Jobless claims are at their lowest levels since 1969. 199K.
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/arti...excludes-u-s-shutdown-victims?srnd=markets-vp
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/arti...excludes-u-s-shutdown-victims?srnd=markets-vp
Jobless Claims at 5-Decade Low
- Thread starter SDBoiler1
- Start date
Wait - I thought America was going to crumble when Trump got elected???
Remember all of the articles like this one?
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/nov/10/will-trump-destroy-america
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/nov/10/will-trump-destroy-america
All that want to work have jobs. Those who Obama allowed to stay home for two years and draw government subsidies found their new haven in supporting more free stuff. MILLIONS of good paying jobs unfilled across America. Signs at every plant, "HELP WANTED". Millions of able-bodied laying at home waiting on their Obama checks.
Also, federal workers are conspicuously absent from these numbers but we really shouldn't expect Trumpers to understand data.
Also, if there’s no reference to Hillary’s emails or Benghazi then it’s clearly fake news.
In the meantime, I’m gonna hop on over to the grocery store, fill up my cart and tell Kroger hey I’ll pay you back if I feel like it since that’s what the Cheeto said folks that have been furloughed could probably do.
Of course that’s your response. When you’re in the corner and can’t find a way out, that’s the Trumptard response.
It is amazing the hate for Trump. Good news on the unemployment numbers and they attack. They are still waiting on the factual news against Trump. Now we are arresting Stone because he lied. Going to destroy him like Flynn. These guys really swayed our vote.
https://www.investing.com/economic-calendar/initial-jobless-claims-294
Look at the overall trend, wanting to take small snapshots of information and attribute it solely to Trump is a mistake.
Can you remember back to December when Republicans held the House, Senate and Presidency? When the House and Senate passed bills but Trump refused to sign and shut down the government instead? Is a month too far back to remember what happened?
Last edited:
It's cute when the dumbest person on this board (by a wide margin) questions others intelligence. If nothing else, you do make me chuckle.
So does that mean you can or can't remember back to a whole month ago and what happened? Either you can remember and are purposefully being dense or you can't remember and that's a whole other issue. It must suck when those pesky facts keep getting in the way of all of your arguments.
Doesn’t it hurt your back from constantly moving the goalposts dude?
Wanna talk about the loopholes where they don’t count people who are unemployed or massively underemployed? The same that we’re used under obama ?
“Unemployment is a totally phony number.”
“The unemployment number, as you know, is totally fiction.”
“The numbers are phony. These are all phony numbers. Numbers given to politicians to look good. These are phony numbers.”
“The unemployment number, as you know, is totally fiction.”
“The numbers are phony. These are all phony numbers. Numbers given to politicians to look good. These are phony numbers.”
Even when there are receipts, Trumps base breaks out the revisionist history. It’s kind of amazing really.
The fool took the exact same deal that was there 35 days ago, except he lost even more support from his base and independents for his pointless stunt. At this point, the only Trump supporters left are the ones that have been so indoctrinated over the years that they would drink poison koolaid if he asked them to.
Uh, no. He has a deal to now to work on border security, including a barrier. Previously, the Ds would not even talk to the Rs about that. In order for border security and immigration reform to happen both parties need to work together.
Who knows. Things could break down again after 3 weeks and Trump could declare a national emergency, which would then trigger multiple lawsuits, especially in the 9th Circuit. You know, the one that constantly gets overturned by the Supreme Court because the 9th Circuit tries to legislate from the bench and doesn't seem to have a good grasp of the Constitution or the separation of powers doctrine.
Again, you have the false propaganda about the 9th Circuit down pat. You hear something through a fake news outlet and just run with it. What kind of self examination will it take to be constantly wrong but never admit it?
This is false propaganda? Of course you'll try to cite left-wing funded "fact checkers" like snopes and politifact, but the reality is 80% of the Ninth District's cases that were reviewed by the USSC between 1999 - 2008 were either reversed or vacated. The 9th Circuit had by far more cases reviewed by the USSC during that period than any other district. 9th had 140 reversed or vacated and the next closest (6th Circuit) had 51! The Federal District had a slightly higher rate of cases reversed or vacated at 83%, on a much lower number of cases reviewed overall (30).
Maybe you're the one who is citing propaganda and not facts. Are you going to dispute numbers from the American Bar Association?
https://www.americanbar.org/content...azine/LandslideJan2010_Hofer.authcheckdam.pdf
Why would the dems challenge it in court? Wouldn't that be a free ticket to put gun controls in place and while they're at it they can declare climate change a national emergency. I think we're sliding down a slippery slope.
So of the less than 1/10 of 1 percent of cases that were reviewed, having roughly 80% of those overturned is "constantly overturned for legislating from the bench." If that were true than I'd think that they'd have to review more than 1 tenth of 1 percent. Newer date from 2010-2015 showed the 6th and 11th Circuit's to have the highest percentage of reversals. You've once again cherry picked one data point and turned that into an elaborate story to fit a narrative. I don't blame you, it's what the right wing propaganda does and you've once again went along with it hook, line, and sinker. The next time you hear a definitive claim like that from Rush or Hannity, take just a little bit of time and look into it.
You really make this too easy. lol
Last edited:
What a blatant case of attempting to use statistics to support a position to which they are not relevant. Your opinion is that they "legislate from the bench" but the statistics (and I am confident the language of the cases themselves) in no way show that is occurring, only that the Supreme Court has for some reason specific to each individual case disagreed with the 9th Circuit during the selected time frame in .1226% of the total cases resolved by the 9th Circuit. That means the Supreme Court has found no error in 99.8774% of the 9th Circuits opinions. Those numbers are a far cry from them being constantly overturned as you allege.
Yet, the 9th Circuit was shown to have a higher rate of cases reviewed, reversed and/or vacated than the other circuits based on the data provided.
So you're arguing such serves to validate your assertion of the 9th Circuit being "the one that constantly gets overturned by the Supreme Court," while your own cited statistics demonstrate an adverse action by the Supreme Court in 140 of the 9th Circuit's 114,199 decided cases (.1226% rate).
Got it. Great argument. Guess you got me there with those stats.
You seem to not comprehend something basic here. The USSC doesn't have the bandwith to review 60,000 cases a year itself. They review and rule on the ones they believe have or may have errors in the lower court rulings. Usually, law clerks help tee up cases which seem to have or do have questionable rulings in the lower courts.
On average, the USSC actually reviews and rules on 66 cases a year. Of those 66 they hear on average, 18 come from the 9th Circuit. That means 27% come from the Ninth Circuit, and of those 18, on average over 14 are either reversed or vacated. The next closest district, the 6th Circuit, has on average 7 heard a year (about 11% of the total), and of those about 5 are reversed or vacated.
The Federal Court has only 3 cases heard on average by the USSC per year, and of those 2.5 cases are either reversed or vacated. This is slightly higher than the 9th Circuit as a %, but the 9th Circuit has 6x more cases heard than the Federal Court on average per year.
So the 9th Circuit has over 2.5 times more cases heard each year in the USSC than any other Circuit. This doesn't seem odd to you? Of course not. This fact doesn't fit your narrative.
So sorry, I somewhat misstated things when I said
"constantly get overturned" by the USSC. I would have been more correct in saying that the 9th Circuit has more cases heard and has among the highest rates of cases overturned or vacated by the USSC. Regardless, my point is still valid.
Similar threads
