here to the 2016 election things will improve at a faster pace. We managed to implement Obamacare after 100 years of jerking the national healthcare issue around, and we're working ourselves away from the constant drumbeat of war! Obama will go down as one of the best presidents we ever had,    and

that's why Hillary is going to win big in 2016!

WHL wrote:When the Dems have no other recourse, they blame it on Bush. (Which is most of the time of course.)  And NB is one of the best kool aid drinkers I have ever seen.

You are so right WHL

It really amazes me how these die hard left-wing radical's can not and will not see the truth even when it's right at their fingertips. Obama is a disgrace to this country and I am so disappointed in the number of foolish, uninformed and just plain stupid people in this country who refuse to see the destruction he is causing.

More Debt
More Taxes
More welfare
More regulations
More government
More wasteful spending
More corruption
Finance Arab nations
Disarm citizens
Divide classes
Divide races
Divide genders
Gut our military
Disrupt healthcare
Snub our allies
Enable our enemies

And lets not forget... Lie his A$$ off.

News Buzzard wrote:

WHL wrote:When the Dems have no other recourse, they blame it on Bush. (Which is most of the time of course.)  And NB is one of the best kool aid drinkers I have ever seen.

We don't need any other recourse. The Democrats have won! We managed to save Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid from the evil Koch brothers, who have bought the Republican party. We managed to save the economy from disaster, and from here to the 2016 election things will improve at a faster pace. We managed to implement Obamacare after 100 years of jerking the national healthcare issue around, and we're working ourselves away from the constant drumbeat of war! Obama will go down as one of the best presidents we ever had,    and

that's why Hillary is going to win big in 2016!

Your source?






.

News Buzzard wrote:

WHL wrote:When the Dems have no other recourse, they blame it on Bush. (Which is most of the time of course.)  And NB is one of the best kool aid drinkers I have ever seen.

that's why Hillary is going to win big in 2016!

Excerpt:

"Hillary Clinton may be the early conventional wisdom frontrunner for 2016, but the American people don't seem eager to be party to an unquestioning coronation. A nationwide survey conducted by Bloomberg shows that a majority of voters do not believe the former Secretary of State's claim that she was unaware of denied security requests ahead of the 2012 Benghazi massacre:

A new Bloomberg poll suggests Hillary Clinton has her own credibility issue -- when it comes to Benghazi. More specifically, 51 percent of voters say they don't believe Clinton when she says that she never saw requests for additional security before the attacks on the U.S. mission in that city in Libya in 2012. Another 41 percent say they do believe Clinton's denials.

The poll should serve as a reminder that Americans aren't keen on trusting politicians these days -- even relatively popular ones like Clinton."
—Townhall

I've stated my source.

Where are the voters who believe Hillary?




.

WHL wrote:When the Dems have no other recourse, they blame it on Bush. (Which is most of the time of course.)  And NB is one of the best kool aid drinkers I have ever seen.

Yup. But who is writing the paychecks for these "employed" people?




.

News Buzzard wrote:Here's another news flash: Hillary is up by 10 points over every idiot you can possibly run against her!

Let’s see. Hillary! campaigned for Pryor, Grimes, Hagan, Udall and Coakley. Yeah. She is a real winner.




.

.