Dump Shithole

[DEATH ROW JOE]

So anyway my question to you is this, how are you coming up with the 847,000 for Jan 2012 and the 176,000 for Dec 2011?

The numbers underlined in red are the number employed based on the household survey, the survey used to determine the unemployment rate. The numbers are stated in thousandss

Nov 2011 140,614 = 140.614 million
Dec 2011 140,790 = 140.790 million
Jan 2012 141,637 = 141.637 million

Subtract the Jan number from the Dec number to determine job growth in January

141.637 - 140.790 = .847, or 847,000

Subtract the Dec number from the Nov number to determine job growth in December

140.790 - 140.614 = .176 or 176,000

[DEATH ROW JOE]

Oh wow, this will be the blind leading the blind misinterpreting economic data to falsely "prove" left talking points. When I read Joe's analysis (very rarely),

Good job chiming in without reading. How come everyone who supports Trump is a dumb ass?

Here is a short summary dumb ass: Trump takes a "victory lap" for Obama's final jobs report but he apparently did not realize the employment level fell by 30,000 jobs. The household survey has a margin of error of 400,000 so the number will likely be revised upwards. But the point is that this is Obama's jobs report, it's not that bad or that great. But Trump suddenly is spinning it as a strong jobs report when last month it was evidence of carnage. He's a con artist and you're a fool. And no, this is not "left wing" analysis. Scott Sumner is saying the same thing. He's a right wing economist who works for the Koch funded Mercatus institute. http://www.themoneyillusion.com/?p=32297

When Obama was President, Trump described those Obama jobs reports in almost apocalyptic terms. There is economic “carnage” in America, the economy is horrible. But now that Trump is President he describes an almost identical jobs report as great, and tells us that it shows his policies were already working via the expectations channel, even before he took office:

The White House took a victory lap on the jobs report, but it doesn’t really belong to Trump

So Trump’s plan is simple, redefine failure as success.

[Olds_71_442]

[DEATH ROW JOE]

Bannon is forcing Priebus out now. Trump's quickly approaching lame duck status one month after inauguration. Breitbart reporting:

As Flynn Resigns, Priebus Future In Doubt As Trump Allies Circulate List of Alternate Chief of Staff Candidates
http://www.breitbart.com/big-government ... andidates/

[radiobed]

Oh wow, this will be the blind leading the blind misinterpreting economic data to falsely "prove" left talking points. When I read Joe's analysis (very rarely),

Good job chiming in without reading. How come everyone who supports Trump is a dumb ass?

Here is a short summary dumb ass: Trump takes a "victory lap" for Obama's final jobs report but he apparently did not realize the employment level fell by 30,000 jobs. The household survey has a margin of error of 400,000 so the number will likely be revised upwards. But the point is that this is Obama's jobs report, it's not that bad or that great. But Trump suddenly is spinning it as a strong jobs report when last month it was evidence of carnage. He's a con artist and you're a fool. And no, this is not "left wing" analysis. Scott Sumner is saying the same thing. He's a right wing economist who works for the Koch funded Mercatus institute. http://www.themoneyillusion.com/?p=32297

When Obama was President, Trump described those Obama jobs reports in almost apocalyptic terms. There is economic “carnage” in America, the economy is horrible. But now that Trump is President he describes an almost identical jobs report as great, and tells us that it shows his policies were already working via the expectations channel, even before he took office:

The White House took a victory lap on the jobs report, but it doesn’t really belong to Trump

So Trump’s plan is simple, redefine failure as success.

You're a champion to the largely progressive crowd on this little board looking for affirmation.

Your half baked analysis would be laughed at by people that use economic data to actually make money.

[DEATH ROW JOE]

You're a champion to the largely progressive crowd on this little board looking for affirmation.

Your half baked analysis would be laughed at by people that use economic data to actually make money.

shut up stupid.

[Pierce Foreskin]

Wanna know who Stephen Miller is?

Maybe I'm the only one but I never even heard of this guy till this past week. It's like Trump squats down and shits out one villainous turd after another, forming a little mardi gras parade of deluded lying creeps. This Miller guy, obviously related to publicist John Miller, is going to take a horrific beat down with every syllable out of his mouth. Then it'll be time to trot out the next fork-tongued stooge.

Any relation to the mummy? That would make a lot of sense.

[Danzig in the Dark]

Oh wow, this will be the blind leading the blind misinterpreting economic data to falsely "prove" left talking points. When I read Joe's analysis (very rarely),

Good job chiming in without reading. How come everyone who supports Trump is a dumb ass?

Here is a short summary dumb ass: Trump takes a "victory lap" for Obama's final jobs report but he apparently did not realize the employment level fell by 30,000 jobs. The household survey has a margin of error of 400,000 so the number will likely be revised upwards. But the point is that this is Obama's jobs report, it's not that bad or that great. But Trump suddenly is spinning it as a strong jobs report when last month it was evidence of carnage. He's a con artist and you're a fool. And no, this is not "left wing" analysis. Scott Sumner is saying the same thing. He's a right wing economist who works for the Koch funded Mercatus institute. http://www.themoneyillusion.com/?p=32297

When Obama was President, Trump described those Obama jobs reports in almost apocalyptic terms. There is economic “carnage” in America, the economy is horrible. But now that Trump is President he describes an almost identical jobs report as great, and tells us that it shows his policies were already working via the expectations channel, even before he took office:

The White House took a victory lap on the jobs report, but it doesn’t really belong to Trump

So Trump’s plan is simple, redefine failure as success.

You're a champion to the largely progressive crowd on this little board looking for affirmation.

Your half baked analysis would be laughed at by people that use economic data to actually make money.

You talk a lot of shit, radiosped, but you don't back it up. Now is the time for you refute his conclusions using the economic data to which you refer. You won't, though. You can't. Just another ad hominem attack from you, I predict.

[radiobed]

You talk a lot of shit, radiosped, but you don't back it up. Now is the time for you refute his conclusions using the economic data to which you refer. You won't, though. You can't. Just another ad hominem attack from you, I predict.

I have plenty of substantive posts. Not links or charts or headlines letting propoganda agents explain my thoughts. I'm willing to discuss a topic in detail if the situation warrants it and the person is engaging in an honest discussion.

With DeathRowTomArnold, he's clearly a partisan hack. You're not a complete dumbass Danzig, surely you can acknowledge his bias even if you want to believe every bit of it no?!? And that's fine, but I'm not going to spend hours going back and forth with some fool constantly throwing charts/numbers/links and drawing silly conclusions just to defend his political positions.

I mean fuck, the only (& last) time we discussed something he couldn't acknowledge that expected regulation reductions and corporate tax reductions were responsible for the bump in the market since the election. nevermind that small businesses and finance (most regulated) were the sectors that were by far most bullish, he insisted the markets would be even higher with Hillary. That's not an honest discussion and certainly someone not worth my time. But if you like his propoganda charts, enjoy!!

[exitflagger]

drawing silly conclusions just to defend his political positions.

You mean like this:

expected regulation reductions and corporate tax reductions were responsible for the bump in the market since the election. nevermind that small businesses and finance (most regulated) were the sectors that were by far most bullish, he insisted the markets would be even higher with Hillary.

I have plenty of substantive posts.

Do you feel that you have a very good brain and you say a lot of things?

[Danzig in the Dark]

You talk a lot of shit, radiosped, but you don't back it up. Now is the time for you refute his conclusions using the economic data to which you refer. You won't, though. You can't. Just another ad hominem attack from you, I predict.

I have plenty of substantive posts. Not links or charts or headlines letting propoganda agents explain my thoughts. I'm willing to discuss a topic in detail if the situation warrants it and the person is engaging in an honest discussion.

With DeathRowTomArnold, he's clearly a partisan hack. You're not a complete dumbass Danzig, surely you can acknowledge his bias even if you want to believe every bit of it no?!? And that's fine, but I'm not going to spend hours going back and forth with some fool constantly throwing charts/numbers/links and drawing silly conclusions just to defend his political positions.

I mean fuck, the only (& last) time we discussed something he couldn't acknowledge that expected regulation reductions and corporate tax reductions were responsible for the bump in the market since the election. nevermind that small businesses and finance (most regulated) were the sectors that were by far most bullish, he insisted the markets would be even higher with Hillary. That's not an honest discussion and certainly someone not worth my time. But if you like his propoganda charts, enjoy!!

I called it.

[Chip Z'Hoy]

"DeathRowTomArnold"

[DEATH ROW JOE]

I mean fuck, the only (& last) time we discussed something he couldn't acknowledge that expected regulation reductions and corporate tax reductions were responsible for the bump in the market since the election. nevermind that small businesses and finance (most regulated) were the sectors that were by far most bullish, he insisted the markets would be even higher with Hillary. That's not an honest discussion and certainly someone not worth my time. But if you like his propoganda charts, enjoy!!

Actually we did discuss it dumb ass. Trump's expected tax cuts drove up interest rates which hurt the stock market. Market would be much higher under Clinton. Everyone knows deregulation hurts the economy dumb ass. The rules are there to protect shareholders and consumers. You're merely parroting a Fox News talking point.

[TenBenny]

Looks like Russia has just deployed a missile in violation of an arms treaty. Moment of truth, Donald, moment of truth.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/14/worl ... reaty.html

[Luminiferous]

Looks like Russia has just deployed a missile in violation of an arms treaty. Moment of truth, Donald, moment of truth.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/14/worl ... reaty.html

Uh he'll get back to that, he's working on North Korea's missile launch first..

He'll get to Vladdy when he finds the time..

[DEATH ROW JOE]

Instead of talking about Russia's missile. he's bragging about rolling back a regulation intended to reduce corruption.

THE PRESIDENT: Well, thank you very much. This is a big signing, a very important signing. And this is H.J. Resolution 41, disapproving the Securities and Exchange Commission's rule on disclosure of payments by resource extraction issuers. https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/sta ... 9747723264


Trump signed House Joint Resolution 41 to repeal the rule, which required U.S. energy companies to disclose any payments involving domestic or foreign governments to the Securities and Exchange Commission.
http://www.upi.com/Top_News/US/2017/02/ ... 487103685/

[radiobed]

I mean fuck, the only (& last) time we discussed something he couldn't acknowledge that expected regulation reductions and corporate tax reductions were responsible for the bump in the market since the election. nevermind that small businesses and finance (most regulated) were the sectors that were by far most bullish, he insisted the markets would be even higher with Hillary. That's not an honest discussion and certainly someone not worth my time. But if you like his propoganda charts, enjoy!!

Actually we did discuss it dumb ass. Trump's expected tax cuts drove up interest rates which hurt the stock market. Market would be much higher under Clinton. Everyone knows deregulation hurts the economy dumb ass. The rules are there to protect shareholders and consumers. You're merely parroting a Fox News talking point.

So expected tax cuts raise interest rates...which hurts the market?!? And the market would be much higher with Hilary?!?

I should seriously spend time arguing with someone this clueless?? Joe seems to have no concept on how and why these things are done. Rates are dropped to make "easy money" to spur growth. Rates rise when the economy can handle it. This is basic economic policy but Joe seems to imply somehow this was all related when in reality it is much more complex. Confidence in raising rates is a good thing.

And deregulation hurts the economy?!?

Fucking Joe has it all figured out. Regulate the fuck out of every industry, tax the fuck out of them and keep interest rates and inflation at zero!!! Booming fucking economy for all!!

Thanks for the laugh Joe!! Stick to links going forward.

[Chip Z'Hoy]

Radiobed never tires of being pwned.

[DEATH ROW JOE]

So expected tax cuts raise interest rates...which hurts the market?!? And the market would be much higher with Hilary?!?

I should seriously spend time arguing with someone this clueless?? Joe seems to have no concept on how and why these things are done. Rates are dropped to make "easy money" to spur growth. Rates rise when the economy can handle it. This is basic economic policy but Joe seems to imply somehow this was all related when in reality it is much more complex. Confidence in raising rates is a good thing.

What a confused mess. Rates are set by supply and demand. The Fed can drive down rates by buying bonds and increasing demand for bonds. Expected increase in deficits will lower demand for govt bonds and drive up rates. The Treasury had to offer higher rates to attract borrowers since Trump is promising to increase the deficit with an irresponsible and unneeded tax cut.



Two recent studies have measured the influence of budget deficits on interest rates. The first of these studies, by Thomas Laubach, finds a "statistically and economically significant" relationship between higher deficit projections and future long-term interest rates. According to Laubach's estimates, when the projected deficit to GDP ratio increases by one percentage point, long-term interest rates increase by roughly 25 basis points. A more recent working paper, by Eric Engen and R. Glenn Hubbard, found that when government debt increased by 1 percent of GDP, interest rates would increase by about two basis points. https://www.stlouisfed.org/publications ... s-the-link

Glenn Hubbard is a former Bush adviser and a Visiting Scholar at the conservative American Enterprise Institute. The link between deficits and interest rates is well established. Business optimism fortunately does not drive up interest rates. If they did, then optimism would slow rather than accelerate growth. You're a clueless moron.

[TenBenny]

Looks like Russia has just deployed a missile in violation of an arms treaty. Moment of truth, Donald, moment of truth.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/14/worl ... reaty.html

Uh he'll get back to that, he's working on North Korea's missile launch first..

He'll get to Vladdy when he finds the time..

Ha! The Russia thing is getting really hot. Flynn's dismissal seems to be less about what he did than the fact that what he did was exposed. Dan Rather just wrote that this could end up being worse than Watergate.

[DEATH ROW JOE]

What did Trump know and when did he know it?

[radiobed]

What a confused mess. Rates are set by supply and demand. The Fed can drive down rates by buying bonds and increasing demand for bonds. Expected increase in deficits will lower demand for govt bonds and drive up rates. The Treasury had to offer higher rates to attract borrowers since Trump is promising to increase the deficit with an irresponsible and unneeded tax cut.

You don't even understand Economics 101. Any Economics text book will clearly tell you the Fed raises the Fed Funds Rate (which increases interest rates) and makes it more fucking expensive to borrow. How is that attracting borrowers?!?

You are so busy trying to prove your points with fictional "progressive" articles that you don't even realize the basics they sometimes ignore.

Here's a link for you Joe explaining the basic Fed Funds Rate principle (feel free to verify in any entry level economics text book dummy):

http://www.bankrate.com/rates/interest- ... -rate.aspx

[ultra motion]

Is he seriously trying to act like he's gonna be tough on Russia?

[That-guy]

Is he seriously trying to act like he's gonna be tough on Russia?

That's exactly what he's doing. Acting.

[DEATH ROW JOE]

You don't even understand Economics 101. Any Economics text book will clearly tell you the Fed raises the Fed Funds Rate (which increases interest rates) and makes it more fucking expensive to borrow. How is that attracting borrowers?!?

LMFAO, that does not contradict anything I wrote dumb ass. I never said higher interest rates attract borrowers. Higher rates attract lenders. People who buy Treasuries are lenders dumb ass. The Treasury had to offer higher rates when borrowing. Any Economics text book will confirm that the Fed raises rates by selling bonds. Increased supply of bonds means lower bond price and lower bond price means higher interest rate. You're confused as fuck.

Furthermore, the Fed's rate hike was announced on Dec 14, 2016. Treasury rates remained unchanged after the announcement. Treasury rates rose after the election on Nov 8 for the reason stated. 10 year bonds are not typically influenced by Federal Funds Rate since the rate is influenced by buying and selling short term bonds. When the Fed wants to influence the 10 year they engage in QE.

Treasury Rates: https://www.treasury.gov/resource-cente ... data=yield


Here's the Federal Funds Data. EFFR means effective federal funds rate
https://apps.newyorkfed.org/markets/aut ... ed%20funds


Treasury rates were not impacted by the Fed's rate hike.

[DEATH ROW JOE]

He says the news is "fake" but then complains about intel leaks. Total meltdown.

[exitflagger]

non-sense

cover-up

Our brainy president sure likes him a good superfluous hyphen, doesn't he?

[TawnyVonJagger]

So either Flynn eroded the President Von Fuckstick's trust, or the "fake news media" forced him to resign. WHICH IS IT?1

These assholes cannot keep their stories straight. This is so embarrassing. And to go with DRJ's comment above, he had tweeted pre-election, "I love Wikileaks", but now leaks are BAD!

Trumptards are so fucking stupid.

[TenBenny]

He's still going on about Hillary in relation to the Russia stuff? Dude, we're *so* past that now.

[radiobed]

LMFAO, that does not contradict anything I wrote dumb ass. I never said higher interest rates attract borrowers.

You actually did and you are the one that's clearly confused. But good job of copying and pasting some other shit you just looked up to sound intelligent!! You're not.