Unemployment hits a 26 year high, now at 10.2%

[ThePickledPunk]

The unemployment numbers are total bs. Obama saved or created hundreds of thousands of jobs. Dont buy into the bs. MMMM MMMM MMMMM

 

[Maple]

Yes things really did seem to go South in a hurry when the Democrats took control of Congress. This is hardly ever reported on by the lock-step MSM but it is true.

They don't report it because it means jack shit.

False causality
Main article: Correlation does not imply causality

When a statistical test shows a correlation between A and B, there are usually five possibilities:

1. A causes B.
2. B causes A.
3. A and B both partly cause each other.
4. A and B are both caused by a third factor, C.
5. The observed correlation was due purely to chance.

The fifth possibility can be quantified by statistical tests that can calculate the probability that the correlation observed would be as large as it is just by chance if, in fact, there is no relationship between the variables. However, even if that possibility has a small probability, there are still the four others.

If the number of people buying ice cream at the beach is statistically related to the number of people who drown at the beach, then nobody would claim ice cream causes drowning because it's obvious that it isn't so. (In this case, both drowning and ice cream buying are clearly related by a third factor: the number of people at the beach).

This fallacy can be used, for example, to prove that exposure to a chemical causes cancer. Replace "number of people buying ice cream" with "number of people exposed to chemical X", and "number of people who drown" with "number of people who get cancer", and many people will believe you. In such a situation, there may be a statistical correlation even if there is no real effect. For example, if there is a perception that the chemical is "dangerous" (even if it really isn't) property values in the area will decrease, which will entice more low-income families to move to that area. If low-income families are more likely to get cancer than high-income families (this can happen for many reasons, such as a poorer diet or less access to medical care) then rates of cancer will go up, even though the chemical itself is not dangerous. It is believed that this is exactly what happened with some of the early studies showing a link between EMF (electromagnetic fields) from power lines and cancer.

In well-designed studies, the effect of false causality can be eliminated by assigning some people into a "treatment group" and some people into a "control group" at random, and giving the treatment group the treatment and not giving the control group the treatment. In the above example, a researcher might expose one group of people to chemical X and leave a second group unexposed. If the first group had higher cancer rates, the researcher knows that there is no third factor that affected whether a person was exposed because he controlled who was exposed or not, and he assigned people to the exposed and non-exposed groups at random. However, in many applications, actually doing an "experiment" in this way is either prohibitively expensive, infeasible, unethical, illegal, or downright impossible. (For example, it is highly unlikely that an IRB would accept an experiment that involved intentionally exposing people to a dangerous substance in order to test its toxicity.)

Misuse of statistics - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

But feel free to post all the laws passed by the Democrat Congress and signed by President Bush in the 10 months after Congress was sworn in to when the worst recession since the Great Depression officially started. I await with baited breath.

Toro, you need to pull your head out of those dark, dark, places and get some reality. I gave you credit for having a little more sense than alot of the libs on this board. I am sadly dissapointed. As I tell the rest of the libs, " Don't you dare ever let the FACTS or the TRUTH get in the way of your BELEIFS. It's too much of an overload on that liberal, la, la land mind of yours.

 

[Maple]

Didn't the economic downturn occur after the democrats took control of congress?

Yes. Yes it did.

Great chart and sooooooooooooooooooo true. Thanks!!!!!

 

[LibocalypseNow]

If this White House is saying the number is 10.2% you can bet it's more like 15 to 20%. That's how i see it anyway.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Thank heavens for this administration that has managed to salvage the disaster of the hopelesschangeless Republican pervision of the Bush years.

And the unemployment rate is more than a full half-percentage point below that of Reagan's administration.

The HopelessChangeless reaganites are going to have to change if they ever want power again.

 

[Toro]

Toro, you need to pull your head out of those dark, dark, places and get some reality. I gave you credit for having a little more sense than alot of the libs on this board. I am sadly dissapointed. As I tell the rest of the libs, " Don't you dare ever let the FACTS or the TRUTH get in the way of your BELEIFS. It's too much of an overload on that liberal, la, la land mind of yours.

That's nice.

Now please point to some facts and truths regarding the laws passed by the Democrat Congress signed by President Bush in the 10 months between when they were sworn in and to when the recession started in December 2007.

I'm waiting.

 

[rightwinger]

Any more of you regretting your vote now?????????????

I blame Bush

 

[Maple]

Any more of you regretting your vote now?????????????

I blame Bush

Well of course YOU would. Don't you dare let the FACTS or the TRUTH get in the way of what you BELIEVE. It's just to much of an overload on your liberal, la, la, land brain of yours.

 

[ThePickledPunk]

thank heavens for this administration that has managed to salvage the disaster of the hopelesschangeless republican pervision of the bush years.

And the unemployment rate is more than a full half-percentage point below that of reagan's administration.

The hopelesschangeless reaganites are going to have to change if they ever want power again.

dont believe your lyin eyes- believe your ears......"hope and change.....transformation.....america sucked......."

 

[saveliberty]

Why unemployment numbers will not go down soon.

1. Unemployment benefits are extended 20 weeks more. That means these people stay on the books.
2. Productivity is way high right now. Businesses will look to existing employees before hiring.
3. Uncertainty in the cost of health care in 2013, will delay hiring.
4. The stimulus money's impact is lessening. Sustained GDP growth will have to come from
consumers.

 

[rightwinger]

Any more of you regretting your vote now?????????????

I blame Bush

Well of course YOU would. Don't you dare let the FACTS or the TRUTH get in the way of what you BELIEVE. It's just to much of an overload on your liberal, la, la, land brain of yours.

7.8% of the unemployment came under Bush

2.4% came under Obama


I Blame Bush!

 

[JakeStarkey]

The new Unemployment Number is now at a staggering 10.2%. But hey the Recession is Over right? Feeling better? The Recession is "Over" because Ben Bernanke and the President say it is? Sorry but i just can't give Ben Bernanke much credibility anymore. How could so many fall for the fantasy that the very same people who destroyed our Economy in the first place were going to be the same people to fix it? What has changed? I see no change at all. In fact many in this White House are actually calling Ben Bernanke and Timothy Geithner "Geniuses." Wow,are people really buying that stuff? Scary thought no? In my humble opinion,if this White House is saying the number is 10.2% i'm just going to have to assume the real number is more like 15 to 20%. Just more business as usual in the end and that's definitely not good for America.

uh, caplysolouie? Yeah, you, with the googly rolling eyeballs. Go compare your above numbers with Reagan's year in 1983, almost a full three years of being in office. You are talking moronically.

 

[rightwinger]

In all fairness, the last time we had over 10% unemployment, I blamed the previous president.

In 1983, I blamed Carter, even though Reagan had been in office for over two years.

In 2009, I blame Bush, even though Obama has been in office for ten months


I blame Bush

 

[NYcarbineer]

Didn't the economic downturn occur after the democrats took control of congress?

And the cause and effect argument would be...??

 

[NYcarbineer]

It's the worst unemployment since 1983, which was a couple years into Reagan's first term.

And Reagan inherited an EXPANDING economy that went into recession 6 months into Reagan's first term.

You know...Reagan...the economic genius?

 

[mascale]

Probably an opening comment by Old Fart poster is most appropriate.

"Job loss is not as bad as it was earlier in the year, but a continuation of losses at that level would have been catasptrophic. There is no truly positive news here, things a only getting worse more slowly. This is a depression on the installment plan."

So far, that would be about jobs that were saved, and jobs created. The total increase of Bush-in-Office unemployment is about 4%, and the total increase of Obama-in-Office unemployment is about 2%. "Obama Unemployment," actually, probably, only sounds good to millions. The rate of increase has slowed, however, during the Obama eight months.

We also know that, "Tea Parties," and "Race Riots," only sound good to millions. Eventuallt, they "all" tend to blame reporters, which then sounds even better to millions.

"Crow, James Crow! Shaken, Not Stirred!"
(Anyone wonders how lawyers stay loved(?))

 

[Bill O'Olberman]

Toro, you need to pull your head out of those dark, dark, places and get some reality. I gave you credit for having a little more sense than alot of the libs on this board. I am sadly dissapointed. As I tell the rest of the libs, " Don't you dare ever let the FACTS or the TRUTH get in the way of your BELEIFS. It's too much of an overload on that liberal, la, la land mind of yours.

That's nice.

Now please point to some facts and truths regarding the laws passed by the Democrat Congress signed by President Bush in the 10 months between when they were sworn in and to when the recession started in December 2007.

I'm waiting.

And you're probably going to have to keep waiting since the Republicans who want to blame only the Democratic Congress that took office in January 2007 for the current economic conditions are blinded by the partisan hack dogma. Of course they are experts at trying to deflect away from you originial point and spewing talking points with no substance what-so-ever, like the dross Maple is spewing.