Drudge Retort: The Other Side of the News
Sunday, December 08, 2019

The latest economic numbers -- 266,000 jobs created in November, unemployment at a 50-year low -- make one thing very clear: President Donald Trump has a path to win a second term next year.

Advertisement

More

Comments

Admin's note: Participants in this discussion must follow the site's moderation policy. Profanity will be filtered. Abusive conduct is not allowed.

With thanks: www.fark.com

#1 | Posted by Avigdore at 2019-12-07 07:35 AM | Reply

You guys are desperate.

I'll wait to see how many of those jobs stick around in February to March.

Meanwhile, consumer confidence is dropping and consumer debt...well.

www.marketwatch.com

We're living a lifestyle we can't afford, which has helped float the economy.

Question is, are those jobs enough to keep people somewhat solvent or are we going to see the bottom fall out when people stop spending?

#2 | Posted by jpw at 2019-12-07 08:52 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

"We're living a lifestyle we can't afford, which has helped float the economy."

Correct and they're doing it with a massive amount of debt.. For a guy that promised to eliminate the federal debt, Trump sure has spent like a drunk sailor.
The chickens will come home to roost.

#3 | Posted by lfthndthrds at 2019-12-07 09:06 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 3

"The latest economic numbers -- 266,000 jobs"

Why should anyone believe this number?

#4 | Posted by Zed at 2019-12-07 09:27 AM | Reply

"President Donald Trump has a path to win a second term next year"

Beyond cheating?

#5 | Posted by Zed at 2019-12-07 09:28 AM | Reply

Donald Trump has these proven traits:

1) He lies and lies about everything.

2) He has no problem defrauding people.

3) He needs to win next year or go to prison.

Given this, there's no reason to accept anything he says concerning this economy.

#6 | Posted by Zed at 2019-12-07 09:31 AM | Reply

Let's add this-

4) Donald Trump has no obvious problem using government agencies to provide a desired outcome.

#7 | Posted by Zed at 2019-12-07 09:37 AM | Reply

We're living a lifestyle we can't afford, which has helped float the economy.

We've been doing that for 40 years ...

But Trump, let the hatred flow JPW, it out ....

For a guy that promised to eliminate the federal debt, Trump sure has spent like a drunk sailor.

As if the Democrats would let him ...

The chickens will come home to roost.

Thats the fact jack, been saying this since Bush. Don't tax me anymore, its the spending stupid!

#8 | Posted by AndreaMackris at 2019-12-07 10:48 AM | Reply | Funny: 1

The jobs report was good, bolstered by the 40,000+ jobs added when GM went back to work.

What I'd like to see next is the resulting increase of wealth start going to the non-wealthy.

Wages need to start making a significant upturn, for starters.


#9 | Posted by LampLighter at 2019-12-07 10:54 AM | Reply

@#8 ... Don't tax me anymore, its the spending stupid! ...

The wealthy don't spend as high a percentage of their reduced taxes as others do.

If you really want the money from reduced taxes to go back into the "spending" economy, reduce the taxes of the non-wealthy, as they tend to spend significantly more of the additional money they get from reduced taxes. Some say they would spend nearly 100% of the reduced tax money.

So, according to what you say, we should take back that huge multi-trillion tax cut that Pres Trump gave to the wealthy, and this time actually provide the middle class with a significant tax reduction.

I'd go for that.

#10 | Posted by LampLighter at 2019-12-07 10:59 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

Advertisement

Advertisement

Seasonal temporary jobs and 96,000 GM employees back to work.

#11 | Posted by lee_the_agent at 2019-12-07 12:17 PM | Reply

Seasonal temporary jobs and 96,000 GM employees back to work.

#11 | Posted by lee_the_agent

So what's the job gain really?

#12 | Posted by Zed at 2019-12-07 02:18 PM | Reply

Ah----266,000-134,000=132,000.

This is Trump's path to re-election?

#13 | Posted by Zed at 2019-12-07 02:20 PM | Reply

This is Trump's path to re-election?

Nah. His path to reelection comes through useful idiots like ABIGBORE and A, Mattress.

#14 | Posted by ClownShack at 2019-12-07 02:31 PM | Reply

For a guy that promised to eliminate the federal debt, Trump sure has spent like a drunk sailor.

As if the Democrats would let him ...

The chickens will come home to roost.

Thats the fact jack, been saying this since Bush. Don't tax me anymore, its the spending stupid!

#8 | POSTED BY ANDREAMACKRIS

As if he would tell the truth. You voted for a from a different party. Just keep telling yourself he couldn't lock hillary up "because democrats". Maybe you can get some sleep.

#15 | Posted by lfthndthrds at 2019-12-07 03:55 PM | Reply

The people will vote for Trump because the people are dumb. They watched his POS TV show in the first place and couldn't tell that he was garbage. Did it win awards?!?! He won the Presidency, an indictment on the populous whatsoever.

#16 | Posted by hamburglar at 2019-12-07 08:32 PM | Reply

Meanwhile, both the deficit and debt keep rising and rising.

#17 | Posted by Pirate at 2019-12-07 10:33 PM | Reply

--Meanwhile, both the deficit and debt keep rising and rising.

It's ok. Elizabeth Warren has a plan:

"The way I see it, there's always, c'mon, there's always money."

#18 | Posted by nullifidian at 2019-12-07 10:42 PM | Reply

"The way I see it, there's always, c'mon, there's always money."

That's because no Republican made a peep when Iraq cost Trillions, or the tax cut cost Trillions. Not ONE utterance of "how will this be paid?" Hell, Dubya even cut taxes DURING WARTIME.

Turned out there "was money" for those things. For war and tax cuts, "there's always money". Seems Warren is just speaking an uncomfortable truth.

#19 | Posted by Danforth at 2019-12-07 11:56 PM | Reply

We've been doing that for 40 years ...

But Trump, let the hatred flow JPW, it out ....

Great.

So you admit every great economy since Saint Reagan is a facade?

#20 | Posted by jpw at 2019-12-08 01:05 AM | Reply

It's ok. Elizabeth Warren has a plan:

"The way I see it, there's always, c'mon, there's always money."

#18 | POSTED BY NULLIFIDIAN AT 2019-12-07 10:42 PM | FLAG:

Warren isn't president...

#21 | Posted by lfthndthrds at 2019-12-08 07:02 AM | Reply

So now we are supposed to celebrate a report from the same BLS you told us was lying when Obama took the unemployment rate from 10% to 4.5%?

#22 | Posted by hatter5183 at 2019-12-08 09:02 PM | Reply

"The latest economic numbers -- 266,000 jobs"

Why should anyone believe this number?

#4 | Posted by Zed

Did you ask that same question when Obama was President?

#23 | Posted by boaz at 2019-12-08 09:46 PM | Reply

Now you have the complicity of whitemen.

Obama did not have that.

i also have my suspicions.

#24 | Posted by fresno500 at 2019-12-08 11:23 PM | Reply

"What I'd like to see next is the resulting increase of wealth start going to the non-wealthy."

Since 1975, practically all the gains in household income have gone to the top 20% of households.

Bernie is most likely to deliver the broad prosperity everyone that isn't a Deplorable wants. Followed by Warren, then Biden, then Trump.

#25 | Posted by snoofy at 2019-12-08 11:53 PM | Reply

- Bernie is most likely

Hillary, the Dem party's traveling mouthpiece, says otherwise.

#26 | Posted by SheepleSchism at 2019-12-09 12:36 AM | Reply

Well, unlike you, I won't make the good be the enemy of the perfect.

#27 | Posted by snoofy at 2019-12-09 12:39 AM | Reply

"the good"

LOL! Where?!?

#28 | Posted by SheepleSchism at 2019-12-09 12:44 AM | Reply

Regardless of the reasons, it's good news that more folks are getting employed.

That said, it's not prudent to focus solely on this one parameter (employment) as an indication of the health of the US economy. Even less prudent to make prognostications from that one parameter.

GDP, GDP Growth Rate, GDP/Debt Ratio, etc. give a broader overview and they are not overly rosy.

www.thebalance.com

#29 | Posted by TrueBlue at 2019-12-09 07:20 AM | Reply

Regardless of the reasons, it's good news that more folks are getting employed.

No really. I think any job that can't support the person working it shouldn't be counted. Did you miss the part where we once again lost manufacturing jobs and gained service jobs?

Slaves had jobs. Job numbers are not a good measure of prosperity.

#30 | Posted by hatter5183 at 2019-12-09 08:39 AM | Reply

RE: #30

I can appreciate what you are saying and that is precisely what I alluded to in my comment above. To iterate/expand: it's better that more folks are getting employed than the alternative (fewer folks getting employed). Yes, many of the jobs aren't the greatest but isn't a lousy job preferable to no job at all? As you (and I !) pointed out: Job Numbers alone are not indicative of current (or future) prosperity. It is precisely why prognostication from job numbers alone is imprudent (and for the reasons both you & I pointed out).

#31 | Posted by TrueBlue at 2019-12-09 10:55 AM | Reply

Perhaps I'll spend some time researching just how much these umpty-many jobs actually pay.

#32 | Posted by contrecoup at 2019-12-09 11:55 AM | Reply

How can so many years go by, so many things change, but rhetoric about the economy and job reports haven't changed? If you are on the POTUS side, it's great. If you aren't, then the report sucks. Over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over..........and over and over and over and over.....

#33 | Posted by humtake at 2019-12-09 12:12 PM | Reply

"The latest economic numbers -- 266,000 jobs"
Why should anyone believe this number?

#4 | POSTED BY ZED AT 2019-12-07 09:27 AM | REPLY

Because they are not Obama's

#34 | Posted by fishpaw at 2019-12-09 02:13 PM | Reply

Because they are not Obama's

#34 | POSTED BY FISHPAW

The numbers are produced by the same "deep state" that produced them for Obama. Were they wrong then but right now?

#35 | Posted by WhoDaMan at 2019-12-09 03:36 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Did you ask that same question when Obama was President?
#23 | POSTED BY BOAZ

No, but you did.

#36 | Posted by TFDNihilist at 2019-12-10 05:39 AM | Reply

"The numbers are produced by the same "deep state" that produced them for Obama. Were they wrong then but right now?"

Uh oh, get ready to be called racist and a Trumpite. You used logic correctly so now the hate has to flow.

#37 | Posted by humtake at 2019-12-10 12:34 PM | Reply

Bernie is most likely to deliver the broad prosperity everyone that isn't a Deplorable wants.

How, exactly? Feel free to be detailed. Include a definition of prosperity.

#38 | Posted by MUSTANG at 2019-12-10 01:09 PM | Reply

I was and will be the first to cast doubt on any employment numbers out of BLS, especially initial reports like this one. The numbers under Obama were ALWAYS overstated, trumpeted by the media, and then quietly revised downward with little mention. I also am on record saying that a bullish stock market is no reflection on the country's economic prosperity. There ARE still troubling signs for the economy, some but not all of which can be associated with our trade war with China and the unsigned New NAFTA. On the whole, though, I think that the US has been making some good economic decisions regarding trade, so I'm optimistic about the next 6 months. Let's see what happens post Democratic Convention. I predict if Trump looks like he's going to lose, the markets will tank and people will quit hiring. Economic uncertainty makes squirrels hide their nuts, so they say.

#39 | Posted by MUSTANG at 2019-12-10 01:20 PM | Reply

The numbers under Obama were ALWAYS overstated, trumpeted by the media, and then quietly revised downward with little mention.

#39 | POSTED BY MUSTANG AT 2019-12-10 01:20 PM | REPLY |

Obama almost always got revised UPWARDS

money.cnn.com

"With the addition of Friday's fairly strong jobs report, plus upward revisions over the last couple of months,"

fivethirtyeight.com

"The January employment report turned out to be a very good one, initially reporting that 243,000 jobs were created that month. (The figure has since been revised up further, to 275,000 jobs.) The February jobs number " originally 227,000 and now 259,000 jobs after revisions " was likewise quite strong."

#40 | Posted by hatter5183 at 2019-12-10 04:06 PM | Reply

Comments are closed for this entry.

Home | Breaking News | Comments | User Blogs | Stats | Back Page | RSS Feed | RSS Spec | DMCA Compliance | Privacy | Copyright 2020 World Readable

Drudge Retort