Obama gets UR down to 5.6 in 2 yrs Romney wanted four years to get to 5.9

[Redfish]

Obozo changed the way the unemployment rate is calculated-----------------they cooked the books and you libfools bought the lies. pathetic.

 

[AceRothstein]

Labor force participation rate and hourly wages are what matter more...if you believe the the bureau of lies and statistics you're being conned.

You do realize that the labor force participation rate is calculated by..... The Bureau of Labor Statistics, right? Guess you're being conned.

If you only pay attention to the headline number you're being conned...

Do you think the 5.6% is an accurate gauge of how well the real economy is doing?

That isn't what you said, you said you are being conned if you trust BLS data.

 

[AceRothstein]

Labor force participation rate and hourly wages are what matter more...if you believe the the bureau of lies and statistics you're being conned.

You do realize that the labor force participation rate is calculated by..... The Bureau of Labor Statistics, right? Guess you're being conned.

Unemployment rate's drop is not nearly so encouraging. It's obvious that unemployment is "improving" only if you pretend that millions of American workers no longer want jobs.

If the participation rate were 66.2% — where it was when the economy fell into recession in December 2007 — the jobless rate would be 10.7%. Again, when you exclude millions of people, the unemployment rate looks a whole lot better than it really is.

The number of people reported as not in the labor force rose to 89.304 million in February from 89.008 million in January, which is a new record. It means that 28 percent of the adult population is no longer contributing to the wealth of the nation through their labor.

The Independent Report Why the Official Unemployment Rate is so Deceiving

That means nothing without knowing how many people outside of the labor force actually want a job.

 

[rightwinger]

Obozo changed the way the unemployment rate is calculated-----------------they cooked the books and you libfools bought the lies. pathetic.

Actually, he didn't

But good to see it gives conservatives some solace

 

[Redfish]

Obozo changed the way the unemployment rate is calculated-----------------they cooked the books and you libfools bought the lies. pathetic.

Actually, he didn't

But good to see it gives conservatives some solace

Yes, they did. people no longer looking for work are no longer counted as they were in the past. They are lying to you, if you choose to believe the lies it only makes you look more like a fool than you usually do.

 

[rightwinger]

Obozo changed the way the unemployment rate is calculated-----------------they cooked the books and you libfools bought the lies. pathetic.

Actually, he didn't

But good to see it gives conservatives some solace

Yes, they did. people no longer looking for work are no longer counted as they were in the past. They are lying to you, if you choose to believe the lies it only makes you look more like a fool than you usually do.

There has always been a U3 and a U6 employment number. People reporting they are out of the workforce have always counted the same under U3. U6 is down 5% under Obama. Want to discuss that?

 

[JakeStarkey]

Redfish simply spouts without evidence then pouts when told to give evidence.

 

[TexM3]

Labor force participation rate and hourly wages are what matter more...if you believe the the bureau of lies and statistics you're being conned.

You do realize that the labor force participation rate is calculated by..... The Bureau of Labor Statistics, right? Guess you're being conned.

If you only pay attention to the headline number you're being conned...

Do you think the 5.6% is an accurate gauge of how well the real economy is doing?

That isn't what you said, you said you are being conned if you trust BLS data.

Fine, I concede. The participation rate and average hourly wages could be worse that the BLS is claiming...you got me.

 

[SwimExpert]

people no longer looking for work are no longer counted as they were in the past.

Unemployment has been counted the same way for a very long time. The numbers are given in multiple forms. There is a figure which takes into account only those who are looking for work. There is another number that takes into account people who have been discouraged due to being unable to find work. There is another figure that takes into account people who are "under" employed. There is another figure that takes into account the total number of dentures that are created across the preceding 93 days.

But the simple "media" numbers have the same criteria as they did under Bush and under Clinton, and the current 5.6% unemployment figure has the same meaning as it did back then.

 

[BluesLegend]

I love the liberal contradictions, so libs it seems the current lower taxes on the 'rich' is working is that what you are saying? OH SNAP! The libs are discombobulated, in one thread the poor and middle class are near starvation its the apocalypse and in the next thread Obama is an economic genius

 

[Kosh]

To the far left it is ok that the unemployment number look good despite the fact that close to 40% of the labor force is not working..

Typical far left drones..

 

[AceRothstein]

To the far left it is ok that the unemployment number look good despite the fact that close to 40% of the labor force is not working..

Typical far left drones..

Yup, the disabled and elderly should all get jobs. Lazy bums!

 

[SwimExpert]

To the far left it is ok that the unemployment number look good despite the fact that close to 40% of the labor force is not working..

 

[blackhawk]

Not bad news but things are not all great either as this part of the linked article points out.

Yet wage growth remains weak. Average hourly pay slipped 5 cents in December. And the unemployment rate fell partly because many of the jobless gave up looking for work and so were no longer counted as unemployed.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

GB 10513846

Now you're clutching at straws - don't be ridiculous. The exclusionary factors such as students - have always existed and the effect on the over-all numbers are minuscule

Romney chose the Unemployment Rate in 2011 to measure his economic policies were he to be elected. Those exclusionary factors are all in there right now as they will be in there in 2016. It is not a government lie that produces the 5.6% UR today - two years into Romney's forecast.,we have two years to go. He.s already been beat by 0.4 points in two years. The economy has improved greatly when compared to Romney's forecast.

We are using the exact same calculations by the BLS when we check how Romney's forecast works out.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

BL 10514358

I love the liberal contradictions, so libs it seems the current lower taxes on the 'rich' is working is that what you are saying?

Another crash and burn by a Tea Party know-nothing:

.
By Zachary A. Goldfarb January 2, 2013
With Tuesday’s House vote, the George W. Bush tax cuts, born in 2001, reach a new milestone. Originally scheduled to expire at the end of 2010, they are now permanent (or most of them, anyway). Congress voted to extend the income tax cuts for most families earning under $450,000 a year, while taxing capital gains, dividends and tax breaks at higher rates for upper-income earners.

. The legacy of the Bush tax cuts in four charts - The Washington Post

I don't need explain why BluesLegend has the blues. It is so obvious that Obama and Dems forced the end of Bush tax cuts for the wealthy to expire. The cuts for the rich expired on January 01 2013 producing the economic up turn that Romney knowingly now would have delayed.

You need to retire your silly little emoticon Mr. discombobulated Blues.

 

[TexM3]

BL 10514358

I love the liberal contradictions, so libs it seems the current lower taxes on the 'rich' is working is that what you are saying?

Another crash and burn by a Tea Party know-nothing:

.
By Zachary A. Goldfarb January 2, 2013
With Tuesday’s House vote, the George W. Bush tax cuts, born in 2001, reach a new milestone. Originally scheduled to expire at the end of 2010, they are now permanent (or most of them, anyway). Congress voted to extend the income tax cuts for most families earning under $450,000 a year, while taxing capital gains, dividends and tax breaks at higher rates for upper-income earners.

. The legacy of the Bush tax cuts in four charts - The Washington Post

I don't need explain why BluesLegend has the blues. It is so obvious that Obama and Dems forced the end of Bush tax cuts for the wealthy to expire. The cuts for the rich expired on January 01 2013 producing the economic up turn that Romney knowingly now would have delayed.

You need to retire your silly little emoticon Mr. discombobulated Blues.

So, to be clear, taxing the rich is driving the phantom economic recovery? Interesting...

 

[GreenBean]

GB 10513846

Now you're clutching at straws - don't be ridiculous. The exclusionary factors such as students - have always existed and the effect on the over-all numbers are minuscule

Romney chose the Unemployment Rate in 2011 to measure his economic policies were he to be elected. Those exclusionary factors are all in there right now as they will be in there in 2016. It is not a government lie that produces the 5.6% UR today - two years into Romney's forecast.,we have two years to go. He.s already been beat by 0.4 points in two years. The economy has improved greatly when compared to Romney's forecast.

We are using the exact same calculations by the BLS when we check how Romney's forecast works out.

I really could give a rats ass what Romney said , the fact of the matter is - he lost the election , so any projections he made are purely academic at this point .

Want to talk about who said what - here's some Kenyan born wanna be in a 2004 radio address - this pathetic incompetent slouch was actually running for the US Senate in Illinois he blasted President Bush on the state of the US economy even though there were many more jobs created and a much lower unemployment rate. Than under the current
regime ... Oh wait - that Kenyan slouch was Barrack Obama ....

“For the past few weeks, President Bush and members of his administration have traveled the nation to celebrate recent improved economic statistics. Well, I’ve been traveling too, all over this large and diverse state. In cities and suburbs, downstate and upstate, I’ve heard from people who say it’s way too early to claim victory when it comes to our economy,”

Obama in 2004 Criticized Job Growth Under Bush - ABC News

 

[NotfooledbyW]

BH 10514424

Yet wage growth remains weak. Average hourly pay slipped 5 cents in December.

3. Benefited the wealthy: By any measure, the Bush tax cuts have benefited the wealthy more than the middle class. Here’s a chart, based on data from the Tax Policy Center, showing the distributional breakdown of the Bush tax cuts before they were amended on Tuesday. Going forward, the top 1 percent of earners will benefit much less -- though still quite a bit.

The legacy of the Bush tax cuts in four charts - The Washington Post

The December fall in wage growth was said to be due to all the part time workers for retail during Christmas. Are you for increasing the Federal minimum wage which would address that?

However most economists recognize that the UR must fall to take the pressure off labor to have more leverage on their side when establishing wage rates.

 

[GreenBean]

Obozo changed the way the unemployment rate is calculated-----------------they cooked the books and you libfools bought the lies. pathetic.

Actually, he didn't

But good to see it gives conservatives some solace

Yes, they did. people no longer looking for work are no longer counted as they were in the past. They are lying to you, if you choose to believe the lies it only makes you look more like a fool than you usually do.

There has always been a U3 and a U6 employment number. People reporting they are out of the workforce have always counted the same under U3. U6 is down 5% under Obama. Want to discuss that?

Obozo changed the way the unemployment rate is calculated-----------------they cooked the books and you libfools bought the lies. pathetic.

Actually, he didn't

But good to see it gives conservatives some solace

Yes, they did. people no longer looking for work are no longer counted as they were in the past. They are lying to you, if you choose to believe the lies it only makes you look more like a fool than you usually do.

There has always been a U3 and a U6 employment number. People reporting they are out of the workforce have always counted the same under U3. U6 is down 5% under Obama. Want to discuss that?