US economy added 69K jobs in May, fewest in a year

PlacitasRoy wrote:

"....here is one area of job creation where President Bush clearly outshines President Obama: the public sector. Public sector employment is now down 608,000 workers since January 2009, a 2.7 percent decline. At the same point in President Bush’s term, public sector employment was up 3.7 percent. If, over the past 40 months, public sector employment had grown at the same pace as it did in President Bush’s first term, there would be 1.4 million additional people at work right now. That’d be enough to bring the unemployment rate down by nearly a full percentage point...." See the charts and read the whole article:
http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2012/06/01/4...

Gosh it must hurt to be as dumb as you. I hope Soros is paying you A LOT!

Marine Corp Pat wrote:

A very dismal report on jobs as the unemployment rate ticked up a notch to 8.2%... the Bush years really damaged this economy and the republicans in the congress has done everything to stop the recovery that President Obama began when he pulled our financial system from the edge of total collapse with his policies.
In his second term, President Obama’s policies will blunt republicans efforts to tank the economy…

:-) You are very, very funny! Obama will work his "magic" and we'll all be saved? LOL! Sure...and sugarplum fairies will fly out of his arse.

I think you're confusing Obama with Harry Potter. Listen carefully: One is a fictional character who carries a magical wand and can conjure up free sh*t out of thin air. The other is an ordinary scum-bag politico from Chicago who steals sh*t from one group and gives it to another, pretending it was done by magic.

The only similarity they have is that BOTH are believed in by small children, simpletons and naive adults. Which are you?

PlacitasRoy wrote:

<quoted text>
More rewriting of history of Duyba's MASSIVE failures. Quoting BULLSH!T doesn't make the BULLSH!T factual or the conclusions valid.
Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac: ANOTHER SET of MYTHS Karl Rove’s Factually Challenged Housing Revisionism
[snip]
5. GSEs bought $ trillion of subprime debt and “liar loans,” almost all bought between 2005 and 2007. This bulk-up in risky paper made it possible for banks to lend imprudently on a massive scale. Facts are correct, conclusion is wrong. By 2005, the die was set. The GSEs were very late to the party, buying sub-prime at the top of the market. The peak of homes sales (units) were August 2005, and the peak in prices were in 2006, just a few months later. From there, it was all downhill. By the time the GSE’s were buying sub-prime debt, it was all over but the crying.
6. OMISSION: Bush thwarted attempts to make lenders behave responsibly: Gee, somehow Mr. Rove forgot this one. Bank regulators had proposed new guidelines for writing risky loans. These were internal administrative rules; had they been enacted, the worst of the housing and credit crisis might have been avoided. The Bush administration backed away from proposed crackdowns on the subprime, no-money down, interest-only mortgages that were critical contributors to the credit and housing crisis. According to the Associated Press [1], pressure from banks (many of whom have since failed) was the reason:
“Bowing to aggressive lobbying — along with assurances from banks that the troubled mortgages were OK — regulators delayed action for nearly one year. By the time new rules were released late in 2006, the toughest of the proposed provisions were gone and the meltdown was under way.‘These mortgages have been considered more safe and sound for portfolio lenders than many fixed-rate mortgages,’ David Schneider, home loan president of Washington Mutual, told federal regulators in early 2006. Two years later, WaMu became the largest bank failure in U.S. history.”
Full aricle and sources: http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/2009/01/karl-rov...

wrong as usual, fleabagging doucher.

Sly Fox wrote:

<quoted text>Gosh it must hurt to be as dumb as you. I hope Soros is paying you A LOT!

I fail to see how citing s FACT supports your cognitive dissonance created 3rd gread response. FACTs are such a BITCH!

"....here is one area of job creation where President Bush clearly outshines President Obama: the public sector. Public sector employment is now down 608,000 workers since January 2009, a 2.7 percent decline. At the same point in President Bush’s term, public sector employment was up 3.7 percent. If, over the past 40 months, public sector employment had grown at the same pace as it did in President Bush’s first term, there would be 1.4 million additional people at work right now. That’d be enough to bring the unemployment rate down by nearly a full percentage point...." See the charts and read the whole article:
http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2012/06/01/4 ...

the westerner wrote:

<quoted text>
wrong as usual, fleabagging doucher.

I see you lack the intellectual capacity to rebut any of the FACTs I cited. But the cognitive dissonance FACTs create do cause 3rd grade responses by misinformed brainwashed teabaggers.

PlacitasRoy wrote:

<quoted text>
I fail to see how citing s FACT supports your cognitive dissonance created 3rd gread response. FACTs are such a BITCH!
"....here is one area of job creation where President Bush clearly outshines President Obama: the public sector. Public sector employment is now down 608,000 workers since January 2009, a 2.7 percent decline. At the same point in President Bush’s term, public sector employment was up 3.7 percent. If, over the past 40 months, public sector employment had grown at the same pace as it did in President Bush’s first term, there would be 1.4 million additional people at work right now. That’d be enough to bring the unemployment rate down by nearly a full percentage point...." See the charts and read the whole article:
http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2012/06/01/4 ...

Only 9,900 fewer federal employees out of 2.2 million.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/story...

from your source, "Public sector employment" includes states.

No surprise that TP (and you) omit those details.

PlacitasRoy wrote:

<quoted text>
I see you lack the intellectual capacity to rebut any of the FACTs I cited. But the cognitive dissonance FACTs create do cause 3rd grade responses by misinformed brainwashed teabaggers.

Off to an early day of rants, I see.

Tell us, does your source break down state vs federal "public sector employment"?

No?

Run along.

Mothra wrote:

<quoted text>
Only 9,900 fewer federal employees out of 2.2 million.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/story...
from your source, "Public sector employment" includes states.
No surprise that TP (and you) omit those details.

Don't blame him/it. Blame his/its handler.

liza wrote:

The whole country is more worried today by
these figures!!Its like a cats covering up
his business in our own back yard. HOW
do you libs look your neighbors in the face
now? Obama will have an excuse for you tomorrow..
In our little town we have shops that
have been in business for 50yrs are boarded up.
Traveling 20 miles to a grocery store is a
hardship on the people. Do you libs even
understand when he comes out and tries to
cover this mess and make you think its better.
IF he changes this by Oct., I'll vomit,'cause
if he can now, hes screwed us for years.
I can feel the hurt, why can't you, or why
don't you care? Are you really Americans?
???

While I agree Obama's not doing much, what did Bush do? This occurred on his watch, like 9/11, but where's the solution? Why believe a President is going to work miracles and "change" something? Didn't you feel "screwed" by the 8 years of Bush failures, too?

Mothballs wrote:

<quoted text>
Off to an early day of rants, I see.
Tell us, does your source break down state vs federal "public sector employment"?
No?
Run along.

Troll.

Sly Faux wrote:

<quoted text>Gosh it must hurt to be as dumb as you. I hope Soros is paying you A LOT!

If YOU were paid more, you could afford a clue and post an intelligent reply. Maybe go see the boss?:)

PlacitasRoy wrote:

<quoted text>
I see you lack the intellectual capacity to rebut any of the FACTs I cited. But the cognitive dissonance FACTs create do cause 3rd grade responses by misinformed brainwashed teabaggers.

By "facts" you mean "lies", fleabagging doucher.

Kneegars and albino do not deserve jobs.

the westerner wrote:

<quoted text>
By "facts" you mean "lies", fleabagging doucher.

Since you came back with this hysterical rebuttle backed up with....nothing. I'm leaning toward his post being factual and you posting LIES.

Your dumbazz just don't get it. You lost the argument when you come back with stupid azz post like the one you gave.

Bleeting on this thread, with your spoon-fed, predigested, opinionated, talking points and nothing more.

Mothra wrote:

<quoted text>
Off to an early day of rants, I see.
Tell us, does your source break down state vs federal "public sector employment"?
No?
Run along.

When its nonstop, you can hardly say its off to...

River Veteran wrote:

<quoted text>
Since you came back with this hysterical rebuttle backed up with....nothing. I'm leaning toward his post being factual and you posting LIES.
Your dumbazz just don't get it. You lost the argument when you come back with stupid azz post like the one you gave.
Bleeting on this thread, with your spoon-fed, predigested, opinionated, talking points and nothing more.

Yet, oddly, you stick your big nose in.

harvey wrote:

<quoted text>
If YOU were paid more, you could afford a clue and post an intelligent reply. Maybe go see the boss?:)

Wisconsin is a precursor of Nov. bye bye Barry, back to Kenya or something..

River Veteran wrote:

<quoted text>
Since you came back with this hysterical rebuttle backed up with....nothing. I'm leaning toward his post being factual and you posting LIES.
Your dumbazz just don't get it. You lost the argument when you come back with stupid azz post like the one you gave.
Bleeting on this thread, with your spoon-fed, predigested, opinionated, talking points and nothing more.

Just for you, you old goat:

The unvarnished truth, part 2:

The current mortgage crisis came about in large part because of Clinton-era government pressure on lenders to make risky loans in order to “make homeownership more affordable for lower-income Americans and those with a poor credit history,” the DC Examiner notes today.“Those steps encouraged riskier mortgage lending by minimizing the role of credit histories in lending decisions, loosening required debt-to-equity ratios to allow borrowers to make small or even no down payments at all, and encouraging lenders the use of floating or adjustable interest-rate mortgages, including those with low ‘teasers.’”

The liberal Village Voice previously chronicled how Clinton Administration housing secretary Andrew Cuomo helped spawn the mortgage crisis through his pressure on lenders to promote affordable housing and diversity.“Andrew Cuomo, the youngest Housing and Urban Development secretary in history, made a series of decisions between 1997 and 2001 that gave birth to the country’s current crisis. He took actions that—in combination with many other factors—helped plunge Fannie and Freddie into the subprime markets without putting in place the means to monitor their increasingly risky investments.

He turned the Federal Housing Administration mortgage program into a sweetheart lender with sky-high loan ceilings and no money down, and he legalized what a federal judge has branded ‘kickbacks’ to brokers that have fueled the sale of overpriced and unsupportable loans. Three to four million families are now facing foreclosure, and Cuomo is one of the reasons why.”(See Wayne Barrett,“Andrew Cuomo and Fannie and Freddie: How the Youngest Housing and Urban Development Secretary in History Gave Birth to the Mortgage Crisis,” Village Voice, August 5, 2008).

Investors Business Daily had an editorial yesterday about how another federal “law designed to encourage minority homeownership” also contributed to the mortgage crisis by pressuring lenders to make risky loans..

River Veteran wrote:

<quoted text>
Since you came back with this hysterical rebuttle backed up with....nothing. I'm leaning toward his post being factual and you posting LIES.
Your dumbazz just don't get it. You lost the argument when you come back with stupid azz post like the one you gave.
Bleeting on this thread, with your spoon-fed, predigested, opinionated, talking points and nothing more.

You like facts, Dingus? I'll bury you with facts:



Breaking News for Black America

Friday, May 18
Home > Nation > He’s Back! Rev. Wright Says He Was Offered Hush Money By Obama Camp
He’s Back! Rev. Wright Says He Was Offered Hush Money By Obama Camp
May 13, 2012
147
By Kirsten West Savali

L-R: President Barack Obama, Rev. Jeremiah WrightIt’s election time and that means Reverend Jeremiah Wright is back on the scene. In 2008, the retired pastor of Trinity United Church of Christ in Chicago caused a maelstrom of controversy for then Senator Barack Obama as he fought Hillary Clinton in a furious battle for the Democratic nomination for president. Now, after being “betrayed” by his long-time church member and friend, Wright decided to confide in Edward Klein, author of the unauthorized Obama biography,“The Amateur,” that the Obama camp attempted to bribe him out of the pulpit via email.

Want to Keep Up With NewsOne.com ? LIKE Us On Facebook!

The New York Post reports:

“Who sent the e-mail?”[Klein] asked Wright.

“It was from one of Barack’s closest friends.”

“He offered you money?”

“Not directly,” Wright said.“He sent the offer to one of the members of the church, who sent it to me.”

“How much money did he offer you?”

“One hundred and fifty thousand dollars,” Wright said.

“Did Obama himself ever make an effort to see you?”

“Yes,” Wright said.“Barack said he wanted to meet me in secret, in a secure place. And I said,‘You’re used to coming to my home, you’ve been here countless times, so what’s wrong with coming to my home?’ So we met in the living room of the parsonage of Trinity United Church of Christ, at South Pleasant Avenue right off 95th Street, just Barack and me. I don’t know if he had a wire on him. His security was outside somewhere.

“And one of the first things Barack said was,‘I really wish you wouldn’t do any more public speaking until after the November election.’ He knew I had some speaking engagements lined up, and he said,‘I wish you wouldn’t speak. It’s gonna hurt the campaign if you do that.’

River Veteran wrote:

<quoted text>
Since you came back with this hysterical rebuttle backed up with....nothing. I'm leaning toward his post being factual and you posting LIES.
Your dumbazz just don't get it. You lost the argument when you come back with stupid azz post like the one you gave.
Bleeting on this thread, with your spoon-fed, predigested, opinionated, talking points and nothing more.

More facts, for the idiotic, dishonest, liars on the left to ignore:

Brokeback Barry hasn't fixed anything:

This “official unemployment rate” has been manipulated throughout the years. The current version does not include discouraged workers (those who stop looking for work, or no longer can qualify for unemployment benefits) and the underemployed (those who take part-time jobs just to get by).

Rep. Duncan D. Hunter, R-Calif., stated in The Washington Times,“The official unemployment rate treats this subset of Americans, totaling as many as 88 million people, as if they just vanished ... call it what it is, an accounting gimmick.”

So What Is the Real Number That Obama Would Prefer You Don’t See?

The real unemployment rate is an eye-opening 22.3%, according to John Williams with Shadow Government Statistics ... nearly triple the “official unemployment rate.”

But as alarming as this number is, certain experts — like Dick Morris, John Bolton, Lou Dobbs, Newt Gingrich, and Larry Kudlow — believe our economic situation could get much, MUCH worse.

Read more: Jobless rate is inaccurate as Obama Plays a Numbers Game