DNC Chair Denies Unemployment Has Gone Up Under Obama

[Article 15]

translation of most of the libtard comments in this thread...

Obama inherited this mess... blah blah blah...


Even Obama knows he can't run with that ball anymore. He claimed ownership of the economy.



Unless of course it still sucks... then it's all 'I inherited this mess...'

pathetic.

When you want to use his first day in office as your base point you can bet your ass you will get reminded of what was happening in the economy on that day and why.

This is why this point of attack is going to be a big loser for you guys, especially if the economy continues it's slow uptick through the year.

7.8% in Jan, 2009.... by October, it was 10.1%. Currently 8.5%

Did it go up?
Yes.
Did the DNC lie saying it did not go up? yes.

I've already said it went up and I explained why. Sure, Wasserman lied. Ho hum.

 

[naturegirl]

Smoke and mirrors, twisting numbers to suit their agenda. It happens all the time.

Like trying to use day one of Obama's presidency as a base point without acknowledging the fact that the economy was still in the middle of a free for all that he inherited?

Gawd, such short memories. Didn't your King campaign on the premise he was the only one that could fix the economy?? Why wouldn't you use his numbers from day one? Didn't he say if things weren't better in three years he'd be a one term president??

Thank God this Republican controlled House is starting to have some impact on this free fall.

 

[Article 15]

^----This is still a reality and it beats the bag out of what things were like when Obama took the job.

 

[Article 15]

Smoke and mirrors, twisting numbers to suit their agenda. It happens all the time.

Like trying to use day one of Obama's presidency as a base point without acknowledging the fact that the economy was still in the middle of a free for all that he inherited?

Gawd, such short memories. Didn't your King campaign on the premise he was the only one that could fix the economy?? Why wouldn't you use his numbers from day one? Didn't he say if things weren't better in three years he'd be a one term president??

Thank God this Republican controlled House is starting to have some impact on this free fall.

My King?



Things ARE better. When he took office GPD was plummeting and we were shedding 700k jobs a month. Today GDP is growing and we are adding 200k jobs a month.

This is why this point of attack is a big loser for you guys.

 

[Conservative]

What's the difference between -700k and +200k?

If we were losing 700k a month and are now gaining 200k that is a 900k swing in the positive direction.

That's some pretty simple math, yo. I never said we were ADDING 1,000,000 a month. Try dealing with what I actually say.

You said...

When Obama took office we were losing 700k jobs a month. The private sector just added 200k last month. That's nearly a 1,000,000 jobs a month swing in the right direction since his first month in office.

That all implies a 1,000,000 improvement every month since he took office, which is simply inaccurate.

Be more precise when you post.

 

[naturegirl]

Like trying to use day one of Obama's presidency as a base point without acknowledging the fact that the economy was still in the middle of a free for all that he inherited?

Gawd, such short memories. Didn't your King campaign on the premise he was the only one that could fix the economy?? Why wouldn't you use his numbers from day one? Didn't he say if things weren't better in three years he'd be a one term president??

Thank God this Republican controlled House is starting to have some impact on this free fall.

My King?



Things ARE better. When he took office GPD was plummeting and we were shedding 700k jobs a month. Today GDP is growing and we are adding 200k jobs a month.

This is why this point of attack is a big loser for you guys.

Yes things are better now that we don't have a Democrat controlled Congress. At least one branch of Congress is now controlled by Republicans, the changes are evident in the UE numbers. We are finally starting to get jobs in spite of the guy that thinks the Cloward-Piven strategy is the way to go.

 

[Article 15]

What's the difference between -700k and +200k?

If we were losing 700k a month and are now gaining 200k that is a 900k swing in the positive direction.

That's some pretty simple math, yo. I never said we were ADDING 1,000,000 a month. Try dealing with what I actually say.

You said...

When Obama took office we were losing 700k jobs a month. The private sector just added 200k last month. That's nearly a 1,000,000 jobs a month swing in the right direction since his first month in office.

That all implies a 1,000,000 improvement every month since he took office, which is simply inaccurate.

Be more precise when you post.

No, it doesn't imply that.

That's you erecting a strawman.

You even got ridiculous and tried to further extrapolate that what I said would mean a +36,000,000 total jobs gain in three years as if I was saying we were gaining 1,000,000 jobs a month. However, if you were to actually apply that swing to every month compared to the first it would actually be +200k jobs a month for 36 months or +7.2 million jobs over a three year period.

"Swing" was the key word though I did say "a month", however we were just talking about how the economy was shedding jobs during the first part of his presidency and unemployment hadn't bottomed out, so it is pretty silly to assume I literally meant that swing happened every month but I can understand your confusion if you are just trying to come up with anything counter the point.

Just admit you misread what I wrote, made a silly extrapolation based on it, and move on.

 

[Katzndogz]

Without fuding and cooking the books, the unemployment rate isn't so rosy.

Real Jobless Rate Is 11.4% With Realistic Labor Force Participation Rate | ZeroHedge

 

[Truthmatters]

When you want to use his first day in office as your base point you can bet your ass you will get reminded of what was happening in the economy on that day and why.

This is why this point of attack is going to be a big loser for you guys, especially if the economy continues it's slow uptick through the year.

7.8% in Jan, 2009.... by October, it was 10.1%. Currently 8.5%

Did it go up?
Yes.
Did the DNC lie saying it did not go up? yes.

I've already said it went up and I explained why. Sure, Wasserman lied. Ho hum.

No she did not lie.

The statement the "reporter" made was wrongon the facts.

The UE numbers did not go up precipitously since Obamas election..

They went up and then down.


The statement was incorrect

 

[Chris]

Unemployment just dropped to 8.5%.

I love watching the right try to spin this.

Obama is the Democrats Reagan.

 

[Conservative]

What's the difference between -700k and +200k?

If we were losing 700k a month and are now gaining 200k that is a 900k swing in the positive direction.

That's some pretty simple math, yo. I never said we were ADDING 1,000,000 a month. Try dealing with what I actually say.

You said...

When Obama took office we were losing 700k jobs a month. The private sector just added 200k last month. That's nearly a 1,000,000 jobs a month swing in the right direction since his first month in office.

That all implies a 1,000,000 improvement every month since he took office, which is simply inaccurate.

Be more precise when you post.

No, it doesn't imply that.

That's you erecting a strawman.

You even got ridiculous and tried to further extrapolate that what I said would mean a +36,000,000 total jobs gain in three years as if I was saying we were gaining 1,000,000 jobs a month. However, if you were to actually apply that swing to every month compared to the first it would actually be +200k jobs a month for 36 months or +7.2 million jobs over a three year period.

"Swing" was the key word though I did say "a month", however we were just talking about how the economy was shedding jobs during the first part of his presidency and unemployment hadn't bottomed out, so it is pretty silly to assume I literally meant that swing happened every month but I can understand your confusion if you are just trying to come up with anything counter the point.

Just admit you misread what I wrote, made a silly extrapolation based on it, and move on.

So... you 'said a month, but 'meant' since the first part of his presidency... and 'I' am the one who 'read it wrong'? Are you on crack?

Just admit you misstated yourself, and move on.

 

[Article 15]

You said...

That all implies a 1,000,000 improvement every month since he took office, which is simply inaccurate.

Be more precise when you post.

No, it doesn't imply that.

That's you erecting a strawman.

You even got ridiculous and tried to further extrapolate that what I said would mean a +36,000,000 total jobs gain in three years as if I was saying we were gaining 1,000,000 jobs a month. However, if you were to actually apply that swing to every month compared to the first it would actually be +200k jobs a month for 36 months or +7.2 million jobs over a three year period.

"Swing" was the key word though I did say "a month", however we were just talking about how the economy was shedding jobs during the first part of his presidency and unemployment hadn't bottomed out, so it is pretty silly to assume I literally meant that swing happened every month but I can understand your confusion if you are just trying to come up with anything counter the point.

Just admit you misread what I wrote, made a silly extrapolation based on it, and move on.

So... you 'said a month, but 'meant' since the first part of his presidency... and 'I' am the one who 'read it wrong'? Are you on crack?

Just admit you misstated yourself, and move on.

Meh...like I said that post wasn't made in a vacuum, we had just finished talking about how unemployment continued to drop during the first part of his presidency so it was very silly of you to interpret my post as literally applying to every single month. You were throwing crap at the wall hoping it would stick and proved you suck at math in the process.

 

[Conservative]

No, it doesn't imply that.

That's you erecting a strawman.

You even got ridiculous and tried to further extrapolate that what I said would mean a +36,000,000 total jobs gain in three years as if I was saying we were gaining 1,000,000 jobs a month. However, if you were to actually apply that swing to every month compared to the first it would actually be +200k jobs a month for 36 months or +7.2 million jobs over a three year period.

"Swing" was the key word though I did say "a month", however we were just talking about how the economy was shedding jobs during the first part of his presidency and unemployment hadn't bottomed out, so it is pretty silly to assume I literally meant that swing happened every month but I can understand your confusion if you are just trying to come up with anything counter the point.

Just admit you misread what I wrote, made a silly extrapolation based on it, and move on.

So... you 'said a month, but 'meant' since the first part of his presidency... and 'I' am the one who 'read it wrong'? Are you on crack?

Just admit you misstated yourself, and move on.

Meh...like I said that post wasn't made in a vacuum, we had just finished talking about how unemployment continued to drop during the first part of his presidency so it was very silly of you to interpret my post as literally applying to every single month. You were throwing crap at the wall hoping it would stick and proved you suck at math in the process.

again, YOU said 'a month', and are now whining like a butt-fucked pig that I should not have taken you literally.

Do you have anything constructive to add to the thread? Or, would you prefer to whine about your own posting ineptitude some more?

 

[Article 15]

7.8% in Jan, 2009.... by October, it was 10.1%. Currently 8.5%

Did it go up?
Yes.
Did the DNC lie saying it did not go up? yes.

I've already said it went up and I explained why. Sure, Wasserman lied. Ho hum.

No she did not lie.

The statement the "reporter" made was wrongon the facts.

The UE numbers did not go up precipitously since Obamas election..

They went up and then down.


The statement was incorrect

Actually, you might be right:

Gretchen Carlson, FOX News: Unemployment has gone up precipitously since he took office.

Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz, DNC Chair: That is simply not true. In fact, unemployment has now dropped below 9%. It's continuing to drop. He's been focused on --

Carlson: It's higher than when they promised the stimulus would lower it to 8%.

Wasserman Schultz: You see, that narrative doesn't work for you anymore, though, because --

Carlson: It's not my narrative. I'm just talking about facts.

Wasserman Schultz: You just said the unemployment rate is going up since Obama took office, and it hasn't.

Carlson: Is unemployment higher since President Obama took office?

Wasserman Schultz: What's happened since President Obama took office --

Carlson: Is unemployment higher than when he took office?

Wasserman Schultz: Unemployment is nearing right around where it was when President Obama took office and it's dropping. You just said it's been increasing and that's not true.

The bolded is the closest thing to a lie that she said but you are right that it has gone up and is now on the way down.

Wasserman's final statement that was posted counters Carlson's initial point that is has gone up precipitously where it is actually not much higher now than it was in January 2009.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Technically, it is true that unemployment is higher today than it was when Obama took office.

However, any non political hackasaurus with a lick of knowledge knows that a)a massive economic meltdown hit four months prior to him taking office, b)that unemployment is a classic lagging economic indicator, and c)that the economy was shedding 700k jobs a month when he was inaugurated.

It's going to be funny if/when the eventual nominee plays that card and Obama lays the smack down on him.

And any non political hackasaurus would also know that many many more are unemployed under this regime, even if they are not in the books, because they have been unemployed 'too long'... and that the true rate is much higher than the reported rate.... and we the country has lost jobs, period

But also funny how the left wingers did not have the same standard applied when unemployment rose at the beginning of Bush II's term

U-6 peaked 2 years ago.

 

[Article 15]

So... you 'said a month, but 'meant' since the first part of his presidency... and 'I' am the one who 'read it wrong'? Are you on crack?

Just admit you misstated yourself, and move on.

Meh...like I said that post wasn't made in a vacuum, we had just finished talking about how unemployment continued to drop during the first part of his presidency so it was very silly of you to interpret my post as literally applying to every single month. You were throwing crap at the wall hoping it would stick and proved you suck at math in the process.

again, YOU said 'a month', and are now whining like a butt-fucked pig that I should not have taken you literally.

Do you have anything constructive to add to the thread? Or, would you prefer to whine about your own posting ineptitude some more?

Okay....so you aren't capable of having an ongoing conversation and when you are losing an argument you will turn into Captain Literal to try and score cheap points.

Got it

You still suck at math.

BTW, proving that the economy is in fact in a much better place than it was when Obama took office has added plenty to the thread.

So sorry I smashed your OP.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Question 1.

How long does a president have to be in office before you can make the argument that he is accountable for the unemployment rate?

Question 2.

Why won't conservatives ever give me a straight answer on question 1?

 

[Conservative]

Meh...like I said that post wasn't made in a vacuum, we had just finished talking about how unemployment continued to drop during the first part of his presidency so it was very silly of you to interpret my post as literally applying to every single month. You were throwing crap at the wall hoping it would stick and proved you suck at math in the process.

again, YOU said 'a month', and are now whining like a butt-fucked pig that I should not have taken you literally.

Do you have anything constructive to add to the thread? Or, would you prefer to whine about your own posting ineptitude some more?

Okay....so you aren't capable of having an ongoing conversation and when you are losing an argument you will turn into Captain Literal to try and score cheap points.

Got it

You still suck at math.

BTW, proving that the economy is in fact in a much better place than it was when Obama took office has added plenty to the thread.

So sorry I smashed your OP.

Ok... I will remember never to take anything you say in here literally.

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

Technically, it is true that unemployment is higher today than it was when Obama took office.

However, any non political hackasaurus with a lick of knowledge knows that a)a massive economic meltdown hit four months prior to him taking office, b)that unemployment is a classic lagging economic indicator, and c)that the economy was shedding 700k jobs a month when he was inaugurated.

It's going to be funny if/when the eventual nominee plays that card and Obama lays the smack down on him.

And a massive economic meltdown hit us in 2001 too .

And yes its true, unemployement as a percentage of those working is 1-2% higer now than the day Obama was sworn in.......unemployment as a total number of americans who can work but aren't working however is over 6% higher than it was when Obama was sworn in.

We are employing a decreasing proportion of our people.

At the start of the recession, the employment-to-population rate was 62.7%. The rate is now 58.5%. Last month, unemployment fell from 9 per cent to 8.6 per cent. On the surface, this looked great for all of us. In reality, more than half of the fall was accounted for by a decrease in the numbers “actively seeking” work AKA no longer eligible to collect unemployment. The 315,000 who dropped out of the labour market far exceeded the 120,000 new jobs.

According to government statistics, if the same number of people were seeking work today as in 2007, the jobless rate would be 11%. Some have moved from claiming unemployment benefits to disability benefits, and have thus permanently dropped out of the labour force.

If 315k people who didn't have jobs "dropped out of the labor market" and 120k new jobs were added what is the net gain/loss of jobs for that month?

You and I are both smart enough to understand what I said without trying to play semantics with it Art

EDIT (for those that don't get it): Those 315k people WERE in the job market but after 99 weeks without finding or taking a job their data is no longer counted. As a total percentage of citizens, the total number of employed has decreased under obama while the total population of the country has increased.

 

[Article 15]

And a massive economic meltdown hit us in 2001 too .

And yes its true, unemployement as a percentage of those working is 1-2% higer now than the day Obama was sworn in.......unemployment as a total number of americans who can work but aren't working however is over 6% higher than it was when Obama was sworn in.

We are employing a decreasing proportion of our people.

At the start of the recession, the employment-to-population rate was 62.7%. The rate is now 58.5%. Last month, unemployment fell from 9 per cent to 8.6 per cent. On the surface, this looked great for all of us. In reality, more than half of the fall was accounted for by a decrease in the numbers “actively seeking” work AKA no longer eligible to collect unemployment. The 315,000 who dropped out of the labour market far exceeded the 120,000 new jobs.

According to government statistics, if the same number of people were seeking work today as in 2007, the jobless rate would be 11%. Some have moved from claiming unemployment benefits to disability benefits, and have thus permanently dropped out of the labour force.

If 315k people who didn't have jobs "dropped out of the labor market" and 120k new jobs were added what is the net gain/loss of jobs for that month?

You and I are both smart enough to understand what I said without trying to play semantics with it Art

EDIT (for those that don't get it): Those 315k people WERE in the job market but after 99 weeks without finding or taking a job their data is no longer counted. As a total percentage of citizens, the total number of employed has decreased under obama while the total population of the country has increased.

I know, sorry bud. The economy took a massive kick in the nuts and despite it being off the ground and slowly walking again that kick is still going to be felt in the guts for a while.