No Jobs created since Obama took office, LINK

[rdean]

When Obama took office, the country was losing jobs at the rate of 750,000 a month.

Bush's final budget was in effect until October of that year when unemployment ballooned to 10.1%.

From 2001 to 2008, the country lost millions of jobs.

Thanks for giving me a chance to point that out.

rdean this is why BHO is the preaident Libs vote on everything but the truth
the link is above
2001....... 107,952 25,983 3,629 7,808 16,476 15,645 12,036 5,258 21,118
2002....... 107,784 25,497 3,395 7,847 15,976 16,199 11,986 5,372 21,513
2003....... 108,183 25,287 3,188 7,977 15,987 16,588 12,173 5,401 21,583
2004....... 109,553 25,533 3,118 8,031 16,394 16,953 12,493 5,409 21,621
2005....... 111,513 25,959 3,061 8,153 16,954 17,372 12,816 5,395 21,804
2006....... 113,556 26,276 3,038 8,328 17,566 17,826 13,110 5,438 21,974
2007....... 115,366 26,630 3,032 8,301 17,942 18,322 13,427 5,494 22,218
2008....... 115,456 26,293 2,984 8,145 17,735 18,838 13,436 5,515 22,509
Thats 7 million jobs from 01 to 08 created

as far as the 09 budget, it was signed by BHO march of 2009, GWB refused to sign it
National Coalition for Homeless Veterans - President Obama Signs FY 2009 Budget into Law

and what does that have to do with jobs?
I Thought the failed stimulus was the solution?

That is fucking hilarious. Did you think I wouldn't go review your link?????

Because Republicans won't review links because they are afraid of the truth doesn't mean I won't.

You cherry picked the columns. For instance, you picked "government jobs" and "services", you know, working at McDonald's and housecleaning.

Try looking under "manufacturing" where the number of jobs went down EVERY SINGLE YEAR under Bush but has gone up under Obama.

Total goods producing - down

Total private - down

Now what's fucking funniest of all, under Obama, government employment has dropped, but Manufacturing has grown.

Next time, DON'T CHERRY PICK YOUR DATA. I can't believe you think we wouldn't look. What do you think I am? A Republican?

 

[DontBeStupid]

Point of fact. The first Bush Recession started after he took office in 2001. Not before.

Yeah the fake internet bubble burst, the Clinton Justice department went after Microsoft, plus there was that whole 9-11 thing. No big deal.

it blows my mind, I have no idea were these libs got this exact date event thing

From these guys.

http://www.nber.org/cycles/cyclesmain.html

 

[8537]

Point of fact. The first Bush Recession started after he took office in 2001. Not before.

Yeah the fake internet bubble burst, the Clinton Justice department went after Microsoft, plus there was that whole 9-11 thing. No big deal.

it blows my mind, I have no idea were these libs got this exact date event thing

lol.

 

[JRK]

Point of fact. The first Bush Recession started after he took office in 2001. Not before.

so his policies created the first recession in 12-16 weeks
ok, fair enough
so the millions of jobs lost when Obama took office were all his fault?
The DJIA going to 6500+- was all his fault and with companies laying off millions and re doing there business plan it has came back?
My point was that every-one forgets what GWB faced when he took office, you want to split hairs, fine with me

Oh yea the 2009 budget is all BHO also then, he signed it 3/2009
you wna tme to go on?
that surplus we had in 01 would bee GWB also
tell me when to stop

I think you 'missed' (in all likelyhood 'ignored') his point.

ignored?
GDP is a tool that had some of Clintons term within it. I must admit it bores the crap out of me to chit chat with people who miss the point by a mile
Obama did not create this mess no more than GWB did. My point was a simple look at the difference of leadership and the use of "stimulus"

 

[JRK]

When Obama took office, the country was losing jobs at the rate of 750,000 a month.

Bush's final budget was in effect until October of that year when unemployment ballooned to 10.1%.

From 2001 to 2008, the country lost millions of jobs.

Thanks for giving me a chance to point that out.

rdean this is why BHO is the preaident Libs vote on everything but the truth
the link is above
2001....... 107,952 25,983 3,629 7,808 16,476 15,645 12,036 5,258 21,118
2002....... 107,784 25,497 3,395 7,847 15,976 16,199 11,986 5,372 21,513
2003....... 108,183 25,287 3,188 7,977 15,987 16,588 12,173 5,401 21,583
2004....... 109,553 25,533 3,118 8,031 16,394 16,953 12,493 5,409 21,621
2005....... 111,513 25,959 3,061 8,153 16,954 17,372 12,816 5,395 21,804
2006....... 113,556 26,276 3,038 8,328 17,566 17,826 13,110 5,438 21,974
2007....... 115,366 26,630 3,032 8,301 17,942 18,322 13,427 5,494 22,218
2008....... 115,456 26,293 2,984 8,145 17,735 18,838 13,436 5,515 22,509
Thats 7 million jobs from 01 to 08 created

as far as the 09 budget, it was signed by BHO march of 2009, GWB refused to sign it
National Coalition for Homeless Veterans - President Obama Signs FY 2009 Budget into Law

and what does that have to do with jobs?
I Thought the failed stimulus was the solution?

That is fucking hilarious. Did you think I wouldn't go review your link?????

Because Republicans won't review links because they are afraid of the truth doesn't mean I won't.

You cherry picked the columns. For instance, you picked "government jobs" and "services", you know, working at McDonald's and housecleaning.

Try looking under "manufacturing" where the number of jobs went down EVERY SINGLE YEAR under Bush but has gone up under Obama.

Total goods producing - down

Total private - down

Now what's fucking funniest of all, under Obama, government employment has dropped, but Manufacturing has grown.

Next time, DON'T CHERRY PICK YOUR DATA. I can't believe you think we wouldn't look. What do you think I am? A Republican?

whats funny about fewer people working today than in 2008?
Cherry pick? the thread is about fewer people working today than 2008 dude chill out and get a life
There is no reason to be a dick head and try and pay attention to the discussion in the future
cherry picking?
fact!

 

[JRK]

Claims of jobs saved or created follow the logic of "a little better" > "Worse."

I'm not aware that anyone claims anything other than the factual numbers.

We're on a hell of a streak for the last couple years though.

We sshould be and no its really not that good
300 k a month is considerd good

So you think the entirety of Bush's 8 years in office saw six total months of "good" job creation?

Discussing anything with a lib is so boring. @ 5% UE adding 200k jobs is a good thing, @ 8.4% (Not even close to real UE) 200k jobs is desperate and not good. At this pace it will be 2015 before we get back to 08 levels
Much of GWB presidency had UE rates in the 5s and that was real UE numbers, not like what we are getting now, with 9-11 recession and other events such as all the Enrons early in his first term
Its just information dude, it is good info

 

[theDoctorisIn]

If we were still counting unemployment the same way we were when Bush left office the rate would be 11% today. As it is Gallup says it's 9.1% using the same numbers that the BLS uses. The Obama Administration uses "Seasonal Adjusted" to lower the rate to 8.3%.

This isn't the slightest bit true.

BLS has not changed the way they calculate the U3 rate since Obama has been President. The number is calculated the SAME way.

 

[JRK]

If we were still counting unemployment the same way we were when Bush left office the rate would be 11% today. As it is Gallup says it's 9.1% using the same numbers that the BLS uses. The Obama Administration uses "Seasonal Adjusted" to lower the rate to 8.3%.

This isn't the slightest bit true.

BLS has not changed the way they calculate the U3 rate since Obama has been President. The number is calculated the SAME way.

Advance Indiana: Obama Administration Manipulated Unemployment Statistics To Achieve Lower Rate
Do your DD on these issues doc
He did change the way UE calc
Its just info

 

[theDoctorisIn]

If we were still counting unemployment the same way we were when Bush left office the rate would be 11% today. As it is Gallup says it's 9.1% using the same numbers that the BLS uses. The Obama Administration uses "Seasonal Adjusted" to lower the rate to 8.3%.

This isn't the slightest bit true.

BLS has not changed the way they calculate the U3 rate since Obama has been President. The number is calculated the SAME way.

Advance Indiana: Obama Administration Manipulated Unemployment Statistics To Achieve Lower Rate
Do your DD on these issues doc
He did change the way UE calc
Its just info

He didn't change anything. Your blogs are lying.

Let me clear up a few things about the "unemployment rate" as calculated by BLS.

First of all, there are 6 of them. U1, U2, U3, U4, U5 and U6. None of those calculations have changed under Obama.

U3 - what's generally referred to as the "official" unemployment rate, is calculated by counting the people currently looking for work who don't have a job. It has NEVER included so-called "discouraged" workers - workers who have given up looking for a job, and are not part of the "labor force".

The "labor force" has significantly shrunk since Obama took office - but not due to any actions on his part.

U6, on the other hand, does include "discouraged" workers, as well as part-time employed people who want full time work - and that number has also dropped significantly since Obama has been in office.

Unemployment - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[JRK]

This isn't the slightest bit true.

BLS has not changed the way they calculate the U3 rate since Obama has been President. The number is calculated the SAME way.

Advance Indiana: Obama Administration Manipulated Unemployment Statistics To Achieve Lower Rate
Do your DD on these issues doc
He did change the way UE calc
Its just info

He didn't change anything. Your blogs are lying.



Let me clear up a few things about the "unemployment rate" as calculated by BLS.

First of all, there are 6 of them. U1, U2, U3, U4, U5 and U6. None of those calculations have changed under Obama.

U3 - what's generally referred to as the "official" unemployment rate, is calculated by counting the people currently looking for work who don't have a job. It has NEVER included so-called "discouraged" workers - workers who have given up looking for a job, and are not part of the "labor force".

The "labor force" has significantly shrunk since Obama took office - but not due to any actions on his part.

U6, on the other hand, does include "discouraged" workers, as well as part-time employed people who want full time work - and that number has also dropped significantly since Obama has been in office.

Unemployment - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

My thread was about what Obama had done to the way the UE rate is being dealt with, not what the definition was as your thread has done
Now the post talks to the loss of jobs, this fact cannot not be debated. The link I provided as you state is a lie?
Thats an opinion as I see no-one has rebutted that link that I can find
There comes a time in which we agree to dis agree. This subject has been discussed in other venues, this is why I knew to google it

 

[8537]

We sshould be and no its really not that good
300 k a month is considerd good

So you think the entirety of Bush's 8 years in office saw six total months of "good" job creation?

Discussing anything with a lib is so boring. @ 5% UE adding 200k jobs is a good thing, @ 8.4% (Not even close to real UE) 200k jobs is desperate and not good.

Huh? why should an economy at 8.4 be creating more jobs per month than an economy at 5? Is the marginal production of each worker somehow different at 5?

Much of GWB presidency had UE rates in the 5s and that was real UE numbers,

Tell me, JRK, how were the rates different and more "real" when Bush was president?

 

[theDoctorisIn]

Advance Indiana: Obama Administration Manipulated Unemployment Statistics To Achieve Lower Rate
Do your DD on these issues doc
He did change the way UE calc
Its just info

He didn't change anything. Your blogs are lying.



Let me clear up a few things about the "unemployment rate" as calculated by BLS.

First of all, there are 6 of them. U1, U2, U3, U4, U5 and U6. None of those calculations have changed under Obama.

U3 - what's generally referred to as the "official" unemployment rate, is calculated by counting the people currently looking for work who don't have a job. It has NEVER included so-called "discouraged" workers - workers who have given up looking for a job, and are not part of the "labor force".

The "labor force" has significantly shrunk since Obama took office - but not due to any actions on his part.

U6, on the other hand, does include "discouraged" workers, as well as part-time employed people who want full time work - and that number has also dropped significantly since Obama has been in office.

Unemployment - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

My thread was about what Obama had done to the way the UE rate is being dealt with, not what the definition was as your thread has done.

That's my point. Obama hasn't "done" anything.

Now the post talks to the loss of jobs, this fact cannot not be debated. The link I provided as you state is a lie?

It's political rhetoric. It's not a "lie", but it's not the truth either.

It's true that the labor force has shrunk while Obama has been in office. Many people have stopped looking for jobs, and many people have retired. But that doesn't have anything to do with Obama. If Bush was President right now, the unemployment rate would be the same.

Thats an opinion as I see no-one has rebutted that link that I can find

It's not an "opinion", it's my personal knowledge of how the unemployment numbers are calculated.

This is part of what I do for a living.

There comes a time in which we agree to dis agree. This subject has been discussed in other venues, this is why I knew to google it

And I'm telling you your blogs aren't telling you the whole truth.

 

[Mac1958]

Wow, this conversation is WAY off in the weeds.

No one disputes the numbers are weak. The question is why. Is it because Obama inherited a massive, unprecedented disaster that could take several more years to fix, or is it because his "socialist" policies slowed the recovery?

That's about it. Pick yer poison. The partisans already have (of course), let's see what most of America does.

.

 

[JRK]

So you think the entirety of Bush's 8 years in office saw six total months of "good" job creation?

Discussing anything with a lib is so boring. @ 5% UE adding 200k jobs is a good thing, @ 8.4% (Not even close to real UE) 200k jobs is desperate and not good.

Huh? why should an economy at 8.4 be creating more jobs per month than an economy at 5? Is the marginal production of each worker somehow different at 5?

Much of GWB presidency had UE rates in the 5s and that was real UE numbers,

Tell me, JRK, how were the rates different and more "real" when Bush was president?

The number of people who have been out of work over 12 months, U6? I think thats the term for this way the number is tracked
As far as the 200k number, I find it more common that the left have lost all common sense
If there is 10 people looking for work compared to 20, then it makes sense that you would have more people to fill jobs as is the case today vs 2007. If the job market, never mind
Its really simple
The term job creation is simple, if the labor pool is full then there are fewer people available, to create real jobs is to create a place for those people in that pool to find that job
The chance for job creation is better now than has been in many years, or to have numbers that will actually lower that 8.4% rate
To lower it 200k is not getting it done, this means the U6 number is getting higher, the real UE rate

 

[8537]

The number of people who have been out of work over 12 months, U6? I think thats the term for this way the number is tracked

no.

 

[pinqy]

If we were still counting unemployment the same way we were when Bush left office the rate would be 11% today. As it is Gallup says it's 9.1% using the same numbers that the BLS uses. The Obama Administration uses "Seasonal Adjusted" to lower the rate to 8.3%.

We are counting unemployment the same way as Bush. Quit making shit up.I predict that of you reply you will not present any evidence of any change in methodology, just more bull.

 

[Sallow]

.

There are many people who believe that Obama was handed a big, steaming pile of crap, an economic disaster of historic proportions, a staggering and massively complicated spider's web of financial fecal matter that this country has never seen.

Yes, Republicans, I know, it's not true, we're all supposed to think it was all just a little blip from which we should recovered immediately, back on our merry, prosperous, "exceptional" way. We should have come roaring back after that little down dip like a horny lion. That recession was nothing special, just another bump in the road. I get it, I get it.

But for those who think that's not true, the only thing that will matter is the trajectory of the economy on Election Day. If the trajectory is up, Obama's back in. If it's down, it'll be Romney. If it's flat, it'll be a toss-up. A decent Republican candidate might well win regardless, but it is what it is. These numbers are irrelevant.

.

I kinda of look at the Bush economy as I do 9/11. Ten year ago..we were attacked..and the place has not be rebuilt. And actually..progress only started after Obama took office.

Kinda like the economy.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

Discussing anything with a lib is so boring. @ 5% UE adding 200k jobs is a good thing, @ 8.4% (Not even close to real UE) 200k jobs is desperate and not good.

Huh? why should an economy at 8.4 be creating more jobs per month than an economy at 5? Is the marginal production of each worker somehow different at 5?

Much of GWB presidency had UE rates in the 5s and that was real UE numbers,

Tell me, JRK, how were the rates different and more "real" when Bush was president?

The number of people who have been out of work over 12 months, U6? I think thats the term for this way the number is tracked

No, that's not what U6 is.

U6 = unemployed people looking for work + unemployed people who have given up looking for work + people who are employed part-time and are looking for full-time.

And U6 is also at a 36-month low.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

Discussing anything with a lib is so boring. @ 5% UE adding 200k jobs is a good thing, @ 8.4% (Not even close to real UE) 200k jobs is desperate and not good.

Huh? why should an economy at 8.4 be creating more jobs per month than an economy at 5? Is the marginal production of each worker somehow different at 5?

Much of GWB presidency had UE rates in the 5s and that was real UE numbers,

Tell me, JRK, how were the rates different and more "real" when Bush was president?

The number of people who have been out of work over 12 months, U6? I think thats the term for this way the number is tracked
As far as the 200k number, I find it more common that the left have lost all common sense
If there is 10 people looking for work compared to 20, then it makes sense that you would have more people to fill jobs as is the case today vs 2007. If the job market, never mind
Its really simple
The term job creation is simple, if the labor pool is full then there are fewer people available, to create real jobs is to create a place for those people in that pool to find that job
The chance for job creation is better now than has been in many years, or to have numbers that will actually lower that 8.4% rate
To lower it 200k is not getting it done, this means the U6 number is getting higher, the real UE rate

But it's not. It's getting lower.
http://portalseven.com/employment/unemployment_rate_u6.jsp

 

[JRK]

Huh? why should an economy at 8.4 be creating more jobs per month than an economy at 5? Is the marginal production of each worker somehow different at 5?




Tell me, JRK, how were the rates different and more "real" when Bush was president?

The number of people who have been out of work over 12 months, U6? I think thats the term for this way the number is tracked
As far as the 200k number, I find it more common that the left have lost all common sense
If there is 10 people looking for work compared to 20, then it makes sense that you would have more people to fill jobs as is the case today vs 2007. If the job market, never mind
Its really simple
The term job creation is simple, if the labor pool is full then there are fewer people available, to create real jobs is to create a place for those people in that pool to find that job
The chance for job creation is better now than has been in many years, or to have numbers that will actually lower that 8.4% rate
To lower it 200k is not getting it done, this means the U6 number is getting higher, the real UE rate

But it's not. It's getting lower.
http://portalseven.com/employment/unemployment_rate_u6.jsp

I stand corrected
things are great
Obama has changed nothing at the way UE is tracked, lying on the internet as the link did is not liable
and todays report will fix everything
The number of people out of work longer than 12 months is going down compared to 2007 numbers

Look my point about the number of people out of work longer than 12 month was not correct as it relates to todays "new norm" but compared to the norm we lived for the last 40years it has went up, not down
within the wreck, maybe it has, for that I stand corrected

Look I trade stocks, I wish the report had a 600,000 number today
BHO has claimed that there has been 3 million jobs created (+-)

My post is simple, we are millions off of were we were in 2008 thence there has been no creation of 1 job
you wan make use links and call mine a lie, fine