Unemployment rates were made worse by Bush, not Obama!

[Conservative65]

Starting in Jan. 20, 2001, at the beginning of George W. Bush’s administration, the rate was 2.4 percent, but by the time he left in January 2009 it had reached 7 percent. The rate now is 5.9% and is on track to get even lower.

Very misleading information. Unemployment was in the 4% to 5% during the majority of Bush's presidency.

You appear to be confused. The op has been updated times but here is one of the latest updates:

The Unemployment Rate When Obama Took Office:

• For the record, when Obama took office in January 2009, the "official" unemployment rate in seasonally adjusted numbers was 7.8%, with 12,079,000 people reporting themselves as unemployedand actively looking. 142,153,000 people were working in January 2009.* (These numbers are adjusted slightly since original publication as the Bureau of Labor Statistics updates its numbers. The original January 2009 unemployment rate reported by the BLS in February 2009 was 7.6%)
• In "raw" numbers not adjusted for seasonal variance, the unemployment rate was 8.5% with 13,009,000 people reporting themselves as unemployed and actively looking for work. 140,436,000 people were working in numbers not adjusted for seasonal variance.

The Unemployment Rate at its Peak:

• At the "trough" (bottom in terms of jobs) of the recession in late 2009/early 2010, the "official" unemployment rate in seasonally adjusted numbers climbed to 10.0% in October 2009 with15,382,000 people (out of a labor force of 153,887,000) reporting themselves as unemployed. 138,421,000 were working in October 2009; however, the lowest number of people working was reported in December 2009, when 138,025,000people (in seasonally adjusted numbers) were working.
• In "raw" numbers not adjusted for seasonal variance, the unemployment rate reached a peak of 10.6% in January 2010 with 16,147,000(out of a labor force of 152,957,000) reporting themselves as unemployed and actively looking for work. Only 136,809,000were working (in "raw" unadjusted numbers) in January 2010.

The Unemployment Rate NOW:

• Now, in September 2014, the "official" unemployment rate in seasonally adjusted numbers is 5.9%, with 9,262,000 (out of a large labor force of 155,862,000) unemployed and actively looking for work. 146,600,000 people are working now. (Last month 146,368,000 were working. This is an increase of 232,000people working in seasonally adjusted numbers.) The unemployment rate decreased 0.2% to 5.9% as the number of unemployed decreased by 80,000. The labor force DECREASED by 64,000 people in September. We have 524,000more people in the labor force than we did in September 2013, 2,189,000more people are employed than a year ago, and 1,665,000fewer people are unemployed than we were unemployed a year ago in September 2013. (The unemployment rate has now decreased 1.1% in the year since September 2013.)

The op is not about Bush's average UE, it's about the UE he passed onto Obama. The opening sentence of the above document clearly points that out!

The rate went well over the 8% Obama said it would go if the stimulus passed in 2009.

His estimate was off, so what?

His estimate was over 20% off. For someone that's supposed to be that smart, it doesn't show.
So was he lying or just incompetent?

 

[Conservative65]

Starting in Jan. 20, 2001, at the beginning of George W. Bush’s administration, the rate was 2.4 percent, but by the time he left in January 2009 it had reached 7 percent. The rate now is 5.9% and is on track to get even lower.

Very misleading information. Unemployment was in the 4% to 5% during the majority of Bush's presidency.

You appear to be confused. The op has been updated times but here is one of the latest updates:

The Unemployment Rate When Obama Took Office:

• For the record, when Obama took office in January 2009, the "official" unemployment rate in seasonally adjusted numbers was 7.8%, with 12,079,000 people reporting themselves as unemployedand actively looking. 142,153,000 people were working in January 2009.* (These numbers are adjusted slightly since original publication as the Bureau of Labor Statistics updates its numbers. The original January 2009 unemployment rate reported by the BLS in February 2009 was 7.6%)
• In "raw" numbers not adjusted for seasonal variance, the unemployment rate was 8.5% with 13,009,000 people reporting themselves as unemployed and actively looking for work. 140,436,000 people were working in numbers not adjusted for seasonal variance.

The Unemployment Rate at its Peak:

• At the "trough" (bottom in terms of jobs) of the recession in late 2009/early 2010, the "official" unemployment rate in seasonally adjusted numbers climbed to 10.0% in October 2009 with15,382,000 people (out of a labor force of 153,887,000) reporting themselves as unemployed. 138,421,000 were working in October 2009; however, the lowest number of people working was reported in December 2009, when 138,025,000people (in seasonally adjusted numbers) were working.
• In "raw" numbers not adjusted for seasonal variance, the unemployment rate reached a peak of 10.6% in January 2010 with 16,147,000(out of a labor force of 152,957,000) reporting themselves as unemployed and actively looking for work. Only 136,809,000were working (in "raw" unadjusted numbers) in January 2010.

The Unemployment Rate NOW:

• Now, in September 2014, the "official" unemployment rate in seasonally adjusted numbers is 5.9%, with 9,262,000 (out of a large labor force of 155,862,000) unemployed and actively looking for work. 146,600,000 people are working now. (Last month 146,368,000 were working. This is an increase of 232,000people working in seasonally adjusted numbers.) The unemployment rate decreased 0.2% to 5.9% as the number of unemployed decreased by 80,000. The labor force DECREASED by 64,000 people in September. We have 524,000more people in the labor force than we did in September 2013, 2,189,000more people are employed than a year ago, and 1,665,000fewer people are unemployed than we were unemployed a year ago in September 2013. (The unemployment rate has now decreased 1.1% in the year since September 2013.)

The op is not about Bush's average UE, it's about the UE he passed onto Obama. The opening sentence of the above document clearly points that out!

The rate went well over the 8% Obama said it would go if the stimulus passed in 2009.

His estimate was off, so what?

He was over 20% wrong. That's unacceptable except to ass kissers like you. He's a liar and you're willing to accept it.

 

[Faun]

Starting in Jan. 20, 2001, at the beginning of George W. Bush’s administration, the rate was 2.4 percent, but by the time he left in January 2009 it had reached 7 percent. The rate now is 5.9% and is on track to get even lower.

Very misleading information. Unemployment was in the 4% to 5% during the majority of Bush's presidency.

You appear to be confused. The op has been updated times but here is one of the latest updates:

The Unemployment Rate When Obama Took Office:

• For the record, when Obama took office in January 2009, the "official" unemployment rate in seasonally adjusted numbers was 7.8%, with 12,079,000 people reporting themselves as unemployedand actively looking. 142,153,000 people were working in January 2009.* (These numbers are adjusted slightly since original publication as the Bureau of Labor Statistics updates its numbers. The original January 2009 unemployment rate reported by the BLS in February 2009 was 7.6%)
• In "raw" numbers not adjusted for seasonal variance, the unemployment rate was 8.5% with 13,009,000 people reporting themselves as unemployed and actively looking for work. 140,436,000 people were working in numbers not adjusted for seasonal variance.

The Unemployment Rate at its Peak:

• At the "trough" (bottom in terms of jobs) of the recession in late 2009/early 2010, the "official" unemployment rate in seasonally adjusted numbers climbed to 10.0% in October 2009 with15,382,000 people (out of a labor force of 153,887,000) reporting themselves as unemployed. 138,421,000 were working in October 2009; however, the lowest number of people working was reported in December 2009, when 138,025,000people (in seasonally adjusted numbers) were working.
• In "raw" numbers not adjusted for seasonal variance, the unemployment rate reached a peak of 10.6% in January 2010 with 16,147,000(out of a labor force of 152,957,000) reporting themselves as unemployed and actively looking for work. Only 136,809,000were working (in "raw" unadjusted numbers) in January 2010.

The Unemployment Rate NOW:

• Now, in September 2014, the "official" unemployment rate in seasonally adjusted numbers is 5.9%, with 9,262,000 (out of a large labor force of 155,862,000) unemployed and actively looking for work. 146,600,000 people are working now. (Last month 146,368,000 were working. This is an increase of 232,000people working in seasonally adjusted numbers.) The unemployment rate decreased 0.2% to 5.9% as the number of unemployed decreased by 80,000. The labor force DECREASED by 64,000 people in September. We have 524,000more people in the labor force than we did in September 2013, 2,189,000more people are employed than a year ago, and 1,665,000fewer people are unemployed than we were unemployed a year ago in September 2013. (The unemployment rate has now decreased 1.1% in the year since September 2013.)

The op is not about Bush's average UE, it's about the UE he passed onto Obama. The opening sentence of the above document clearly points that out!

The rate went well over the 8% Obama said it would go if the stimulus passed in 2009.

His estimate was off, so what?

So was he lying or just incompetent?

Neither.

 

[Faun]

Starting in Jan. 20, 2001, at the beginning of George W. Bush’s administration, the rate was 2.4 percent, but by the time he left in January 2009 it had reached 7 percent. The rate now is 5.9% and is on track to get even lower.

Very misleading information. Unemployment was in the 4% to 5% during the majority of Bush's presidency.

You appear to be confused. The op has been updated times but here is one of the latest updates:

The Unemployment Rate When Obama Took Office:

• For the record, when Obama took office in January 2009, the "official" unemployment rate in seasonally adjusted numbers was 7.8%, with 12,079,000 people reporting themselves as unemployedand actively looking. 142,153,000 people were working in January 2009.* (These numbers are adjusted slightly since original publication as the Bureau of Labor Statistics updates its numbers. The original January 2009 unemployment rate reported by the BLS in February 2009 was 7.6%)
• In "raw" numbers not adjusted for seasonal variance, the unemployment rate was 8.5% with 13,009,000 people reporting themselves as unemployed and actively looking for work. 140,436,000 people were working in numbers not adjusted for seasonal variance.

The Unemployment Rate at its Peak:

• At the "trough" (bottom in terms of jobs) of the recession in late 2009/early 2010, the "official" unemployment rate in seasonally adjusted numbers climbed to 10.0% in October 2009 with15,382,000 people (out of a labor force of 153,887,000) reporting themselves as unemployed. 138,421,000 were working in October 2009; however, the lowest number of people working was reported in December 2009, when 138,025,000people (in seasonally adjusted numbers) were working.
• In "raw" numbers not adjusted for seasonal variance, the unemployment rate reached a peak of 10.6% in January 2010 with 16,147,000(out of a labor force of 152,957,000) reporting themselves as unemployed and actively looking for work. Only 136,809,000were working (in "raw" unadjusted numbers) in January 2010.

The Unemployment Rate NOW:

• Now, in September 2014, the "official" unemployment rate in seasonally adjusted numbers is 5.9%, with 9,262,000 (out of a large labor force of 155,862,000) unemployed and actively looking for work. 146,600,000 people are working now. (Last month 146,368,000 were working. This is an increase of 232,000people working in seasonally adjusted numbers.) The unemployment rate decreased 0.2% to 5.9% as the number of unemployed decreased by 80,000. The labor force DECREASED by 64,000 people in September. We have 524,000more people in the labor force than we did in September 2013, 2,189,000more people are employed than a year ago, and 1,665,000fewer people are unemployed than we were unemployed a year ago in September 2013. (The unemployment rate has now decreased 1.1% in the year since September 2013.)

The op is not about Bush's average UE, it's about the UE he passed onto Obama. The opening sentence of the above document clearly points that out!

The rate went well over the 8% Obama said it would go if the stimulus passed in 2009.

His estimate was off, so what?

He was over 20% wrong. That's unacceptable except to ass kissers like you. He's a liar and you're willing to accept it.

Aww, poor, Bush voter ...

es·ti·mate

1 : the act of appraising or valuing : calculation 2 : an opinion or judgment of the nature, character, or quality of a person or thing <had a high estimate of his abilities> 3 a : a rough or approximate calculation b : a numerical value obtained from a statistical sample and assigned to a population parameter

 

[The Rabbi]

Very misleading information. Unemployment was in the 4% to 5% during the majority of Bush's presidency.

You appear to be confused. The op has been updated times but here is one of the latest updates:

The Unemployment Rate When Obama Took Office:

• For the record, when Obama took office in January 2009, the "official" unemployment rate in seasonally adjusted numbers was 7.8%, with 12,079,000 people reporting themselves as unemployedand actively looking. 142,153,000 people were working in January 2009.* (These numbers are adjusted slightly since original publication as the Bureau of Labor Statistics updates its numbers. The original January 2009 unemployment rate reported by the BLS in February 2009 was 7.6%)
• In "raw" numbers not adjusted for seasonal variance, the unemployment rate was 8.5% with 13,009,000 people reporting themselves as unemployed and actively looking for work. 140,436,000 people were working in numbers not adjusted for seasonal variance.

The Unemployment Rate at its Peak:

• At the "trough" (bottom in terms of jobs) of the recession in late 2009/early 2010, the "official" unemployment rate in seasonally adjusted numbers climbed to 10.0% in October 2009 with15,382,000 people (out of a labor force of 153,887,000) reporting themselves as unemployed. 138,421,000 were working in October 2009; however, the lowest number of people working was reported in December 2009, when 138,025,000people (in seasonally adjusted numbers) were working.
• In "raw" numbers not adjusted for seasonal variance, the unemployment rate reached a peak of 10.6% in January 2010 with 16,147,000(out of a labor force of 152,957,000) reporting themselves as unemployed and actively looking for work. Only 136,809,000were working (in "raw" unadjusted numbers) in January 2010.

The Unemployment Rate NOW:

• Now, in September 2014, the "official" unemployment rate in seasonally adjusted numbers is 5.9%, with 9,262,000 (out of a large labor force of 155,862,000) unemployed and actively looking for work. 146,600,000 people are working now. (Last month 146,368,000 were working. This is an increase of 232,000people working in seasonally adjusted numbers.) The unemployment rate decreased 0.2% to 5.9% as the number of unemployed decreased by 80,000. The labor force DECREASED by 64,000 people in September. We have 524,000more people in the labor force than we did in September 2013, 2,189,000more people are employed than a year ago, and 1,665,000fewer people are unemployed than we were unemployed a year ago in September 2013. (The unemployment rate has now decreased 1.1% in the year since September 2013.)

The op is not about Bush's average UE, it's about the UE he passed onto Obama. The opening sentence of the above document clearly points that out!

The rate went well over the 8% Obama said it would go if the stimulus passed in 2009.

His estimate was off, so what?

So was he lying or just incompetent?

Neither.

I'd ask you to explain how someone with all the economic knowledge in this country available to him could promise some result and be completely and utterly wrong about it, to the order of several magnitudes.
That isnt an unlucky guess. That is either lying or incompetence.
So which is it?

 

[The Rabbi]

Very misleading information. Unemployment was in the 4% to 5% during the majority of Bush's presidency.

You appear to be confused. The op has been updated times but here is one of the latest updates:

The Unemployment Rate When Obama Took Office:

• For the record, when Obama took office in January 2009, the "official" unemployment rate in seasonally adjusted numbers was 7.8%, with 12,079,000 people reporting themselves as unemployedand actively looking. 142,153,000 people were working in January 2009.* (These numbers are adjusted slightly since original publication as the Bureau of Labor Statistics updates its numbers. The original January 2009 unemployment rate reported by the BLS in February 2009 was 7.6%)
• In "raw" numbers not adjusted for seasonal variance, the unemployment rate was 8.5% with 13,009,000 people reporting themselves as unemployed and actively looking for work. 140,436,000 people were working in numbers not adjusted for seasonal variance.

The Unemployment Rate at its Peak:

• At the "trough" (bottom in terms of jobs) of the recession in late 2009/early 2010, the "official" unemployment rate in seasonally adjusted numbers climbed to 10.0% in October 2009 with15,382,000 people (out of a labor force of 153,887,000) reporting themselves as unemployed. 138,421,000 were working in October 2009; however, the lowest number of people working was reported in December 2009, when 138,025,000people (in seasonally adjusted numbers) were working.
• In "raw" numbers not adjusted for seasonal variance, the unemployment rate reached a peak of 10.6% in January 2010 with 16,147,000(out of a labor force of 152,957,000) reporting themselves as unemployed and actively looking for work. Only 136,809,000were working (in "raw" unadjusted numbers) in January 2010.

The Unemployment Rate NOW:

• Now, in September 2014, the "official" unemployment rate in seasonally adjusted numbers is 5.9%, with 9,262,000 (out of a large labor force of 155,862,000) unemployed and actively looking for work. 146,600,000 people are working now. (Last month 146,368,000 were working. This is an increase of 232,000people working in seasonally adjusted numbers.) The unemployment rate decreased 0.2% to 5.9% as the number of unemployed decreased by 80,000. The labor force DECREASED by 64,000 people in September. We have 524,000more people in the labor force than we did in September 2013, 2,189,000more people are employed than a year ago, and 1,665,000fewer people are unemployed than we were unemployed a year ago in September 2013. (The unemployment rate has now decreased 1.1% in the year since September 2013.)

The op is not about Bush's average UE, it's about the UE he passed onto Obama. The opening sentence of the above document clearly points that out!

The rate went well over the 8% Obama said it would go if the stimulus passed in 2009.

His estimate was off, so what?

He was over 20% wrong. That's unacceptable except to ass kissers like you. He's a liar and you're willing to accept it.

Aww, poor, Bush voter ...

es·ti·mate

1 : the act of appraising or valuing : calculation 2 : an opinion or judgment of the nature, character, or quality of a person or thing <had a high estimate of his abilities> 3 a : a rough or approximate calculation b : a numerical value obtained from a statistical sample and assigned to a population parameter

But it wasnt even a rough estimate. It was simply a lie.

 

[pinqy]

Both Bushes did Reagan did, Clinton did, Carter did, Ford did, Nixon did. The next president will no matter who it is!

dumb ass
OK Carter held the record until obama took it from him.

Nope, Reagan set the record after Carter.

Show me where low worker participation for Reagan set a record?

No one has made that claim. The LEVEL not in the labor force has set a record under every president as the population has grown

Dumb ass I take it you can't read?

Nope, Reagan set the record after Carter

Both Bushes did Reagan did, Clinton did, Carter did, Ford did, Nixon did. The next president will no matter who it is!

dumb ass
OK Carter held the record until obama took it from him.

Nope, Reagan set the record after Carter.

Show me where low worker participation for Reagan set a record?

No one has made that claim. The LEVEL not in the labor force has set a record under every president as the population has grown

Dumb ass I take it you can't read?

Nope, Reagan set the record after Carter

Not only can I read, I can understand. Ed was talking about record level, not rate.

 

[The Rabbi]

dumb ass
OK Carter held the record until obama took it from him.

Nope, Reagan set the record after Carter.

Show me where low worker participation for Reagan set a record?

No one has made that claim. The LEVEL not in the labor force has set a record under every president as the population has grown

Dumb ass I take it you can't read?

Nope, Reagan set the record after Carter

dumb ass
OK Carter held the record until obama took it from him.

Nope, Reagan set the record after Carter.

Show me where low worker participation for Reagan set a record?

No one has made that claim. The LEVEL not in the labor force has set a record under every president as the population has grown

Dumb ass I take it you can't read?

Nope, Reagan set the record after Carter

Not only can I read, I can understand. Ed was talking about record level, not rate.

Can you explain the difference between a level and a rate?

 

[bigrebnc1775]

dumb ass
OK Carter held the record until obama took it from him.

Nope, Reagan set the record after Carter.

Show me where low worker participation for Reagan set a record?

No one has made that claim. The LEVEL not in the labor force has set a record under every president as the population has grown

Dumb ass I take it you can't read?

Nope, Reagan set the record after Carter

dumb ass
OK Carter held the record until obama took it from him.

Nope, Reagan set the record after Carter.

Show me where low worker participation for Reagan set a record?

No one has made that claim. The LEVEL not in the labor force has set a record under every president as the population has grown

Dumb ass I take it you can't read?

Nope, Reagan set the record after Carter

Not only can I read, I can understand. Ed was talking about record level, not rate.

Bull shit you fucking little lying bitch.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Very misleading information. Unemployment was in the 4% to 5% during the majority of Bush's presidency.

You appear to be confused. The op has been updated times but here is one of the latest updates:

The Unemployment Rate When Obama Took Office:

• For the record, when Obama took office in January 2009, the "official" unemployment rate in seasonally adjusted numbers was 7.8%, with 12,079,000 people reporting themselves as unemployedand actively looking. 142,153,000 people were working in January 2009.* (These numbers are adjusted slightly since original publication as the Bureau of Labor Statistics updates its numbers. The original January 2009 unemployment rate reported by the BLS in February 2009 was 7.6%)
• In "raw" numbers not adjusted for seasonal variance, the unemployment rate was 8.5% with 13,009,000 people reporting themselves as unemployed and actively looking for work. 140,436,000 people were working in numbers not adjusted for seasonal variance.

The Unemployment Rate at its Peak:

• At the "trough" (bottom in terms of jobs) of the recession in late 2009/early 2010, the "official" unemployment rate in seasonally adjusted numbers climbed to 10.0% in October 2009 with15,382,000 people (out of a labor force of 153,887,000) reporting themselves as unemployed. 138,421,000 were working in October 2009; however, the lowest number of people working was reported in December 2009, when 138,025,000people (in seasonally adjusted numbers) were working.
• In "raw" numbers not adjusted for seasonal variance, the unemployment rate reached a peak of 10.6% in January 2010 with 16,147,000(out of a labor force of 152,957,000) reporting themselves as unemployed and actively looking for work. Only 136,809,000were working (in "raw" unadjusted numbers) in January 2010.

The Unemployment Rate NOW:

• Now, in September 2014, the "official" unemployment rate in seasonally adjusted numbers is 5.9%, with 9,262,000 (out of a large labor force of 155,862,000) unemployed and actively looking for work. 146,600,000 people are working now. (Last month 146,368,000 were working. This is an increase of 232,000people working in seasonally adjusted numbers.) The unemployment rate decreased 0.2% to 5.9% as the number of unemployed decreased by 80,000. The labor force DECREASED by 64,000 people in September. We have 524,000more people in the labor force than we did in September 2013, 2,189,000more people are employed than a year ago, and 1,665,000fewer people are unemployed than we were unemployed a year ago in September 2013. (The unemployment rate has now decreased 1.1% in the year since September 2013.)

The op is not about Bush's average UE, it's about the UE he passed onto Obama. The opening sentence of the above document clearly points that out!

The rate went well over the 8% Obama said it would go if the stimulus passed in 2009.

His estimate was off, so what?

His estimate was over 20% off. For someone that's supposed to be that smart, it doesn't show.
So was he lying or just incompetent?

If he's an obama supporter he not smart just for that one thing.

 

[Faun]

You appear to be confused. The op has been updated times but here is one of the latest updates:

The Unemployment Rate When Obama Took Office:

• For the record, when Obama took office in January 2009, the "official" unemployment rate in seasonally adjusted numbers was 7.8%, with 12,079,000 people reporting themselves as unemployedand actively looking. 142,153,000 people were working in January 2009.* (These numbers are adjusted slightly since original publication as the Bureau of Labor Statistics updates its numbers. The original January 2009 unemployment rate reported by the BLS in February 2009 was 7.6%)
• In "raw" numbers not adjusted for seasonal variance, the unemployment rate was 8.5% with 13,009,000 people reporting themselves as unemployed and actively looking for work. 140,436,000 people were working in numbers not adjusted for seasonal variance.

The Unemployment Rate at its Peak:

• At the "trough" (bottom in terms of jobs) of the recession in late 2009/early 2010, the "official" unemployment rate in seasonally adjusted numbers climbed to 10.0% in October 2009 with15,382,000 people (out of a labor force of 153,887,000) reporting themselves as unemployed. 138,421,000 were working in October 2009; however, the lowest number of people working was reported in December 2009, when 138,025,000people (in seasonally adjusted numbers) were working.
• In "raw" numbers not adjusted for seasonal variance, the unemployment rate reached a peak of 10.6% in January 2010 with 16,147,000(out of a labor force of 152,957,000) reporting themselves as unemployed and actively looking for work. Only 136,809,000were working (in "raw" unadjusted numbers) in January 2010.

The Unemployment Rate NOW:

• Now, in September 2014, the "official" unemployment rate in seasonally adjusted numbers is 5.9%, with 9,262,000 (out of a large labor force of 155,862,000) unemployed and actively looking for work. 146,600,000 people are working now. (Last month 146,368,000 were working. This is an increase of 232,000people working in seasonally adjusted numbers.) The unemployment rate decreased 0.2% to 5.9% as the number of unemployed decreased by 80,000. The labor force DECREASED by 64,000 people in September. We have 524,000more people in the labor force than we did in September 2013, 2,189,000more people are employed than a year ago, and 1,665,000fewer people are unemployed than we were unemployed a year ago in September 2013. (The unemployment rate has now decreased 1.1% in the year since September 2013.)

The op is not about Bush's average UE, it's about the UE he passed onto Obama. The opening sentence of the above document clearly points that out!

The rate went well over the 8% Obama said it would go if the stimulus passed in 2009.

His estimate was off, so what?

So was he lying or just incompetent?

Neither.

I'd ask you to explain how someone with all the economic knowledge in this country available to him could promise some result and be completely and utterly wrong about it, to the order of several magnitudes.
That isnt an unlucky guess. That is either lying or incompetence.
So which is it?

Jester, only with a deformed brain such as yours is an "estimate," a "promise." Normally, I would highly recommend you study the definition I posted earlier for the word, "estimate," but you're a "special" kind of stupid, so being you're the dumbest poster in these fora, don't waste your time -- you won't understand it anyway.

 

[The Rabbi]

The rate went well over the 8% Obama said it would go if the stimulus passed in 2009.

His estimate was off, so what?

So was he lying or just incompetent?

Neither.

I'd ask you to explain how someone with all the economic knowledge in this country available to him could promise some result and be completely and utterly wrong about it, to the order of several magnitudes.
That isnt an unlucky guess. That is either lying or incompetence.
So which is it?

Jester, only with a deformed brain such as yours is an "estimate," a "promise." Normally, I would highly recommend you study the definition I posted earlier for the word, "estimate," but you're a "special" kind of stupid, so being you're the dumbest poster in these fora, don't waste your time -- you won't understand it anyway.

Still no explanation. Merely deflection.
Noted.

 

[Faun]

His estimate was off, so what?

So was he lying or just incompetent?

Neither.

I'd ask you to explain how someone with all the economic knowledge in this country available to him could promise some result and be completely and utterly wrong about it, to the order of several magnitudes.
That isnt an unlucky guess. That is either lying or incompetence.
So which is it?

Jester, only with a deformed brain such as yours is an "estimate," a "promise." Normally, I would highly recommend you study the definition I posted earlier for the word, "estimate," but you're a "special" kind of stupid, so being you're the dumbest poster in these fora, don't waste your time -- you won't understand it anyway.

Still no explanation. Merely deflection.
Noted.

Who knows what explanation you were expecting? Hell, you don't even know the difference between an estimate and a promise.

 

[pinqy]

Nope, Reagan set the record after Carter.

Show me where low worker participation for Reagan set a record?

No one has made that claim. The LEVEL not in the labor force has set a record under every president as the population has grown

Dumb ass I take it you can't read?

Nope, Reagan set the record after Carter

Nope, Reagan set the record after Carter.

Show me where low worker participation for Reagan set a record?

No one has made that claim. The LEVEL not in the labor force has set a record under every president as the population has grown

Dumb ass I take it you can't read?

Nope, Reagan set the record after Carter

Not only can I read, I can understand. Ed was talking about record level, not rate.

Can you explain the difference between a level and a rate?

Level is the actual number
Rate is a percentage.
For what we're talking about…
The population level is 248,446,000 people
The employment level is 146,600,00 people
The unemployment level is 9,262,000 people.
The labor force is employed plus unemployed, so the labor force level is 155,862,000
The Not in the Labor Force level is 92,584,000

The labor force participation rate is 155,862,000/248,446,000=.627=62.7%

The employment-population ratio is 146,600,000/248,446,000=.59=59%

And the unemployment rate is 9,262,000/155,862,000=.059=5.9%

 

[The Rabbi]

So was he lying or just incompetent?

Neither.

I'd ask you to explain how someone with all the economic knowledge in this country available to him could promise some result and be completely and utterly wrong about it, to the order of several magnitudes.
That isnt an unlucky guess. That is either lying or incompetence.
So which is it?

Jester, only with a deformed brain such as yours is an "estimate," a "promise." Normally, I would highly recommend you study the definition I posted earlier for the word, "estimate," but you're a "special" kind of stupid, so being you're the dumbest poster in these fora, don't waste your time -- you won't understand it anyway.

Still no explanation. Merely deflection.
Noted.

Who knows what explanation you were expecting? Hell, you don't even know the difference between an estimate and a promise.

Hmm, let's check. Is there an explanation in that post?
Nope.
No.
OK. Carry on.

 

[The Rabbi]

Show me where low worker participation for Reagan set a record?

No one has made that claim. The LEVEL not in the labor force has set a record under every president as the population has grown

Dumb ass I take it you can't read?

Nope, Reagan set the record after Carter

Show me where low worker participation for Reagan set a record?

No one has made that claim. The LEVEL not in the labor force has set a record under every president as the population has grown

Dumb ass I take it you can't read?

Nope, Reagan set the record after Carter

Not only can I read, I can understand. Ed was talking about record level, not rate.

Can you explain the difference between a level and a rate?

Level is the actual number
Rate is a percentage.
For what we're talking about…
The population level is 248,446,000 people
The employment level is 146,600,00 people
The unemployment level is 9,262,000 people.
The labor force is employed plus unemployed, so the labor force level is 155,862,000
The Not in the Labor Force level is 92,584,000

The labor force participation rate is 155,862,000/248,446,000=.627=62.7%

The employment-population ratio is 146,600,000/248,446,000=.59=59%

And the unemployment rate is 9,262,000/155,862,000=.059=5.9%

Thanks.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

No one has made that claim. The LEVEL not in the labor force has set a record under every president as the population has grown

Dumb ass I take it you can't read?

Nope, Reagan set the record after Carter

No one has made that claim. The LEVEL not in the labor force has set a record under every president as the population has grown

Dumb ass I take it you can't read?

Nope, Reagan set the record after Carter

Not only can I read, I can understand. Ed was talking about record level, not rate.

Can you explain the difference between a level and a rate?

Level is the actual number
Rate is a percentage.
For what we're talking about…
The population level is 248,446,000 people
The employment level is 146,600,00 people
The unemployment level is 9,262,000 people.
The labor force is employed plus unemployed, so the labor force level is 155,862,000
The Not in the Labor Force level is 92,584,000

The labor force participation rate is 155,862,000/248,446,000=.627=62.7%

The employment-population ratio is 146,600,000/248,446,000=.59=59%

And the unemployment rate is 9,262,000/155,862,000=.059=5.9%

Thanks.

Don't tell me you believe that bullshit full of lies?

 

[The Rabbi]

Dumb ass I take it you can't read?

Dumb ass I take it you can't read?

Not only can I read, I can understand. Ed was talking about record level, not rate.

Can you explain the difference between a level and a rate?

Level is the actual number
Rate is a percentage.
For what we're talking about…
The population level is 248,446,000 people
The employment level is 146,600,00 people
The unemployment level is 9,262,000 people.
The labor force is employed plus unemployed, so the labor force level is 155,862,000
The Not in the Labor Force level is 92,584,000

The labor force participation rate is 155,862,000/248,446,000=.627=62.7%

The employment-population ratio is 146,600,000/248,446,000=.59=59%

And the unemployment rate is 9,262,000/155,862,000=.059=5.9%

Thanks.

Don't tell me you believe that bullshit full of lies?

I asked him to explain the difference and he did. I've never used the term "level" to denote an actual hard number, nor have I ever heard an educated person use it that way but maybe there's something I'm missing.
But he didnt obfuscate, insult, or deflect. He answered my question and I give him credit.

 

[JQPublic1]

Very misleading information. Unemployment was in the 4% to 5% during the majority of Bush's presidency.

You appear to be confused. The op has been updated times but here is one of the latest updates:

The Unemployment Rate When Obama Took Office:

• For the record, when Obama took office in January 2009, the "official" unemployment rate in seasonally adjusted numbers was 7.8%, with 12,079,000 people reporting themselves as unemployedand actively looking. 142,153,000 people were working in January 2009.* (These numbers are adjusted slightly since original publication as the Bureau of Labor Statistics updates its numbers. The original January 2009 unemployment rate reported by the BLS in February 2009 was 7.6%)
• In "raw" numbers not adjusted for seasonal variance, the unemployment rate was 8.5% with 13,009,000 people reporting themselves as unemployed and actively looking for work. 140,436,000 people were working in numbers not adjusted for seasonal variance.

The Unemployment Rate at its Peak:

• At the "trough" (bottom in terms of jobs) of the recession in late 2009/early 2010, the "official" unemployment rate in seasonally adjusted numbers climbed to 10.0% in October 2009 with15,382,000 people (out of a labor force of 153,887,000) reporting themselves as unemployed. 138,421,000 were working in October 2009; however, the lowest number of people working was reported in December 2009, when 138,025,000people (in seasonally adjusted numbers) were working.
• In "raw" numbers not adjusted for seasonal variance, the unemployment rate reached a peak of 10.6% in January 2010 with 16,147,000(out of a labor force of 152,957,000) reporting themselves as unemployed and actively looking for work. Only 136,809,000were working (in "raw" unadjusted numbers) in January 2010.

The Unemployment Rate NOW:

• Now, in September 2014, the "official" unemployment rate in seasonally adjusted numbers is 5.9%, with 9,262,000 (out of a large labor force of 155,862,000) unemployed and actively looking for work. 146,600,000 people are working now. (Last month 146,368,000 were working. This is an increase of 232,000people working in seasonally adjusted numbers.) The unemployment rate decreased 0.2% to 5.9% as the number of unemployed decreased by 80,000. The labor force DECREASED by 64,000 people in September. We have 524,000more people in the labor force than we did in September 2013, 2,189,000more people are employed than a year ago, and 1,665,000fewer people are unemployed than we were unemployed a year ago in September 2013. (The unemployment rate has now decreased 1.1% in the year since September 2013.)

The op is not about Bush's average UE, it's about the UE he passed onto Obama. The opening sentence of the above document clearly points that out!

The rate went well over the 8% Obama said it would go if the stimulus passed in 2009.

His estimate was off, so what?

His estimate was over 20% off. For someone that's supposed to be that smart, it doesn't show.
So was he lying or just incompetent?

Neither! As I said previously, obama was just naive; believing that the" job creators"would create jobs if the tax cuts for the rich stood. Who lied?

 

[JQPublic1]

You appear to be confused. The op has been updated times but here is one of the latest updates:

The Unemployment Rate When Obama Took Office:

• For the record, when Obama took office in January 2009, the "official" unemployment rate in seasonally adjusted numbers was 7.8%, with 12,079,000 people reporting themselves as unemployedand actively looking. 142,153,000 people were working in January 2009.* (These numbers are adjusted slightly since original publication as the Bureau of Labor Statistics updates its numbers. The original January 2009 unemployment rate reported by the BLS in February 2009 was 7.6%)
• In "raw" numbers not adjusted for seasonal variance, the unemployment rate was 8.5% with 13,009,000 people reporting themselves as unemployed and actively looking for work. 140,436,000 people were working in numbers not adjusted for seasonal variance.

The Unemployment Rate at its Peak:

• At the "trough" (bottom in terms of jobs) of the recession in late 2009/early 2010, the "official" unemployment rate in seasonally adjusted numbers climbed to 10.0% in October 2009 with15,382,000 people (out of a labor force of 153,887,000) reporting themselves as unemployed. 138,421,000 were working in October 2009; however, the lowest number of people working was reported in December 2009, when 138,025,000people (in seasonally adjusted numbers) were working.
• In "raw" numbers not adjusted for seasonal variance, the unemployment rate reached a peak of 10.6% in January 2010 with 16,147,000(out of a labor force of 152,957,000) reporting themselves as unemployed and actively looking for work. Only 136,809,000were working (in "raw" unadjusted numbers) in January 2010.

The Unemployment Rate NOW:

• Now, in September 2014, the "official" unemployment rate in seasonally adjusted numbers is 5.9%, with 9,262,000 (out of a large labor force of 155,862,000) unemployed and actively looking for work. 146,600,000 people are working now. (Last month 146,368,000 were working. This is an increase of 232,000people working in seasonally adjusted numbers.) The unemployment rate decreased 0.2% to 5.9% as the number of unemployed decreased by 80,000. The labor force DECREASED by 64,000 people in September. We have 524,000more people in the labor force than we did in September 2013, 2,189,000more people are employed than a year ago, and 1,665,000fewer people are unemployed than we were unemployed a year ago in September 2013. (The unemployment rate has now decreased 1.1% in the year since September 2013.)

The op is not about Bush's average UE, it's about the UE he passed onto Obama. The opening sentence of the above document clearly points that out!

The rate went well over the 8% Obama said it would go if the stimulus passed in 2009.

His estimate was off, so what?

So was he lying or just incompetent?

Neither.

I'd ask you to explain how someone with all the economic knowledge in this country available to him could promise some result and be completely and utterly wrong about it, to the order of several magnitudes.
That isnt an unlucky guess. That is either lying or incompetence.
So which is it?

For someone who can't even read a simple chart, you are being awful judgmental.