GDP growth rate has jumped over 7% under Obama - still not good enough for haters.

[jmm124567]

You wrote: "The number of marginally attached who don't look for work because they couldn't accept a job even if offered are more than double the discouraged, who just don't bother looking for work"
Now compare that with the definition you just quoted: "Persons "marginally attached to the labor force" are those who want a job, have searched for work during the prior 12 months, and were available to take a job during the reference week, but had not looked for work in the past 4 weeks."

If someone could not accept a job, they are NOT Marginally Attached.

I have no idea why you thought I was arguing about search. Read the definition again....Marginally Attached is Wants To Work, Could Take a job if offered, Did Not look in previous 4 weeks, Looked in previous 12 months.

Well then that begs the question, what week was the reference week?

For example, if they had transportation problems the last 4 weeks they wouldn't be able to accept a job if offered over those 4 weeks, so those 4 weeks could not be the reference week.
So what am I missing?

How does an unemployed person become employed without being reflected in the data?

What am I missing?

I believe what there talking about is the labor force and how the unemployment rate should actually be higher.

The labor force are people who are employed and unemployed BUT looking for a job. Only people in the labor force are counted towards the unemployment stats. So say your unemployed and not looking for a job you would not be part of the labor force and you would not be counted towards the unemployment rate even though you are unemployed.

Since Obama has become president a ton of people have dropped out of the labor force and the labor force participation rate is the lowest it has ever been at since 1981. There's a ton of people who are unemployed living off the entitlements Obama gave them and not looking for a job.

If all these unemployed people started looking for a job they would become part of the labor force and be counted in the unemployment numbers and the unemployment rate would go up a decent amount. So basically the unemployment rate is much higher than what it really is.

 

[pinqy]

The labor force are people who are employed and unemployed BUT looking for a job.

The labor force is employed plus unemployed. Unemployed is defined as not working, available for work, and actively looking for work. That's always been the definition.

Only people in the labor force are counted towards the unemployment stats. So say your unemployed and not looking for a job you would not be part of the labor force and you would not be counted towards the unemployment rate even though you are unemployed.

What definition of unemployed are you using?

 

[thereisnospoon]

Pinqy hair spliter will never be able to get around the 23 million people who don't have jobs and the people hidden by bogus manipulative statistics who are part of the workforce but the models exclude them as though they do not exist.
I guess this is just one way government can make people "disappear".

 

[Too Tall]

David Cameron would kill to have Obama's economic record?! Well, yeah, only because England is doing even worse because the British have long been following socialist policies that Obama hasn't yet managed to foist onto America. Ditto for Spain and Greece.

How low do you want to set the bar for success? If 2.0% GDP growth is your version of "success," I'd hate to see failure.

Reagan's annualized GDP growth was, even by the most rigid standard, was 2.77%--by normal calculations it was 3.5%.

Again, we don't have to settle for chronically weak growth, chronically high gas prices, unemployment at 7-9% long term, etc., etc. We know from recent history that we can do better than this.

Do you know what the average unemployment rate for George Bush's 8 years, in spite of two recessions, 9/11, and Katrina? 5.3% (5.27%, to be exact). Wanna guess what Obama's 4-year average is for unemployment? Bush, he was left a good economy and totally destroyed it.

Reagan's predecessor did not fuck things up like Obama's predecessor, so there is no comparison.

You don't remember Jimmy Carter's misery index do you?

 

[pinqy]

Pinqy hair spliter will never be able to get around the 23 million people who don't have jobs

actually, not counting children or prisoners or people in institutions, or the homeless, there are over 100 million without jobs. The question is who should be considered unemployed.

and the people hidden by bogus manipulative statistics who are part of the workforce but the models exclude them as though they do not exist.

If they're "disappeared" or treated like they don't exist, then how are you getting numbers for them?

 

[whitehall]

Or you could it this way..."the rate of decline of the GDP has slowed".

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

Dude it's been FOUR YEARS of the worst recovery from a recession since the Great Depression. Barry doesn't have a clue how to get the economy going again and he needs to go play golf full time and let someone who's competent take a turn running things.

The fact that you're touting a 2% GDP growth shows how bad things have been under this President.

Is it entirely his job to get the economy going? Did I miss something about the function of our government? -5% to 2% not good enough AND its all his fault?

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

Yeah, that's pretty sad. The last thing Barry's supporters should be talking about is the economy. That and Benghazi actually.

Why? Do all the numbers confuse the righties?

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

OL"Oppey thinks Barrys the greatest. Of course real facts are beyond ol lame brain.

Which of the facts in the OP aren't "real" ?

The economy sucks. UE is high. The debt and deficit are through the roof yet Ooopey thinks Barry's doing a great job?

Brilliant quantitative analysis.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

Or you could it this way..."the rate of decline of the GDP has slowed".

Yeah - its slowed so much that its going up now.

 

[Meathead]

Yeah, that's pretty sad. The last thing Barry's supporters should be talking about is the economy. That and Benghazi actually.

Why? Do all the numbers confuse the righties?

Too late, you've already made a fool of yourself.

 

[Wiseacre]

Dude it's been FOUR YEARS of the worst recovery from a recession since the Great Depression. Barry doesn't have a clue how to get the economy going again and he needs to go play golf full time and let someone who's competent take a turn running things.

The fact that you're touting a 2% GDP growth shows how bad things have been under this President.

Is it entirely his job to get the economy going? Did I miss something about the function of our government? -5% to 2% not good enough AND its all his fault?

No, it's not good enough after 4 years. Not all his fault either, but he is the guy running for president.

 

[thereisnospoon]

Dude it's been FOUR YEARS of the worst recovery from a recession since the Great Depression. Barry doesn't have a clue how to get the economy going again and he needs to go play golf full time and let someone who's competent take a turn running things.

The fact that you're touting a 2% GDP growth shows how bad things have been under this President.

Is it entirely his job to get the economy going? Did I miss something about the function of our government? -5% to 2% not good enough AND its all his fault?

You cannot have it both ways.
How typical of a liberal to take credit for the positives and reject all responsibility for the negatives.

 

[thereisnospoon]

OL"Oppey thinks Barrys the greatest. Of course real facts are beyond ol lame brain.

Which of the facts in the OP aren't "real" ?

The economy sucks. UE is high. The debt and deficit are through the roof yet Ooopey thinks Barry's doing a great job?

Brilliant quantitative analysis.

You have some nerve.

 

[Rshermr]

Dude it's been FOUR YEARS of the worst recovery from a recession since the Great Depression. Barry doesn't have a clue how to get the economy going again and he needs to go play golf full time and let someone who's competent take a turn running things.

The fact that you're touting a 2% GDP growth shows how bad things have been under this President.

David Cameron would kill for Obama's economic record. What a bunch of Obama haters you all are. Just want to get the White back into the White House.

People who don't have a "valid" argument play the race card in place of one. Barack Obama's POLICIES have held back our economic recovery and he ran out of solutions about the same time the 870 Billion dollar "stimulus" ran out. Why would we give another four years to someone who hasn't had a plan to fix our problems for the last two?

There goes oldstyle, the con tool, spouting drivel again. No solutions, just drivel. He says:

Barack Obama's POLICIES have held back our economic recovery and he ran out of solutions about the same time the 870 Billion dollar "stimulus" ran out.

Name the policies that have held the economy down, oh great economic genius. Your libertarian hero, the great economic libertarian econ phd, the only one you can quote, should have your answers. Or you could try an actual impartial source. Though that is beyond your capabilities, eh, oldstyle.
So, oldstyle, what would you suggest the pres do? Shoot the congressmen who refuse to offer any plans that have ever worked? Lower taxes for the wealthy and get more money into the hands of the rich?? Want to take another shot at when that has EVER worked?? You are simply posting dogma, oldstyle. That is the total of your game.

The 870B stimulus, as you know, and as I have proven to you, was more like $510B. The rest of the stimulus was in tax cuts as a concession to repubs. You know that, oldstyle, just seem to not want to deal with it, because it is inconvenient. And you know that the CBO has estimated that the result was about 3 million jobs. And, you would also know, if you listened to impartial economists that the stimulus needed to be larger.

Why would we give another four years to someone who hasn't had a plan to fix our problems for the last two?

Well, my poor ignorant con, people gave him another four years for a lot of reasons. Some because they had open minds. Unlike a con like you. They actually knew that he did indeed have a plan. Called the jobs act. To spend on infrastructure, education, and other stimulative projects. Which, my poor ignorant con, is the ONLY way we have ever gotten out of a bad economy. You know that. The same plan that Reagan used when he got unemployment up to 10.8% using your favored methodology, supply side economics. He raised taxes and borrowing and increased spending. And he did so without the other party stopping every effort. But then you know all that, oldstyle. You just do not want to admit it.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

They actually knew that he did indeed have a plan. Called the jobs act. To spend on infrastructure, education, and other stimulative projects. .

too stupid but 100% liberal. The government does not invent new products so can't stimulate the economy one tiny bit! We got from the stone age to here thanks to new products not government socialist stimulus programs like the housing stimulus that caused this depression through mal-investment in housing.

Lesson one: a recession is the time during which the free market fixes the mal-investment caused by liberal intevention. For example, a carpenter retrains for a real sustainable job in the private economy.

Econ 101 for you! Class one day.

 

[Rshermr]

From what I can find the GDP in real dollars (billions) in 2008 was 13161.9. In 2012 it is 12723.4. How is that translated to good news in the liberal mind?

Interesting. Whitehall posts a lie and two cons praise it without checking it out. So, lets look at what the actual numbers are. They are very, very easy to find. Not whitehalls, but the actual numbers. And maybe it will make sense why whitehall forgot to leave a link:
US Real GDP in 2008 was $12,88T and in 2012 (through Sept) was $13.62T.
US Real GDP by Year

The truth is useful. lies are not.

 

[Rshermr]

They actually knew that he did indeed have a plan. Called the jobs act. To spend on infrastructure, education, and other stimulative projects. .

too stupid but 100% liberal. The government does not invent new products so can't stimulate the economy one tiny bit! We got from the stone age to here thanks to new products not government socialist stimulus programs like the housing stimulus that caused this depression through mal-investment in housing.

Lesson one: a recession is the time during which the free market fixes the mal-investment caused by liberal intevention. For example, a carpenter retrains for a real sustainable job in the private economy.

Econ 101 for you! Class one day.

Yes, indeed. And delusions of grandeur for ed. Ed is delusional. Thinks he knows something about economics. Poor ignorant fellow.
Ed has never been able to understand why one of his great heroes, Reagan, used stimulus to improve the economy. Just can not face it. Runs like crazy from the facts. Poor ignorant libertarian. Nothing actually makes sense to ed. He just posts dogma.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

They actually knew that he did indeed have a plan. Called the jobs act. To spend on infrastructure, education, and other stimulative projects. .

too stupid but 100% liberal. The government does not invent new products so can't stimulate the economy one tiny bit! We got from the stone age to here thanks to new products not government socialist stimulus programs like the housing stimulus that caused this depression through mal-investment in housing.

Lesson one: a recession is the time during which the free market fixes the mal-investment caused by liberal intevention. For example, a carpenter retrains for a real sustainable job in the private economy.

Econ 101 for you! Class one day.

Yes, indeed. And delusions of grandeur for ed. Ed is delusional. Thinks he knows something about economics. Poor ignorant fellow.
Ed has never been able to understand why one of his great heroes, in his poor delusional mind, used stimulus to improve the economy. Just can not face it. Runs like crazy from the facts. Poor ignorant libertarian.

substance free which is very typical of a low IQ liberal

Econ 101: The government does not invent new products so can't stimulate the economy one tiny bit! We got from the stone age to here thanks to new products not government socialist stimulus programs like the housing stimulus that caused this depression through mal-investment in housing.

 

[Rshermr]

too stupid but 100% liberal. The government does not invent new products so can't stimulate the economy one tiny bit! We got from the stone age to here thanks to new products not government socialist stimulus programs like the housing stimulus that caused this depression through mal-investment in housing.

Lesson one: a recession is the time during which the free market fixes the mal-investment caused by liberal intevention. For example, a carpenter retrains for a real sustainable job in the private economy.

Econ 101 for you! Class one day.

Yes, indeed. And delusions of grandeur for ed. Ed is delusional. Thinks he knows something about economics. Poor ignorant fellow.
Ed has never been able to understand why one of his great heroes, in his poor delusional mind, used stimulus to improve the economy. Just can not face it. Runs like crazy from the facts. Poor ignorant libertarian.

substance free which is very typical of a low IQ liberal

Econ 101: The government does not invent new products so can't stimulate the economy one tiny bit! We got from the stone age to here thanks to new products not government socialist stimulus programs like the housing stimulus that caused this depression through mal-investment in housing.

Ed, me poor ignorant con. Read these please:

Brock University Study Low IQ & Conservative Beliefs Linked to Prejudice | Racism, Bias & Politics | Right-Wing and Left-Wing Ideology | LiveScience

U of Arkansas study Study “Proves” Conservatism Linked To Stupidity - The Ulsterman Report

British Cohort study Right-wingers are less intelligent than left wingers, says controversial study - and conservative politics can lead people to be racist | Mail Online

LiveScience study Social conservatives have a lower I.Q.? (probably) | Gene Expression | Discover Magazine

Watching Fox makes you stupid Study: Watching Fox News Actually Makes You Stupid | Jillian Rayfield | Politics News | Rolling Stone

Alterman Study: Conservatives Display Ignorance « Nel's New Day

You keep posting drivel that makes sense only to you. You are making a fool of yourself. Quick, get back on your meds.