No Jobs created since Obama took office, LINK

[JRK]

If you lower the number of people that you score the UE rate against its going to be lower,

But nobody is lowering the number. The number goes up or down based on reality....nobody's "doing" anything to it.

And the Labor Force is INCREASING, not decreasing. From Jan to Feb, Employment went up 428,000 and Unemployment went up 48,000 meaning the Labor Force went up 476,000

News Headlines
you might want to do your DD. read this link and even CNBC calls out the issue mid page
now that reality in this economy must be questioned and is by some, even CNBC has made mention of it
It has nothing to do with jobs created for the month of Feb as you think it may,
from the link and the way UE is calculated

Though the labor force participation rate actually increased to 63.7 percent in February, it remains near historic lows. Those not looking for jobs are simply not counted in the official jobless rate. The rate is thus treated with skepticism as an accurate gauge for measuring the job market's health

this is the number that some including me that feels is wrong, it does not change the 220k jobs that were created in Feb (according to the same)

 

[Mr. Shaman]

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?

I guess it doesn't hurt for Obama to kick one MORE ass.

Watch & weep

Skippy.....


[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1y04g6OPLnQ]Obama Dismantles Republican Caucus Part 1 of 7 - YouTube[/ame]

 

[JRK]

That's how you "feel"? Do you have any rationale or evidence to justify this "Feeling"? Or is it just the usual sense that Obama is evil and therefore he must be lying?

as far as my evidence its all thru this post, see the link I have to CNBC just above.

That link doesn't say anything about the Obama administration changing the way the figures or calculated, politicizing the numbers or cooking the books.

Why is it you libs think hate has anything to do with honest debate?

You're not engaging in honest debate. You're sharing how you "Feel" with a wholly unsubstantiated claim.

If you lower the number of people that you score the UE rate against its going to be lower, and as the CNBC link here-in brings to light that number is at historic lows, how can that be when were at near record hi's with people out of work?

The labor force participation rate is going to decline for a decade or more - that's not an economic problem, it's simple demographics.

Its just information dude chill out with the hate comments.

What hate?
your opinion of this manner has many like my-self that dis agree with you
ok?
agree to dis agree?

anwer this, not to me, how can that number be at an histric low when we have an historic hi number of people who have lost there jobs?
whats demographics have to do with that?

 

[8537]

as far as my evidence its all thru this post, see the link I have to CNBC just above.

That link doesn't say anything about the Obama administration changing the way the figures or calculated, politicizing the numbers or cooking the books.

You're not engaging in honest debate. You're sharing how you "Feel" with a wholly unsubstantiated claim.

If you lower the number of people that you score the UE rate against its going to be lower, and as the CNBC link here-in brings to light that number is at historic lows, how can that be when were at near record hi's with people out of work?

The labor force participation rate is going to decline for a decade or more - that's not an economic problem, it's simple demographics.

Its just information dude chill out with the hate comments.

What hate?
your opinion of this manner has many like my-self that dis agree with you
ok?
agree to dis agree?

Read my posts in this thread. I've offered facts, not opinions.

anwer this, not to me, how can that number be at an histric low when we have an historic hi number of people who have lost there jobs?
whats demographics have to do with that?

The size of the labor force relative to the population is expected to decline in the next couple decades. It's not due to economics, it's due to obvious demographic changes.

 

[G.T.]

Damn, retreads are almost welcome here.

JRK is Healthmyths.
koshergrl is alliebaba.
libocalypsenow is paulitician.

How are you *not* a troll if you have to constantly change names?



foik!

 

[JRK]

That link doesn't say anything about the Obama administration changing the way the figures or calculated, politicizing the numbers or cooking the books.

You're not engaging in honest debate. You're sharing how you "Feel" with a wholly unsubstantiated claim.



The labor force participation rate is going to decline for a decade or more - that's not an economic problem, it's simple demographics.

Its just information dude chill out with the hate comments.

What hate?
your opinion of this manner has many like my-self that dis agree with you
ok?
agree to dis agree?

Read my posts in this thread. I've offered facts, not opinions.

anwer this, not to me, how can that number be at an histric low when we have an historic hi number of people who have lost there jobs?
whats demographics have to do with that?

The size of the labor force relative to the population is expected to decline in the next couple decades. It's not due to economics, it's due to obvious demographic changes.

Okay
drink up dude
from CNBC
An alternative measure of unemployment which does count those who have stopped looking for work dropped to 14.9 percent, its lowest reading since January 2009.

Long-term unemployment continues to pose the most vexing problem for the jobs picture. The average duration of unemployment edged lower but remains at 40 weeks. Those out of work for more than 27 weeks comprise 42.6 percent of the unemployed population.

How can one exist with the other? It cannot
I have found a place to agree to dis agree AND
no matter how you paint this as CNBC is on TV right now, it is still a mess and no matter how you try and defend this, all of this numbers are based on an event that does not allow aplles to apples except
we are no were near were we were in 2008, December, we are millions of jobs short

 

[8537]

What hate?
your opinion of this manner has many like my-self that dis agree with you
ok?
agree to dis agree?

Read my posts in this thread. I've offered facts, not opinions.

anwer this, not to me, how can that number be at an histric low when we have an historic hi number of people who have lost there jobs?
whats demographics have to do with that?

The size of the labor force relative to the population is expected to decline in the next couple decades. It's not due to economics, it's due to obvious demographic changes.

Okay
drink up dude
from CNBC
An alternative measure of unemployment which does count those who have stopped looking for work dropped to 14.9 percent, its lowest reading since January 2009.

Eh, right. We've already discussed that.

Long-term unemployment continues to pose the most vexing problem for the jobs picture. The average duration of unemployment edged lower but remains at 40 weeks. Those out of work for more than 27 weeks comprise 42.6 percent of the unemployed population.

the number of those unemployed for 27 weeks or more fell by 92,000.

 

[Mr. Shaman]

.

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, 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.

.

Mac the wheels had come off, no doubt about that

GWB was handed a recession and 9-11 in 8 months in 2001, not the same, not like it wasin 08, but it was notgoing great either, 9-11 was a huge event

Try, again.....Skippy.....

November 26, 2001

Economists Call It Recession​

"The world's largest economy sank into a recession in March, ending 10 years of growth that was the longest expansion on record in the United States, a group of economists that dates U.S. business cycles said Monday.

The National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER), composed of academic economists from Harvard, Stanford and other universities, joined a chorus of economists and investors who were saying that a recession had already begun. The group posted its decision on its Web site.

It ruled that the long expansion ended in March and the nation's tenth recession since the end of World War II began at the same time. The declaration means the longest expansion lasted exactly 10 years. The previous record for uninterrupted economic growth was set in the 1960s, a period of eight years and 10 months lasting from February 1961 to December 1969.

MAY 1 - 15, 2003

Lil' Georgie;
Businessman Extraordinaire​

"Repeatedly, President-elect, and then President, Bush talked about how the economy was in trouble. Arriving in office following the longest continuous economic upturn in generations, President Bush seized on a stock market that had faltered some in the uncertainty following the 2000 Presidential election.

The "bad" economy, he talked about. Again and again. The "bad" economy.

You know what happened as a result? I can tell you from my personal experience, the CFO of the corporation I was working for called a meeting and said, "The President keeps talking about the economy being 'bad.' Now, things don't seem bad, but let's just hold off on any new hires until we see how this pans out. And, let's hold off on all non-vital purchases, just for the time being."

And you can see right there how simply the words of President George W. Bush started slamming the breaks of the economy.

This, of course, all snowballed."

 

[Mr. Shaman]

"Yep! Another JeRK....wrangled, hung-up and dressed-out."​

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

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.

All you pointed out is that you're an idiot.

 

[Mr. Shaman]

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.

All you pointed out is that you're an idiot.

December 18, 2005

Ca$hin' IN With BU$HCO​

"President Bush's corporate champions see the spoils of his administration in coal. And timber. And credit-card payments, Afghan electric lines, Japanese bank transfers and fake crab.

America's business leaders supplied more than $75 million to return Mr. Bush to the White House last year -- and he has paid dividends."

 

[JRK]

The point is and has been simple
the press is happy that the UE rate is 8.3% the new norm I guess
I can recall when 6% was the end of the world

we have supposdly added 600k in the last 3 months and the rate is still 8.3, yet there is nothing wrong here
nor with the 14.9% real UE
I cannot keep up with these rotating nunbers, but we are at best even with 2009 numbers and we have added 5 trillion to the debt to get here, somehow all of this is glorious

 

[rdean]

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!

Some people with a tiny mind see Texas as a huge success because they lead the nation in jobs. Then take a "serious" look at those jobs. Minimum wage. No health care.

But it's a success, because more people are working.

That's how Republicans think. In the real world, it's not just about numbers.

 

[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.

All you pointed out is that you're an idiot.

What is it with you morons and facts? What is it about facts that cause morons to call names?

 

[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.

All you pointed out is that you're an idiot.

What is it with you morons and facts? What is it about facts that cause morons to call names?

from 01-08 the economy grew by 5 million jobs

2001...... 131,826 110,708 23,873 606 6,826 16,441
2002...... 130,341 108,828 22,557 583 6,716 15,259
2003...... 129,999 108,416 21,816 572 6,735 14,509
2004...... 131,435 109,814 21,882 591 6,976 14,315
2005...... 133,703 111,899 22,190 628 7,336 14,227
2006...... 136,086 114,113 22,530 684 7,691 14,155
2007...... 137,598 115,380 22,233 724 7,630 13,879
2008...... 136,790 114,281 21,335 767 7,162 13,406
ftp://ftp.bls.gov/pub/suppl/empsit.ceseeb1.txt
GWB final budget was not in October of 2010, he refuce to sign i, Obama did in March of 2009
speaking of idiots

 

[JRK]

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!

Some people with a tiny mind see Texas as a huge success because they lead the nation in jobs. Then take a "serious" look at those jobs. Minimum wage. No health care.

But it's a success, because more people are working.

That's how Republicans think. In the real world, it's not just about numbers.

What does Texas have to do with any of this? and there UE rate was fairly hi the last time Iooked
Look being a conservative does not make any-one bad any more than being a liberal
being an ass-hole does
Your not over 12 years old, your threads give it away
just chill out

 

[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.

Looks like the american public for good reason is not buying it, and yes the Obama Admin has changed the available job # so it has been modified

 

[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.

Looks like the american public for good reason is not buying it, and yes the Obama Admin has changed the available job # so it has been modified

No, they didn't.

How would the Obama Administration be able to "change" the number of available jobs?

 

[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.

Looks like the american public for good reason is not buying it, and yes the Obama Admin has changed the available job # so it has been modified

No, they didn't.

How would the Obama Administration be able to "change" the number of available jobs?

Yes they did
If you are offended that under ObamaCare you may be considered "a unit," you should know that under Obama employment stats you may not even exist! In fact, a lot of non-working adults who existed in October apparently no longer do exist officially.
In other words, in the universe Obama took over from George W. Bush, the unemployment rate would still be over 11%. Now, the last time I checked, the planet has not gotten smaller, nor has the population of the United States. (I am not sure about the sea levels.) To thinking people, there is no legitimate reason to shrink the potential labor pool. Of course, there is an illegitimate reason to do so: to protect the governing record of Barack Obama. Anyone who follows politics even casually knows that if the general public ever really figured out that the real unemployment rate is over 11%, Obama would have zero chance of re-election.
Can you imagine the screams of protest from the media if a Republican president had altered the formula for calculating the rate of the unemployed to magically make the numbers appear better than what they really are on the eve of his re-election campaign? The real unemployment rate is over 11%, and even that rate is misleading because it doesn't include the people who no longer qualify for unemployment benefits because they've been unemployed so long. Only one person in the media seemed to question the unemployment rate statistics released on Friday, and he's the man credited with being the father of the Tea Party movement.
Advance Indiana: Obama Administration Manipulated Unemployment Statistics To Achieve Lower Rate

The argument is that the labor pool is changing due to "demographics" apples to apples is not the same as it was when Obama took office

 

[Inthemiddle]

GWB was handed a recession

No.