Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
This remains an extremely pathetic 'recovery' by historical standards, and especially when you consider the staggering amount of doctoring of those UE numbers by the Obaminable One, including his hilarious 'jobs saved or created' one-liner, which is total BS, since there's no way of measuring such nonsense.
His latest unconscionable act of desperation in an attempt to cover up for multiple policy failures which only HE is responsible remains the deliberate ploy of not counting folks who've either run out of unemplyment insurance eligibility or stopped looking for work as being unemployed.
As IBD pointed out last week, the Bureau Of Labor Statistics reported that an unprecedented 1,200,000 people dropped out of the US labor force last month.
All together now---THANKS OBAMA!!!!!
FYI, they rolled in the adjustments because of the 2010 census, unusual changes to the jobs number resulted. Also, every year, temporary holiday worker leave the job market, you'll find the same thing every Jan.
Last edited by buzzards27; 02-06-2012 at 05:05 PM..
This remains an extremely pathetic 'recovery' by historical standards, and especially when you consider the staggering amount of doctoring of those UE numbers by the Obaminable One, including his hilarious 'jobs saved or created' one-liner, which is total BS, since there's no way of measuring such nonsense.
His latest unconscionable act of desperation in an attempt to cover up for multiple policy failures which only HE is responsible remains the deliberate ploy of not counting folks who've either run out of unemplyment insurance eligibility or stopped looking for work as being unemployed.
As IBD pointed out last week, the Bureau Of Labor Statistics reported that an unprecedented 1,200,000 people dropped out of the US labor force last month.
All together now---THANKS OBAMA!!!!!
Where did you dream up the idea that the figures are doctored? Just because the numbers are inconvenient, doesn't mean they are doctored.
How does the right deal with facts they don't like?
Quote:
The answer is to throw a bunch of bogus numbers at the issues, in the hope that something sticks, or at least that the discussion becomes confused.
First, about that jobs report: all the usual suspects have jumped on the routine BLS population adjustment to claim that the numbers were cooked. The real story here is that the BLS estimates unemployment based on a monthly survey; this tells us what fraction of workers are unemployed. To turn that into a number of unemployed, the BLS estimates total working-age population; but it updates those estimates only once a year. So there’s usually a step up or down in the totals each January, signifying nothing.
Back in the Bush years there were a lot of bogus claims of huge job growth reflecting a step up in the population numbers. Now we have Rush Limbaugh, Fox, etc., claiming that a step down somehow implies fake calculations. Still not true. And the thing that makes this so tiring is that they keep trotting out the same old bogosity, no matter how many times it has been refuted. link
As for people dropping out of the labor pool, Obama didn't invent the baby boom and now they're retiring.
To begin with, the jobless number is artificially depressed. The numbers don't include The U-6 rate which should include all the people that have been forced to take part time jobs. Using those numbers (realistic numbers) for people who were working full-time in the job force, the numbers are in fact above 15%...sadly.
Any job additions should be welcomed by all..that is a good thing. However, one must read between the lines for the truth...especially during political season.
Unemployment rate from Bush years are pulled by pretty much the same collective that dismisses it with Obama as the President. Having said that, as much as people like you complain about job growth being a sham, y'all prefer to ignore (or perhaps are unaware) that job growth was a disaster under Bush presidency for the first three years. Need comparison? Here... private sector job growth
2001-2003 (Bush): -2.82 million
2009-2011 (Obama): -885K
If anything, Bush inherited an economy that was at full employment and his presidency saw a turnaround when the economy had fewer jobs in the private sector while civilian labor force grew by over 10 million and population grew by 10%.
BS.
Your numbers are BS and you don't even understand your own numbers.
The number of employed increased by 2,375,000 from 136,181,000 to 138,556,000 January 2001 through December 2003.
From January 2009 to December 2011, the number of employed persons increased from 140,436,000 to 140,681,0000 or 245,000 jobs
Job creation went much better during Bush's first two years than Obama's first two years, although neither man warrants credit.
Given that the unemployment rate January 2001 was 4.88% and ended in December at 5.70% the country did fairly well, especially when unemployment dipped to dipped to 4.30% in June.
When a country is at "full employment" which is generally considered to be in the 5% range, creating jobs is like trying to put 30 gallons of gasoline into a tank that holds 18 gallons.
Quote:
Originally Posted by EinsteinsGhost
During eight years under Bush, there were five (calendar) years with positive job growth (2003-2007), for an average of 1.23 million jobs added.
During three years under Obama, there have been two (calendar) years with positive job growth (2010-2011), for an average of 1.63 million jobs added.
Again, your numbers are BS.
Wearing cowboy boots....
Mircea
Quote:
Originally Posted by buzzards27
How'd that work out for you?
Just as I knew it would.
Unemployment increased from 9.02% to 9.68%.
Working out great...
Mircea
Quote:
Originally Posted by MTAtech
Revenues did not increase after the Bush tax-cuts, deficits worsened and turned Clinton's success into a failure.
I teach graph reading for the graphically challenged and the graphically impaired.
My rates are $450/hour.
Your chart does not support your claim that "Revenues did not increase..."
Your chart only shows that the government spent more than it collected in revenues, because your chart only shows Budget Surplus/Deficit not government revenues collected.
Laughing at the superior intellect...
Mircea
Quote:
Originally Posted by bradykp
No doubt, wage stagnation is part of the problem as well, not just unemployment. Many food pantries have been struggling with lower donation levels during the recession as well.
Yes, household income has declined.
This...
Quote:
The maximum amount a family of four can receive in food stamps is $668 a month.
...is why all things "national" fail.
Around the US, many Americans are unjustly enriched, receiving $668 in Food Stamp benefits which is substantially more than adequate for good nutrition.
Simultaneously, for many Americans $668/month is not enough due to the cost-of-living.
Looks like a typical Liberal win: People are [unjustly] enriched while others suffer.
Ending the federal Food Stamp program and allowing each State to set up and run their own program, if the people of a given State so desire, is the common sense thing to do. In that way, each State can account for its inherent uniqueness and tailor Food Stamp programs to ensure its people benefit in the best way possible.
Federally...
Sorting out long term employment is going to a complex and on going problem that is going to require equally complex solutions. It is a topic that won't be addressed by sound bites and simple solutions.
I teach graph reading for the graphically challenged and the graphically impaired.
My rates are $450/hour.
Your chart does not support your claim that "Revenues did not increase..."
Your chart only shows that the government spent more than it collected in revenues, because your chart only shows Budget Surplus/Deficit not government revenues collected.
Laughing at the superior intellect...
Mircea
If you noticed, the issue was deficits. This is the text of post 587:
Quote:
Revenues did not increase after the Bush tax-cuts, deficits worsened and turned Clinton's success into a failure.
The following graphs clearly illustrate that revenue did not rise under Bush:
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Great jobs report, but what about the long-term unemployed?
