Breaking News-Unemployment rate falls to 8.5 percent

navycpo7 wrote:

The Liberals GOP Twin wrote:

LadyJazzer wrote: But, that's what you guys wanted... CUT, CUT, CUT... Screw the people that get cut.. as long as the deficit is reduced! Whassamatta U? All of a sudden if it's people getting cut that you don't want to see cut, it's a "bad thing"? But if it's people that you are for cutting, it's okay?

I have no problem with these military people getting cut and losing their jobs... do you?

well I do have a problem with it. So the wars that CIVILIANS started and because we needed to increase the force levels they did so quickly. So now we get told Sorry we used and abused you, sent you into combat, and now the hell with you we don't need you anymore.

BULLSH*T, so what about those that are good enough to possibly have a career. Where we need to start is with all those useless civilians sitting around all the congress persons office. Reduce them down. then we can start with all the different dept From State dept all the way through the DOD, get rid of all those who are duplicating jobs.
Then and only after that is done should we start talking about the military. Alot will retire anyway. Many more will get out through normal attritition. I for one am damn tired of hearing how the Military needs to shoulder the lack of ability of the idiots up in congress who cannot do their own damn jobs. Hell we can't even get a balanced budget on time. There is alot of other areas within DOD that can also be looked at to save billions of dollars.

Of course the socialists like Lady Jazzer wants to see a weakened military. Anything to speed up the decline of the United States and speeding up the eventual distribution of 250 years of wealth and worldly standing... she didn't work for it... why should she care about giving it up. I say get rid of all socialist and let Marx sort them out later.

More jobs? But they are mostly crappy temp service jobs like what Perry created in Texas right?

You wish....

Anyone following the news in the past two years in particular knows that there ARE major cuts coming in DOD. Some cuts are needed, others are excessive. The Pentagon is trying to find a delicate way to do the cuts, minimizing the impact on its troops but there will be pain no matter what. I hope they cut weapon systems as well as people. Cutting military personnel is quick and has relatively few political implications, as those who serve don't really have much political clout. Cutting weapons programs in any district will face the wrath of those senators and congressmen because those cuts mean people losing jobs too. There are no easy solutions...but I CAN tell you the military is about to take a big hit in the next two years so fasten your seatbelts.

As for the so-called drop in unemployment, the Huffington Post says it best,

Nationwide, the unemployment rate fell to 8.6 percent in November, the lowest level in 2 ½ years. Employers added about 120,000 net jobs. Still, a big reason the unemployment rate fell was because more people said they have given up on their job searches and dropped out of the work force.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/01/0 ... s_With_The

So yes, the Administration and its bean counters can brag about reduced "unemployment numbers" but the reality is that on Main Street people are giving up on the current job market.

What's interesting is that ALL top ten worst unemployment cities are in California...a state with incredible potential to put people to work...while the top ten best employment cities are almost exclusively in the Midwest/breadbasket. It would be interesting to run this to ground and figure out why there are so many people unemployed in California while places like North Dakota, Nebraska and Iowa are doing so well.

Regardless of WHY, we all know that California, like New York and Michigan, will be solidly behind re-electing the current Administration no matter what. But at least they will have plenty of time to go to the polls as long as they can afford the gas to get there. That, my friends, is the definition of blind loyalty.

It seems if I need the truth, all I have to do is read the Huffington Post.

By and large it was lower-paying postions that saw the most job gains, like those found in the service sector, a truth that helped undo losses felt by groups hardest hit by the Great Recession. But any private-sector gains were countered by big losses in government positions, which accounted for roughly a third of all layoffs last year. Overall, the public sector cut 183,064 jobs last year.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/01/0 ... nstruction

So I have to wonder how putting more and more people to work in low paying jobs with little to no benefits helps to close the economic gap between the 1% and the 99%? How does that work?

lionshead2010 wrote: It seems if I need the truth, all I have to do is read the Huffington Post.

By and large it was lower-paying postions that saw the most job gains, like those found in the service sector, a truth that helped undo losses felt by groups hardest hit by the Great Recession. But any private-sector gains were countered by big losses in government positions, which accounted for roughly a third of all layoffs last year. Overall, the public sector cut 183,064 jobs last year.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/01/0 ... nstruction

So I have to wonder how putting more and more people to work in low paying jobs with little to no benefits helps to close the economic gap between the 1% and the 99%? How does that work?

It doesn't. It keeps those lower paid people obligated to other government handouts... which I don't blame them for taking... but it's the way the left likes it. Keep them poor, keep them entitled and keep them obligated to vote for the socialists. That's why the left is happy with those job numbers.

The Liberals GOP Twin wrote:

lionshead2010 wrote: It seems if I need the truth, all I have to do is read the Huffington Post.

By and large it was lower-paying postions that saw the most job gains, like those found in the service sector, a truth that helped undo losses felt by groups hardest hit by the Great Recession. But any private-sector gains were countered by big losses in government positions, which accounted for roughly a third of all layoffs last year. Overall, the public sector cut 183,064 jobs last year.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/01/0 ... nstruction

So I have to wonder how putting more and more people to work in low paying jobs with little to no benefits helps to close the economic gap between the 1% and the 99%? How does that work?

It doesn't. It keeps those lower paid people obligated to other government handouts... which I don't blame them for taking... but it's the way the left likes it. Keep them poor, keep them entitled and keep them obligated to vote for the socialists. That's why the left is happy with those job numbers.

Quick.......define socialist. Oh, that's right. You won't because you so enjoy throwing crap around that you have absolutely no clue about. Your devolution into the inane and ridiculous continues unabated.

zhawke wrote:

The Liberals GOP Twin wrote:

lionshead2010 wrote: It seems if I need the truth, all I have to do is read the Huffington Post.

By and large it was lower-paying postions that saw the most job gains, like those found in the service sector, a truth that helped undo losses felt by groups hardest hit by the Great Recession. But any private-sector gains were countered by big losses in government positions, which accounted for roughly a third of all layoffs last year. Overall, the public sector cut 183,064 jobs last year.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/01/0 ... nstruction

So I have to wonder how putting more and more people to work in low paying jobs with little to no benefits helps to close the economic gap between the 1% and the 99%? How does that work?

It doesn't. It keeps those lower paid people obligated to other government handouts... which I don't blame them for taking... but it's the way the left likes it. Keep them poor, keep them entitled and keep them obligated to vote for the socialists. That's why the left is happy with those job numbers.

Quick.......define socialist. Oh, that's right. You won't because you so enjoy throwing crap around that you have absolutely no clue about. Your devolution into the inane and ridiculous continues unabated.

Hey hippie... don't get smart mouthed with me... none of the moderators are going to come and hold your "leetle" hand for you.

zhawke wrote: Quick.......define socialist. Oh, that's right. You won't because you so enjoy throwing crap around that you have absolutely no clue about. Your devolution into the inane and ridiculous continues unabated.

Yes it does... because evidently you're the only one here who seems to have no knowledge of the definition of socialist. The word and every thing it connotes is not a problem for anyone else... not even the other socialist here. ANd you're silly little rants and insults are not going to stop me from speaking my mind. Have a nice Sunday socialist.

The Liberals GOP Twin wrote:

zhawke wrote: Quick.......define socialist. Oh, that's right. You won't because you so enjoy throwing crap around that you have absolutely no clue about. Your devolution into the inane and ridiculous continues unabated.

Yes it does... because evidently you're the only one here who seems to have no knowledge of the definition of socialist. The word and every thing it connotes is not a problem for anyone else... not even the other socialist here. ANd you're silly little rants and insults are not going to stop me from speaking my mind. Have a nice Sunday socialist.

Nice deflection, fascist. Wouldn't want you to stop speaking your mind - if you had one. Your devolution into the inane and ridiculous continues unabated.