AEIdeas

The public policy blog of the American Enterprise Institute

Subscribe to the blog

Discussion: (79 comments)

  1. M Arlentino

    What an embarassment. When you’re done failing logical reasoning for the 1000th time, come back and let me know so you can actually learn something.

  2. Max Planck

    Jim is asking himself” “Where’s Beeks?”

    1. MacDaddyWatch

      Must be those eyes peering at you from between your legs.

  3. Arnold Ziffel
  4. John Mcaluney

    Middle Class is still buried.

  5. Max Planck

    Jim. I know it’s Friday, but its early. PUT THE BOTTLE BACK IN THE DESK DRAWER.

    Thanks.

    1. MacDaddyWatch

      And take the rumble-stick out of your sphincter.

  6. I think it is time that the Government revise how these numbers are calculated or at least become more transparent. It is stunning to see unemployment drop .3% when we all know the economy isn’t healing. I know you can slice and dice any way you want but I think Romney and Ryan need to start explaining this to the American People that don’t follow how these numbers work. They hit MSNBC or CNN and see unemployment at lowest levels in 4 years without seeing how that number was derived. Considering such a huge number were part-time or seasonal that needs to be stressed.

    In future debates I would honestly love a candidate be able to have a powerpoint presentation. Take this report. Everyone sees 7.8% Have Romney with the U-6 portion which explains what is going on. Have him with the breakdown of men, women, various minority groups and say is the country getting better, stagnating or getting worse? Americans aren’t stupid if given the facts. But if you just give one of a thousand numbers and say look, it is great, then we lying to the American people.

  7. CenterRightMargin

    114,000 new jobs is a bad number. It’s not enough to keep up with population growth. The fact that the UE rate went down by such a huge margin reeks of major changes in the way calculations are made at BLS – in short, corruption by the same administration that gets and ignores contempt of court orders, has the worst FOIA record of any Administration, lies about terrorist attacks, covers up fast and furious, disregards separation of powers, and tells companies to break the law by ignoring the WARN Act, promising funds to induce this lawbreaking, in violation of the anti-deficiency act.

    1. Max Planck

      Now that the numbers aren’t going your way, they are no longer useful to you, and it’s a short walk to calling them fabricated. This is the lunacy the AEI and its fellow travelers promotes.

      Were the numbers worse, you would be dancing on Obama’s political grave, and screaming “PROOF!”

      Again, the mass pyschosis of political self deluision will give this country nothing but problems for years to come.

      And its a bigger drag on our progress than any goddamned tax hike. You should see my Twitter feed- sick with pathologies.

      1. Don’t need to dance on Obama’s grave. He is still in critical condition after the beat down the other night. I expect we can dance in November, however.

        1. Max Planck

          I guess you’re right, since his poll numbers on Intrade and several others are now higher than they were pre-debate.

          Debates don’t win elections, and Romney lied through his teeth, anyway.

          “There are parts of Dodd-Frank that make PERFECT sense!”

          Really, Mitt? Why say so NOW?

          1. MAX Planck I don’t comment on blog sites but I had to this time. You must hate life just slamming anything someone comments on. You don’t have to agree. Make your point and move on. You’ve been on here for hours since you first posted at 9 am with the latest after 2 pm. It sounds like you are harboring some pain man!

          2. Ok, now you’re just lying. Have you checked RCP this morning?

            Also..

            http://economy.money.cnn.com/2012/10/04/romney-wins-debate-on-intrade/

      2. Your comment appears to be, too easily, a patently liberal defense mechanism. Just exactly what part of the above article do you refute and what evidence are you using to refute it?

      3. This is an interesting comment because it demonstrates a profound degree of ignorance and a truly stubborn kind of blindness.

        You’re cowardly implication above suggests that Mr. Pethokoukis specifically, and I assume Conservatives/Republicans generally, “use” BLS statistics as unimpeachable measures of truth when it suits his/our purpose, but discount them when they appear to offer evidence of “things” we don’t like (ostensibly, you’d charge, “we” don’t want to see the unemployment rate drop because Barack Obama’s in office).

        Nothing could be farther from the truth. In fact, here’s what Mr. Pethokoukis had to say all the way back in Aug. of 2012:

        “And if the size of the U.S. workforce, as measured by the Labor Department, had stayed constant since April—instead of shrinking by a million—the unemployment rate would be 10.4 percent.”
        –http://www.weeklystandard.com/articles/obamas-bad-bets

        Same logic and method of data analysis applied then as today. Again, in fact, we’ve been pointing out this exact kind of manipulation of the BLS statistics on a continuing and perpetual basis for years. Why? Because we see the manipulation when we look at the data! That’s one of the primary diffrences between one side of these discussions and the other. You don’t need to look deeper — if the news is already bad from your perspective, then looking deeper only gets more depressing because all you really care about in your cult of personality and preserving “His” image as the patron saint of all Leftist ideologies from Marxism to Fascism and everything in between

        You apparently see 7.8% and don’t feel any obligation what that number means, represents, or is arrived at. So, as when the news is bad in your view, when the news is good looking deeper actually introduces the risk that you’ll come face to face with the manipulation — which your fragile world-view couldn’t survive.

        Were the numbers worse, we’d still be pointing out how the official statistical measure nonetheless understates the depth of the problems our economy is facing, and how the numbers are still dishonest and manipulated. As it happens, we’re still showing you “PROOF” that recovery is being hampered by Democratic economic policies as we make a very solid case pertaining to the politically-motivated manipulation of information by a regime desperate to hold on to power.

        And you have the temerity to project your own dysfunctions (I.E. tendency towards self-deception) onto Mr. Pethokoukis???

        LOL. You Leftists are so cute! Frustratingly moronic, but cute. ;-)

        1. *Correction:
          I inaccurately dated the quote from the Weekly Standard as “Aug. 2012.”

          It was from Aug. 2010.

        2. Max Planck

          “You’re cowardly implication above suggests that Mr. Pethokoukis specifically, and I assume Conservatives/Republicans generally, “use” BLS statistics as unimpeachable measures of truth when it suits his/our purpose, but discount them when they appear to offer evidence of “things” we don’t like”

          I wasn’t “implying” it at all. Its the truth.

          Your statement is nonsense. The BLS sticks to a certain methodology, no matter who is in office, or who is making policy. I never assume the numbers provided are drop dead accurate, because obviously, we can’t ask every single employer in the nation how many people they hired. That doesn’t mean they’re manipulated, or suddenly untrustworthy.

          The numbers are not “manipulated.” The BLS deploys its methodologies and metrics on a consistent basis.

          More to the point, yes, our unemployment problem is not solved with this report. But it IS a positive one, and the upward revisions to last month are also positive.

          Your accusations of “manipulation” are baseless.

          Moreover, this statement is nonsense to even an amateur statistician:

          ““And if the size of the U.S. workforce, as measured by the Labor Department, had stayed constant since April—instead of shrinking by a million—the unemployment rate would be 10.4 percent.”

          The size of the US workforce NEVER “stays constant.” This is facile horsecrap. But this is the kind of duplicity Mr. Pethokoukis consistently deploys. I even wish he was better at it, because his efforts are so obviously strained.

          In any case, your draft dodging, tax evading Prince of Plutocrats is dead on arrival. Take that!

          1. Rainouart

            PROVE it’s the truth, Plunck Punk, you lying, paid troll with Soros’s d*** up your ass. That’s just your bigoted fascist stereotype of your betters.

            Your manipulations and the BLS’s are transparently obvious. The fact that your mental manipulation methodologies and their statistical-fraud “methodologies” are deployed “on a consistent basis” means nothing but that you’re both consistent manipulators. “Consistency” is merely the color of justification; con men are consistent too.

            It is manipulation to evade counting as “unemployed” those who have given up looking for work because they’ve given up hope that there’s any work out there — THESE DROPOUTS ARE STILL UNEMPLOYED, fuckwit. Yet the BLS’s BuLlShit methodology doesn’t “count” them as unemployed — a subtle manipulation the public can’t keep up with. That’s manipulative. Got it, con man!

            What’s finally proves conclusively that you’re a sneaking eggsucker with not one honest bone in your body from tip to toe is your patently phony excuse that “the size of the US workforce NEVER stays constant” — as if that were not PRECISELY OUR POINT!! — it has been constantly changing FOR THE WORSE under Obomination. Or as if it didn’t matter not only (1) which way that size is heading — DOWN DOWN DOWN under Obomination, but also (2) that this changing (i.e. shrinking) size didn’t render the Bulls**t Labor Statistics “methodology” and output even more outrageously manipulative, enabling Obomination to hide the true dimensions of his disastrous economic policies.

            Nice try, slick.

            Oh and by the way, pLunCk, your kind is never more manipulative than when faking up “polls” that oversample Democraps, some to such a ludicrous extent that it would take a Democrap turnout in this election HIGHER THAN THE 2008 turnout to match the poll results. Yeah, right. See you on Election Day, jerkoff.

            You know what else, Punk? A tinfoil hat would actually be a step up for you — it would hide your flat forehead. Go Heil Der Fuehrer all you want, your kind can’t win THIS election unless you STEAL it.

          2. Max Planck

            I tell you, the intellectual brilliance displayed on these forums blinds my eyes.

      4. MacDaddyWatch

        Jack Welch, GE’s last real CEO, called them fabricated. Do you think that Welch might know something about the subject?

        1. Max Planck

          Seeing that Welch’s methodologies about GEs earnings have been called into question over the years, maybe he’s just projecting.

          He has now gone from being the most over rated CEO in history to a mildly amusing angry old crank.

          1. MacDaddyWatch

            Changing the subject will never win points. I believe that the September jobs report was the subject.

            But I would agree, Jeff Immelt did a far more creative job managing GE’s books. Just look at the price of the stock since Welch left–explain that one Einstein !

        2. Max Planck

          The BLS has not, and never has, manipulated its data, and its an insult so lame, not even Mr. Pethokoukis has stooped to use it.

          GEs stock is in the tank because half of GE is a bank: GE Capital. And if you want to see example of REAL sub prime lending in commercial real estate, that’s Exhibit “A.”

          Which is why GE pays little or no tax, despite our “high 35% tax rate. They have enough real estate carryforward losses to last them quite some time.

          1. I am certainly not alleging cooking of the books, but please explain to me why you trust the government not to cook the books if you do not trust businesses to cook the books? I think with the government’s entitlement and baseline accounting, it is pretty clear that the government is no more trustworthy than business to be completely self-monitored.

          2. Max Planck

            The current Commissioner of the BLS is a Republican appointee. The wingnut commentariat is losing its grip on reality.

          3. Let me ask you this: did you trust government this implicitly when Bush was President?

        3. Max Planck

          Sir, I trust the statiticians at the BLS, most of whom are career people, and whose current leader is a Republican appointee. This idea of manipulation is one of utter desperation. You people thought that the debate tanked Obama (although polls said otherwise) and you saw a glimmer of hope. Now you have upward revisions all over the place, and it’s driving you all nuts.

          Pethokoukis has no fingernails left. And the day isn’t even over.

      5. Kent Crawford

        Max, you forget we are in the “silly season” when no government statistics can be trusted, for purely political reasons. This year they are starting early so Obama can crow for a whole month that his policies are working, which just makes a lie based on a lie. Expect the revision in late November, when BLS backtracks on its absurd “seasonal” and other non-valid adjustments. This is 1992 all over again…

      6. MacDaddyWatch

        Sorry, but your “cut and paste” numbers are screaming against YOU.

      7. Start thinking for yourself, use some logic and common sense and stop drinking the kool-aid, stop using the given talking points and you too will come up with your own doubts about this whole thing called the “administration”.

  8. Thank you for this well-reasoned factually supported information report.

    Some of the other user comments demonstrate how Leftist Democrats resort to ad hominen attacks and name-calling because they have no facts and logic to support their position, and they prefer to be intellectually dishonest than to admit they and their party and candidate (Obama) are dangerously wrong.

    That being said, Obama’s manipulation of the U-3 data is another possible reason for the decline in the less useful U-3 unemployment statistic, while the more important U-6 statistic remained the same at 14.7%.

    Obama, acting like an Imperial President and legislating from the White House, in violation of the Constitution and government Separation of Powers, ordered that the Welfare Reform Act requirement for welfare takers to look for work be dropped and no longer enforced.

    That Obama manipulation would decrease the U-3 but not the U-6 unemployment statistic.

    1. Ted Gambogi

      Amen

      1. Josh Frank

        Even though I was a Democrat, I can see the real situation around me- all the people I know who were unemployed or underemployed remain the same and some have just stopped looking. Not all Democrats lie:) To majority of us Americans-Democrats, Republicans or Independents, numbers dont really matter- botched or otherwise. We just want to see the country grow stronger. Sad to say that will not happen under the current administration.

  9. Tom Woods

    “Each year, the Current Employment Statistics (CES) survey employment estimates are benchmarked to comprehensive counts of employment for the month of March. These counts are derived from state unemployment insurance (UI) tax records that nearly all employers are required to file. For National CES employment series, the annual benchmark revisions over the last 10 years have averaged plus or minus three-tenths of one percent of Total nonfarm employment. The preliminary estimate of the benchmark revision indicates an upward adjustment to March 2012 Total nonfarm employment of 386,000 (0.3 percent).”

    There’s your change in U-3

    http://www.bls.gov/ces/cesprelbmk.htm

  10. Figures don’t lie, but liars do figure.

  11. Jimmy boy and his “let America fail” cronies put all their eggs in the 8% unemployment basket and it smacked them in the face.

    This spin is so pathetic.

    1. Not only do they obstruct the country, now they try to lie and obstruct reality.

  12. Maybe I’m a moron, but how does total employment rise by 873,000 when only 114,000 jobs were added to the economy? What does that even mean? And where did all these miraculous jobs come from, 35 days out from the election? If almost a million more people are working now, who hired them?

  13. Is there any chance James didn’t write this essay several days/weeks ago and just plugged in a number or two and hit “post.”

    His hatred of the current administration and his willingness to be a soulless hack for Arthur Brooks has been well-documented, but this piece is him just phoning it in

    1. Ted Gambogi

      Face it the numbers are cooked after the last debate. You’re seeing Chicago politics similar to Venuezela politics

      1. Max Planck

        Pass the tin foil hat…..

        1. I got a Obama Job – Every morning I dig five holes in my backyard. In the afternoon I re-fill these holes. To make sure I’m being productive I dig and fill different holes everyday. The pays not great, but…..!! What a country!!

          Anyone that believes the validity of the published employment number is a mouth-breather!!

          1. Weird, how actual government statistics show public employment has decreased during and after the recession.

            Your own “job” is the one where you swallow AEI and Limbaugh propaganda

        2. MacDaddyWatch

          The tin foil hat is on your messiah’s head.

    2. Is there any chance you didn’t write your statement a few days ago and simply hit post today.

      whether he has a soul or not or whether James loves or hates the administration has nothing to do with his post or article. He cited a series of numbers and drew conclusions from those numbers. if you say his numbers are wrong–show your math. if you say his number are right but his conclusions are wrong–say as much–with a logical explanation.

      I seriously doubt he wrote his post a few days ago because nobody expected this bull roar of a jobs report we got.

      1. You mean good news is a lie and bad news is the truth, because Obama is President?

        Congrats, you are now a contender for Jimmy’s job.

  14. And why do the Republicans, never seem to remind the people that Jan 2007 is when the Democrats took over full control of the house and Senate and in jan 2009 they had control of all 3 branches, that’s right when everything crashed… Get it out there, the people forget all too quickly …

    1. Ted Gambogi

      Amen to that

      1. Max Planck

        Because the roots of the crisis were not formed in January 2007, (which is when things began to get wobbly in housing) and it is the height of stupidity to think you can pull out a stopwatch and time the crash to the moment one person or the other took power. Its a dumb argument, made by dumb people. Pure internet garbage.

        1. MacDaddyWatch

          Yeah, everybody knows that the roots go all the way back to 1938 with the creation of Fannie Mae–the epicenter of the implosion.

          1. Max Planck

            Right, 1938- it just took 70 years to manifest itself.

            Wonder what planet THIS specimen came from.

          2. MacDaddyWatch

            Fannie was the epicenter…HUD and the the now governor of NY were the catalysts. HUD’s quotas (70%) home ownership) displace traditional lending criteria with a social agenda. Throw in a little community Reinvestment Act as amended by Bill Clinton in 1995, The croaking of Glass-Steagal in 1999 and wrong headed interest rate policies by a fed that kept rates too low for too long and you have KAAABOOOM!

            Cherry picking history will get you nowhere–I only provided the short-list.

          3. Max Planck

            Sir, once again, your narrative is nonsense. As constant followers of this board should know by now, CRA, nor Fannie or Freddie had anything to do with the housing crisis, but the lie is so widespread, people who follow this site because it confirms their prejudices are already brainwashed.

            http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/2011/07/why-wallison-is-wrong-about-the-genesis-of-the-u-s-housing-crisis/

            http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/2008/12/more-cra-idiocy/

            http://blogs.reuters.com/bethany-mclean/tag/fannie-mae/

            Anytime you want to discuss this matter, head to this link:

            http://www.aei-ideas.org/2012/10/what-romney-should-say-about-george-w-bush-in-the-next-debate/comment-page-1/#comment-190992

          4. MacDaddy Watch you nailed it exactly. All democrat policies, Community Reinvestment Act signed by Carter and put on steroids by Clinton. The main fault of the Republicans is they complained and were pushed back by Maxine Waters, and other dems, and the Republicans didn’t fight hard enough for what is right. Term limits is the answer.

          5. Max Planck

            Every word you wrote is a lie, including “and” and “the.” Please refer to the links I provided.

            Its comments like yours that prove how widely this myth has been disseminated.

          6. MacDaddyWatch

            And Einstein, please drop the “cut and paste” and learn to think on your feet. The market–the overwhelming majority of market indexes–says that your very bullish spin in the September is all HOGWASH. It says that you are wrong.

            Real dollars voting in the real world–the market–always trumps any agenda-driven “cut and paste” baloney that is usually. especially pure liberal propaganda and intellectual PUKE.

        2. Hey, Max, your ignorance and arrogance (what a combo!) are stunning. I notice you never actually engage Jim’s arguments in the article. And fortunately for you, he’s got enough class not to come on the board and kick your sorry arse to the curb where it belongs.

          1. Max Planck

            I engage Jim with almost each piece he writes, and NONE of the authors ever mix it up with the comments posted on this board. Not that I blame him, since most of of the posters are flaming idiots.

            What Jim spend Friday doing- presumably when he wasn’t counting the remainder of his Xanax supply- was trying to hose down what was a nicely positive jobs report. The upward revisions for prior months were welcome and the current month’s stats were good too. We’re in an upward trend, and for that, we should be happy. I am happy for anyone whose dignity and income is restored by his labor.

            As for “Jim,” he is a paid demagogue, and little else. If he’s so confident in his assertions, I’m here.

    2. Conservative320

      You are totally correct! Keep this reminder alive and out there for all to see!

  15. Sebastian

    One reads stories about how the campaigns have people who’s job is to monitor the blogs and put spin on what’s being said, but until I’d read some of the comments here I don’t believe I’ve ever seen a paid troll in the wild. Now I’m certain I have.

  16. MacDaddyWatch

    So if the 582,000 are part timers who might be working just one day or only one week per month, then their incomes are not growing and their spending will likewise lag. The bottom line is that the September jobs report is nothing more than a statistical event that will not contribute to economic growth–it will not buoy the “virtuous cycle” of economic growth: more jobs…more incomes…more spending…more business expansion and …more jobs…etc.

  17. A perfect example of Twain’s quote: “There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies and statistics.”
    When the Dept of Labor is willing to lie to help the re-election of Dear Leader, maybe it’s time to eliminate that department. If their numbers are simply based on who is in office and when the next election is taking place, there really is no reason to have the numbers at all.

  18. If anyone is interested in the unemployment series with a fixed LFPR I’ve posted it here:

    http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/585/romerchart.png/

    The chart includes a series with the LFPR falling due to the aging population as predicted in a publication from 2002).

  19. James,

    Someone has obviously hacked into your site and replaced it with an article from The Onion.

    This can’t be about this morning’s job numbers:

    Washington Post:

    By Neil Irwin, Updated: Friday, October 5, 11:50 AM

    The job market is finally showing some juice.

    The unemployment rate fell to 7.8 percent in September, the Labor Department said Friday, from 8.1 percent in July, its lowest since January 2009. It is a surprising show of improvement in a job market that had seemed listless in recent months. Unlike in August, the number improved for the right reasons: Not because people gave up looking for jobs, but because far more people reported having one.

    Employers reported creating 114,000 jobs in September, almost identical to analysts’ forecasts, but revisions to data from July and August brought improvement of that measure of the job market as well.

    Add it up, and what had seemed to be a summer lull in employment increasingly appears not to have been much of a lull at all.

    While it is that headline number — the drop in the unemployment rate — that will surely capture the most attention in the final weeks of a hard-fought presidential campaign, if anything the inner details of the survey on which it is based reveal an even rosier picture.

    The unemployment rate fell despite more people — 418,000 of them — entering the labor force. That brought the ratio of the American population with a job to its highest level since May 2010. Some 873,000 more Americans reported having jobs in the survey of households, and 456,000 fewer reported not having a job but wanting one.

    The timing was fortunate for President Obama’s reelection campaign, with the most closely followed barometer of economic health, the unemployment rate, falling back to the level it was when he was inaugurated.

    Obama appeared buoyant as he touted the report during a late morning campaign event in Northern Virginia. “This morning we found out the unemployment rate has fallen to the lowest level since I took office. More Americans entered the work force, more people are getting jobs,” the president said during a rally at George Mason University. “Now, every month reminds us we’ve still got too many of our friends and neighbors looking for work, too many middle-class families struggling to pay the bills.”

  20. This, like many comment boards, need to have a time limit on posting frequency. One post every 30 mins or longer.

    This would force people to think. Write it out. Post it and then STFU. Or we would get one drive-by and that would be it.

  21. Did they actually call millions of people to discover 873,000 American that “say they got a job”. How in one month do you make that many calls????

    Is this another statistical model with hair all over it?

    1. MacDaddyWatch

      No they don’t…they a few hundred and then their very powerful and magical statical models do the rest. Take a look at the household data versus the enterprise data over a long duration time. The household data looks like the EKG of a hummingbird.

      And they get PAID for that.

    2. Clint Jurgens

      Something like 50,000 households are polled- both by telephone and by census interviewers. The 873,000 number is extrapolated from the data resulting from the household polling. BLS will tell you that the small sample size will result in some error, and that you need to look at several months of data to see what the trend is. A single month data point doesn’t mean anything.

  22. Make up your mind, guys. The numbers can either be worse than people realize, or trumped up via administration conspiracy. They can’t be both.

  23. Substitute Bush for Obama in all of these discussions and imagine the reaction of the MSM to this latest “good” news. Bush was hammered when the unemployment rate was 5.2% and heading down. This is a case of who’s ox is being gored. The press is the same with gas prices. Just recall the sob stories that were highlighted when gas was $2.00/gallon under Bush. It was the end of the World. Now, hey, no one even notices it’s $4/gallon. Really? In what alternate universe?

    1. jamie pope

      Great observation!

  24. Ruckus_Tom

    Obama phone lady ain’t got no time fo charts ‘un stuff.

  25. R. Freedom

    So long good times
    Hello sad times
    They depleted our wealth so fast
    Bringing bad times
    And rising crimes
    Daze of misfortune that will last

    Carter daze are here again
    The skies above are gray again
    So, let’s sing a song of grief again
    Carter daze are here again

    All together, shout it now
    There’s no one
    Who can doubt it now
    So, let’s tell the world about it now
    Carter daze are here again!

  26. David Guill

    Ummm, thinking about what those 500,000+ part time jobs might by the only thing It can probably be are the College students going back to school and working in the cafeteria, student hall or student housing to help pay for their tuition. Who else would hire those numbers this time of year? So are they really jobs or is this more smoke and mirrors from an empty presidency. Why can’t these people be honest?

  27. Big truck joe

    I don’t see how there are 500,000+ part time self reported jobs created in September – far in advance of the Christmas season. What industry hires that amount of new PT hires before the holiday season? Retail is the only industry that could. I could understand these numbers in november or December but not September and October. Something is fishy.

  28. But this fails to show that corporate after tax profits are up near 2.6 times from what they were at the end of the Q4 in 2008 and the S&P is up over 70% for the same time period. Apparently companies are making money, they’re just not spending it on hiring workers or giving raises to their employees.

  29. @David and @Big truck joe,

    Those part time jobs “created” can actually represent full time employment moving to part-time employment rather than actual new jobs. If you look at part time employment data versus total employment data going back several decades, there have been times when part time jobs created have been greater than change in total employment; the only explanation is shifting from full time to part time.

    @David E,

    Companies are indeed making money. But with an uncertain regulatory framework (does anyone REALLY know how Dodd-Frank works?) and the Fed announcing unlimited QE, there’s no reason for companies to invest domestically.

  30. I’m sure you were concerned about the rising deficit and unemployment rate for the 8 years Bush was in office!! (sarcasim of course)But like all good Republican sheeple, I’m positive you sat there on your “sickly” butt making excuses for his actions while that administration destroyed this country’s economy!!!!!

Comments are closed.

Sort By:

Refine Content:

Scholar

Additional Keywords:

Refine Results

or to save searches.

Open
Refine Content