(08-07-2017 03:51 PM)UofMstateU Wrote:  

(08-07-2017 03:25 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  By the way...did any of you bother to compare the July 2017 report with past years monthly reports?

2017 - 209,000
2016 - 291,000
2015 - 254,000
2014 - 202,000

Or how about the year to date figures (Full months of Feb-July)?

2017 - 1,074,000
2016 - 1,246,000
2015 - 1,390,000
2014 - 1,504,000

https://data.bls.gov/timeseries/CES00000...w=net_1mth

No. I paid attention to the stock market.

Raging bull: 9 records in a row for the Dow
http://money.cnn.com/2017/08/07/investin...index.html

Meh, with the federal government continuing to pump dollars into the economy, think maybe the market is a place all those "extra" dollars are being stored?

Optimism is absolutely better with Trump.......and that helps.

Let's see if he can actually get Congress to enact some of his agenda or if the Demoncrats will lock step stonewall everything-even good ideas.

My money is on the latter. Need to do away with the 60 vote rule.

(08-07-2017 03:51 PM)UofMstateU Wrote:  

(08-07-2017 03:25 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  By the way...did any of you bother to compare the July 2017 report with past years monthly reports?

2017 - 209,000
2016 - 291,000
2015 - 254,000
2014 - 202,000

Or how about the year to date figures (Full months of Feb-July)?

2017 - 1,074,000
2016 - 1,246,000
2015 - 1,390,000
2014 - 1,504,000

https://data.bls.gov/timeseries/CES00000...w=net_1mth

No. I paid attention to the stock market.

Raging bull: 9 records in a row for the Dow
http://money.cnn.com/2017/08/07/investin...index.html

For the last 8 years we were told that the sr9ck market was hot because of Fed money pumped in or it was said that the stock market was not reflective of the overall economy. At least try and be consistent.

(08-07-2017 08:18 PM)fsquid Wrote:  

(08-07-2017 03:51 PM)UofMstateU Wrote:  

(08-07-2017 03:25 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  By the way...did any of you bother to compare the July 2017 report with past years monthly reports?

2017 - 209,000
2016 - 291,000
2015 - 254,000
2014 - 202,000

Or how about the year to date figures (Full months of Feb-July)?

2017 - 1,074,000
2016 - 1,246,000
2015 - 1,390,000
2014 - 1,504,000

https://data.bls.gov/timeseries/CES00000...w=net_1mth

No. I paid attention to the stock market.

Raging bull: 9 records in a row for the Dow
http://money.cnn.com/2017/08/07/investin...index.html

For the last 8 years we were told that the sr9ck market was hot because of Fed money pumped in or it was said that the stock market was not reflective of the overall economy. At least try and be consistent.

I am consistent. I never said that printing money wasnt part of it. But when those job numbers last month were much higher than expected, that also influenced the market.

You guys said the market would crash under Trump. At least try to admit failure on your part before lecturing anyone on the market.

(08-07-2017 05:44 PM)JMUDunk Wrote:  

(08-07-2017 04:52 PM)olliebaba Wrote:  2016 - 291,000
2015 - 254,000
2014 - 202,000

You're right, that's a lot of part time jobs.

What was that number? 90 some percent or so?

Source?

And I suppose you're going to try and pretend that all the jobs added last month were all full-time with increased salary? Even though wages remain stagnant?

C'mon man...stop being a cheerleader and start dealing in reality. You know...like you used to accuse others of?

(08-07-2017 10:17 PM)UofMstateU Wrote:  

(08-07-2017 08:18 PM)fsquid Wrote:  

(08-07-2017 03:51 PM)UofMstateU Wrote:  

(08-07-2017 03:25 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  By the way...did any of you bother to compare the July 2017 report with past years monthly reports?

2017 - 209,000
2016 - 291,000
2015 - 254,000
2014 - 202,000

Or how about the year to date figures (Full months of Feb-July)?

2017 - 1,074,000
2016 - 1,246,000
2015 - 1,390,000
2014 - 1,504,000

https://data.bls.gov/timeseries/CES00000...w=net_1mth

No. I paid attention to the stock market.

Raging bull: 9 records in a row for the Dow
http://money.cnn.com/2017/08/07/investin...index.html

For the last 8 years we were told that the sr9ck market was hot because of Fed money pumped in or it was said that the stock market was not reflective of the overall economy. At least try and be consistent.

I am consistent. I never said that printing money wasnt part of it. But when those job numbers last month were much higher than expected, that also influenced the market.

Consistent? Please point to one post you ever made giving Obama credit for beating jobs expectations in any one of the 75 months of continual job growth where expectations were beat...and there were plenty of opportunities IIRC. Thanks.

(08-07-2017 10:17 PM)UofMstateU Wrote:  You guys said the market would crash under Trump. At least try to admit failure on your part before lecturing anyone on the market.

Source?

(08-07-2017 10:17 PM)UofMstateU Wrote:  

(08-07-2017 08:18 PM)fsquid Wrote:  

(08-07-2017 03:51 PM)UofMstateU Wrote:  

(08-07-2017 03:25 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  By the way...did any of you bother to compare the July 2017 report with past years monthly reports?

2017 - 209,000
2016 - 291,000
2015 - 254,000
2014 - 202,000

Or how about the year to date figures (Full months of Feb-July)?

2017 - 1,074,000
2016 - 1,246,000
2015 - 1,390,000
2014 - 1,504,000

https://data.bls.gov/timeseries/CES00000...w=net_1mth

No. I paid attention to the stock market.

Raging bull: 9 records in a row for the Dow
http://money.cnn.com/2017/08/07/investin...index.html

For the last 8 years we were told that the sr9ck market was hot because of Fed money pumped in or it was said that the stock market was not reflective of the overall economy. At least try and be consistent.

I am consistent. I never said that printing money wasnt part of it. But when those job numbers last month were much higher than expected, that also influenced the market.

You guys said the market would crash under Trump. At least try to admit failure on your part before lecturing anyone on the market.

When did I say it would crash under Trump? I'm 100% equities.

(08-08-2017 09:09 AM)fsquid Wrote:  

(08-07-2017 10:17 PM)UofMstateU Wrote:  

(08-07-2017 08:18 PM)fsquid Wrote:  

(08-07-2017 03:51 PM)UofMstateU Wrote:  

(08-07-2017 03:25 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  By the way...did any of you bother to compare the July 2017 report with past years monthly reports?

2017 - 209,000
2016 - 291,000
2015 - 254,000
2014 - 202,000

Or how about the year to date figures (Full months of Feb-July)?

2017 - 1,074,000
2016 - 1,246,000
2015 - 1,390,000
2014 - 1,504,000

https://data.bls.gov/timeseries/CES00000...w=net_1mth

No. I paid attention to the stock market.

Raging bull: 9 records in a row for the Dow
http://money.cnn.com/2017/08/07/investin...index.html

For the last 8 years we were told that the sr9ck market was hot because of Fed money pumped in or it was said that the stock market was not reflective of the overall economy. At least try and be consistent.

I am consistent. I never said that printing money wasnt part of it. But when those job numbers last month were much higher than expected, that also influenced the market.

You guys said the market would crash under Trump. At least try to admit failure on your part before lecturing anyone on the market.

When did I say it would crash under Trump? I'm 100% equities.

You didn't. But good luck getting that poster to admit it. He'll likely ignore our demand for proof and/or deflect with some lame insult. That's because he has no integrity.

(08-08-2017 09:11 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(08-08-2017 09:09 AM)fsquid Wrote:  

(08-07-2017 10:17 PM)UofMstateU Wrote:  

(08-07-2017 08:18 PM)fsquid Wrote:  

(08-07-2017 03:51 PM)UofMstateU Wrote:  No. I paid attention to the stock market.

Raging bull: 9 records in a row for the Dow
http://money.cnn.com/2017/08/07/investin...index.html

For the last 8 years we were told that the sr9ck market was hot because of Fed money pumped in or it was said that the stock market was not reflective of the overall economy. At least try and be consistent.

I am consistent. I never said that printing money wasnt part of it. But when those job numbers last month were much higher than expected, that also influenced the market.

You guys said the market would crash under Trump. At least try to admit failure on your part before lecturing anyone on the market.

When did I say it would crash under Trump? I'm 100% equities.

You didn't. But good luck getting that poster to admit it. He'll likely ignore our demand for proof and/or deflect with some lame insult. That's because he has no integrity.

Grow a pair. I'm done handing you research for you to go and ignore.

And when I said "you guys", I didnt point to one person. Just to one side. And your side said the markets would crash.

The links are readily available. Research. I'm ont digging back up common knowledge postings.

(08-08-2017 09:54 AM)UofMstateU Wrote:  

(08-08-2017 09:11 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(08-08-2017 09:09 AM)fsquid Wrote:  

(08-07-2017 10:17 PM)UofMstateU Wrote:  

(08-07-2017 08:18 PM)fsquid Wrote:  For the last 8 years we were told that the sr9ck market was hot because of Fed money pumped in or it was said that the stock market was not reflective of the overall economy. At least try and be consistent.

I am consistent. I never said that printing money wasnt part of it. But when those job numbers last month were much higher than expected, that also influenced the market.

You guys said the market would crash under Trump. At least try to admit failure on your part before lecturing anyone on the market.

When did I say it would crash under Trump? I'm 100% equities.

You didn't. But good luck getting that poster to admit it. He'll likely ignore our demand for proof and/or deflect with some lame insult. That's because he has no integrity.

Grow a pair. I'm done handing you research for you to go and ignore.

And when I said "you guys", I didnt point to one person. Just to one side. And your side said the markets would crash.

The links are readily available. Research. I'm ont digging back up common knowledge postings.

Typical..another fail. But of course there was likely someone predicting gloom and doom, that's hardly anything one needs to do any research on! And sure, you didn't mention anyone specifically, but you immediately after that said this:

Quote:At least try to admit failure on your part before lecturing anyone on the market.

So, you can't point to one instance of anyone here saying what you claimed, yet you want us to admit failure and/or apologize for something we didn't say just because someone else that shares the same political ideology may have said that?

That's really the standard you want to apply to posters here?

I highly doubt it.

Tom.. I just realized something.. While I agreed with you over the numbers you listed (again, the numbers aren't as good as they the last 3 years)... And I'm going to add something I didn't pay attention to this when I read it the first time:

Trumps' first 6 months:
216 232 50 207 145 231(P) 209(P) = 1,074,000 jobs created (again, the last two are projections)

Obama's first 6 months:
17 -84 -78 -210 -186 -162 -213 = 4,154,000 jobs lost..

So you can argue there are two entirely different arguments going on in the numbers debate.

Trump's start not giving as good numbers as Obama's ending numbers.
Trump's starting numbers better than Obama's starting numbers.

(08-07-2017 03:25 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  Or how about the year to date figures (Full months of Feb-July)?

2017 - 1,074,000
2016 - 1,246,000
2015 - 1,390,000
2014 - 1,504,000

https://data.bls.gov/timeseries/CES00000...w=net_1mth

So you are admitting that after 5 years of Obama, we started to see a nearly double digit falloff in year over year job growth under Obama?

Sounds like Trump showed up just in time.

(08-08-2017 10:52 AM)DaSaintFan Wrote:  Tom.. I just realized something.. While I agreed with you over the numbers you listed (again, the numbers aren't as good as they the last 3 years)... And I'm going to add something I didn't pay attention to this when I read it the first time:

Trumps' first 6 months:
216 232 50 207 145 231(P) 209(P) = 1,074,000 jobs created (again, the last two are projections)

Obama's first 6 months:
17 -84 -78 -210 -186 -162 -213 = 4,154,000 jobs lost..

So you can argue there are two entirely different arguments going on in the numbers debate.

Trump's start not giving as good numbers as Obama's ending numbers.
Trump's starting numbers better than Obama's starting numbers.

Of course...but we're not in a recession now. We were when Obama took over. Comparing those two mean little. The most valid comparison is Obama's last 6 with Trump's first 6. And there's not much difference there. And one is not really to be expected either as no major policies have changed in that time.

(08-08-2017 11:03 AM)UofMstateU Wrote:  

(08-07-2017 03:25 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  Or how about the year to date figures (Full months of Feb-July)?

2017 - 1,074,000
2016 - 1,246,000
2015 - 1,390,000
2014 - 1,504,000

https://data.bls.gov/timeseries/CES00000...w=net_1mth

So you are admitting that after 5 years of Obama, we started to see a nearly double digit falloff in year over year job growth under Obama?

Sounds like Trump showed up just in time.

Those aren't yearly figures. They are just for the months of February through July. I did not look at nor have I spoken to the year over year figures.

(08-08-2017 11:43 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(08-08-2017 11:03 AM)UofMstateU Wrote:  

(08-07-2017 03:25 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  Or how about the year to date figures (Full months of Feb-July)?

2017 - 1,074,000
2016 - 1,246,000
2015 - 1,390,000
2014 - 1,504,000

https://data.bls.gov/timeseries/CES00000...w=net_1mth

So you are admitting that after 5 years of Obama, we started to see a nearly double digit falloff in year over year job growth under Obama?

Sounds like Trump showed up just in time.

Those aren't yearly figures. They are just for the months of February through July. I did not look at nor have I spoken to the year over year figures.

I didnt say yearly figures. I said year over year. You posted year over year figures for the months Feb-July. And under Obama, they were going south.

(08-08-2017 11:55 AM)UofMstateU Wrote:  

(08-08-2017 11:43 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(08-08-2017 11:03 AM)UofMstateU Wrote:  

(08-07-2017 03:25 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  Or how about the year to date figures (Full months of Feb-July)?

2017 - 1,074,000 trump
2016 - 1,246,000 Obama
2015 - 1,390,000 Obama
2014 - 1,504,000 Obama

https://data.bls.gov/timeseries/CES00000...w=net_1mth

So you are admitting that after 5 years of Obama, we started to see a nearly double digit falloff in year over year job growth under Obama?

Sounds like Trump showed up just in time.

Those aren't yearly figures. They are just for the months of February through July. I did not look at nor have I spoken to the year over year figures.

I didnt say yearly figures. I said year over year. You posted year over year figures for the months Feb-July. And under Obama, they were going south.

Correct...but that still makes no sense. trump's figures are less than Obama's recent figures for that time period. He's not making things better just based on this one indicator. Sorry.

(08-08-2017 12:45 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(08-08-2017 11:55 AM)UofMstateU Wrote:  

(08-08-2017 11:43 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(08-08-2017 11:03 AM)UofMstateU Wrote:  

(08-07-2017 03:25 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  Or how about the year to date figures (Full months of Feb-July)?

2017 - 1,074,000 trump
2016 - 1,246,000 Obama
2015 - 1,390,000 Obama
2014 - 1,504,000 Obama

https://data.bls.gov/timeseries/CES00000...w=net_1mth

So you are admitting that after 5 years of Obama, we started to see a nearly double digit falloff in year over year job growth under Obama?

Sounds like Trump showed up just in time.

Those aren't yearly figures. They are just for the months of February through July. I did not look at nor have I spoken to the year over year figures.

I didnt say yearly figures. I said year over year. You posted year over year figures for the months Feb-July. And under Obama, they were going south.

Correct...but that still makes no sense. trump's figures are less than Obama's recent figures for that time period. He's not making things better just based on this one indicator. Sorry.

He needs time to make things better. The numbers you posted for Obama was after he had been in office FOR FIVE YEARS.

(08-08-2017 01:51 PM)UofMstateU Wrote:  

(08-08-2017 12:45 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(08-08-2017 11:55 AM)UofMstateU Wrote:  

(08-08-2017 11:43 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(08-08-2017 11:03 AM)UofMstateU Wrote:  So you are admitting that after 5 years of Obama, we started to see a nearly double digit falloff in year over year job growth under Obama?

Sounds like Trump showed up just in time.

Those aren't yearly figures. They are just for the months of February through July. I did not look at nor have I spoken to the year over year figures.

I didnt say yearly figures. I said year over year. You posted year over year figures for the months Feb-July. And under Obama, they were going south.

Correct...but that still makes no sense. trump's figures are less than Obama's recent figures for that time period. He's not making things better just based on this one indicator. Sorry.

He needs time to make things better. The numbers you posted for Obama was after he had been in office FOR FIVE YEARS.

Nobody is denying that. My point in all this is that trump is taking a victory lap on numbers that indicate a decline. That's not smart wouldn't you agree...as I'm sure you're aware it's a decline and aren't fooled by their political spin, right?

(08-08-2017 01:54 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(08-08-2017 01:51 PM)UofMstateU Wrote:  

(08-08-2017 12:45 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(08-08-2017 11:55 AM)UofMstateU Wrote:  

(08-08-2017 11:43 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  Those aren't yearly figures. They are just for the months of February through July. I did not look at nor have I spoken to the year over year figures.

I didnt say yearly figures. I said year over year. You posted year over year figures for the months Feb-July. And under Obama, they were going south.

Correct...but that still makes no sense. trump's figures are less than Obama's recent figures for that time period. He's not making things better just based on this one indicator. Sorry.

He needs time to make things better. The numbers you posted for Obama was after he had been in office FOR FIVE YEARS.

Nobody is denying that. My point in all this is that trump is taking a victory lap on numbers that indicate a decline. That's not smart wouldn't you agree...as I'm sure you're aware it's a decline and aren't fooled by their political spin, right?

Trump is reporting numbers that are higher than expected. That is good news, wouldnt you say?

(08-09-2017 08:39 AM)UofMstateU Wrote:  

(08-08-2017 01:54 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(08-08-2017 01:51 PM)UofMstateU Wrote:  

(08-08-2017 12:45 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(08-08-2017 11:55 AM)UofMstateU Wrote:  I didnt say yearly figures. I said year over year. You posted year over year figures for the months Feb-July. And under Obama, they were going south.

Correct...but that still makes no sense. trump's figures are less than Obama's recent figures for that time period. He's not making things better just based on this one indicator. Sorry.

He needs time to make things better. The numbers you posted for Obama was after he had been in office FOR FIVE YEARS.

Nobody is denying that. My point in all this is that trump is taking a victory lap on numbers that indicate a decline. That's not smart wouldn't you agree...as I'm sure you're aware it's a decline and aren't fooled by their political spin, right?

Trump is reporting numbers that are higher than expected. That is good news, wouldnt you say?

Was it good news when it happened to Obama? I never remember you ever saying that.

(08-09-2017 09:29 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(08-09-2017 08:39 AM)UofMstateU Wrote:  

(08-08-2017 01:54 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(08-08-2017 01:51 PM)UofMstateU Wrote:  

(08-08-2017 12:45 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  Correct...but that still makes no sense. trump's figures are less than Obama's recent figures for that time period. He's not making things better just based on this one indicator. Sorry.

He needs time to make things better. The numbers you posted for Obama was after he had been in office FOR FIVE YEARS.

Nobody is denying that. My point in all this is that trump is taking a victory lap on numbers that indicate a decline. That's not smart wouldn't you agree...as I'm sure you're aware it's a decline and aren't fooled by their political spin, right?

Trump is reporting numbers that are higher than expected. That is good news, wouldnt you say?

Was it good news when it happened to Obama? I never remember you ever saying that.

I seem to recall most of Obamas numbers were revised downwards, especially those in the months leading up to his re-election. And remember when some of the states refused to report their numbers because they knew they would be bad?

Also, is it really good news that Obama only lost 823,000 jobs in one month versus the 799,000 loss it actually was?