203,000 New Jobs Last Month

[bobabode]

http://www.latimes.com/business/mone...#axzz2mjXebZ3N

Hmmmm. maybe we will be below that 7% unemployed number by New Years. Cool.

[bobabode]

Wall St. reacts -

"The Fed's program has helped fuel this year's stock rally, which has lifted the Dow 22% as of Friday afternoon.
“The Street is waking up to the fact that good news really is good news, not bad news," said Alan Whitman, managing director at Morgan Stanley Wealth Management in Pasadena. “It means the economy is able to carry itself on its own, and that’s really what we want.”"


http://www.latimes.com/business/mone...#ixzz2mjbkldii

[bobabode]

Damn, the LA Times sure seems optimistic these days. Must be all them granola crunchin' hippies they have on staff.

http://www.latimes.com/business/mone...#axzz2mjehvJFx

[bobabode]

Here too. 3rd quarter grow adjusted to +3.6%. So much for horror stories that the Repubs have been rolling out of their think tanks, these days. I guess the Kenyan born soshulist is having a hard time tanking the U.S. economy?

http://www.latimes.com/business/mone...#axzz2mjehvJFx

[whell]

41% of new new jobs were gov't jobs.

http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/...ere-government

[bobabode]

Originally Posted by whell

41% of new new jobs were gov't jobs.

http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/...ere-government

So what? Didn't we shed millions of government jobs due to the shrub's cronies tanking the economy?

edit- betcha a lot of 'em were for Healthcare navigators.

[whell]

Originally Posted by bobabode

So what? Didn't we shed millions of government jobs due to the shrub's cronies tanking the economy?

edit- betcha a lot of 'em were for Healthcare navigators.

Wouldn't surprise me.

The "so what" is: where is the money coming from to pay the gov't workers? If there's still anemic economic growth, and private sector employment isn't rising at a sustainable level, then there's not enough income tax money to fund the increased gov't employment.

[bobabode]

Originally Posted by whell

Wouldn't surprise me.

The "so what" is: where is the money coming from to pay the gov't workers? If there's still anemic economic growth, and private sector employment isn't rising at a sustainable level, then there's not enough income tax money to fund the increased gov't employment.

Respectfully, that's bullcrap. The deficit is lower than anytime since WWII. I wish they would increase deficit spending at this time, it worked for FDR. Particularly since the party of "NO!" can't even pass a Farm Bill or really anything else other than to rename a few Post Offices.

[whell]

Originally Posted by bobabode

Respectfully, that's bullcrap. The deficit is lower than anytime since WWII. I wish they would increase deficit spending at this time, it worked for FDR. Particularly since the party of "NO!" can't even pass a Farm Bill or really anything else other than to rename a few Post Offices.

As I asked, and as you've not answered: Who's going to pay for it?

[icenine]

Originally Posted by whell

Wouldn't surprise me.

The "so what" is: where is the money coming from to pay the gov't workers? If there's still anemic economic growth, and private sector employment isn't rising at a sustainable level, then there's not enough income tax money to fund the increased gov't employment.

that is basically the Hoover program to fight the Depression.......and look how it worked.

By you analysis if you were a doctor and had a patient who was bleeding to death instead of stopping the bleeding you would cut off the oxygen too....making death come much quicker.

you would not be a doctor I want to see.

your insane Whell


I mean at my MAC state university they taught macroeconics...Michigan State did not? lol