Fact vs. Myth: Real Unemployment Rate (U-6) -- Obama vs. Bush

[edthecynic]

many businesses have cut employee hours in response to Obamacare

No matter how many times you gullible SUCKERS parrot that GOP scripted lie, it will STILL be a lie, not that you care.

When Obamacare was passed there were 9,233,000 working PT for economic reasons and there are 6,810,000 now, over 2.4 million LESS.

In spite of being exposed to the facts, I'm sure you will keep on parroting the lie you love to parrot.

the baby boomers are retiring now days Ed. Try to keep up.

But that would only explain the increase in PT work for NONeconomic reasons, Boomers cutting their hours upon reaching retirement age, it does not explain the DECLINE in PT work for economic reasons like Obamacare.

 

[BULLDOG]

The U-6 was NEVER the "real" unemployment rate, and Bush's U-6 was never 10%, bush had the BLS cook the numbers. See that knife cuts both ways!!!

The U-6 gives you the whole story about the employment situation. The regular jobless number, the U-3, can be very misleading, especially when many businesses have cut employee hours in response to Obamacare, and especially when we have so many people who are severely under-employed.

How would Bush have gotten the Department of Labor to cook the numbers? Do you have any evidence for that claim? How have the reporting criteria changed from when, or before, Bush was in office? Doesn't the BLS report the same types of numbers? So how could Bush have "cooked the numbers"?

Anyway, the central point is that when you consider the U-6, it becomes clear that the economy under Obama is performing markedly worse than it did under Bush--or under Clinton, or Bush Sr., or Reagan, or Carter.

Since Reagan is generally considered the gold standard in right wing ideology, I doubt you would argue that any of the others you list would compare to him, so lets start at the top. Nobody, even you, can accuse Forbes of being a liberal mouthpiece, but they say Obama Outperforms Reagan On Jobs, Growth And Investing.

Obama Outperforms Reagan On Jobs Growth And Investing - Forbes

 

[The Rabbi]

The U-6 was NEVER the "real" unemployment rate, and Bush's U-6 was never 10%, bush had the BLS cook the numbers. See that knife cuts both ways!!!

The U-6 gives you the whole story about the employment situation. The regular jobless number, the U-3, can be very misleading, especially when many businesses have cut employee hours in response to Obamacare, and especially when we have so many people who are severely under-employed.

How would Bush have gotten the Department of Labor to cook the numbers? Do you have any evidence for that claim? How have the reporting criteria changed from when, or before, Bush was in office? Doesn't the BLS report the same types of numbers? So how could Bush have "cooked the numbers"?

Anyway, the central point is that when you consider the U-6, it becomes clear that the economy under Obama is performing markedly worse than it did under Bush--or under Clinton, or Bush Sr., or Reagan, or Carter.

Since Reagan is generally considered the gold standard in right wing ideology, I doubt you would argue that any of the others you list would compare to him, so lets start at the top. Nobody, even you, can accuse Forbes of being a liberal mouthpiece, but they say Obama Outperforms Reagan On Jobs, Growth And Investing.

Obama Outperforms Reagan On Jobs Growth And Investing - Forbes

Forbes is actually a liberal mouthpiece.
Next.

 

[WelfareQueen]

To cut through all the bullshit....Obama's job record sucks. Anyone who argues otherwise is a fool or a dupe.....or both.

 

[edthecynic]

The U-6 was NEVER the "real" unemployment rate, and Bush's U-6 was never 10%, bush had the BLS cook the numbers. See that knife cuts both ways!!!

The U-6 gives you the whole story about the employment situation. The regular jobless number, the U-3, can be very misleading, especially when many businesses have cut employee hours in response to Obamacare, and especially when we have so many people who are severely under-employed.

How would Bush have gotten the Department of Labor to cook the numbers? Do you have any evidence for that claim? How have the reporting criteria changed from when, or before, Bush was in office? Doesn't the BLS report the same types of numbers? So how could Bush have "cooked the numbers"?

Anyway, the central point is that when you consider the U-6, it becomes clear that the economy under Obama is performing markedly worse than it did under Bush--or under Clinton, or Bush Sr., or Reagan, or Carter.

Since Reagan is generally considered the gold standard in right wing ideology, I doubt you would argue that any of the others you list would compare to him, so lets start at the top. Nobody, even you, can accuse Forbes of being a liberal mouthpiece, but they say Obama Outperforms Reagan On Jobs, Growth And Investing.

Obama Outperforms Reagan On Jobs Growth And Investing - Forbes

Forbes is actually a liberal mouthpiece.
Next.

Complete BULLSHIT!
Next.

 

[The Rabbi]

To cut through all the bullshit....Obama's job record sucks. Anyone who argues otherwise is a fool or a dupe.....or both.

Both. You could cherry pick some factoid and show that Herbert Hoover's economic record was better than Reagan's if you wanted to.

 

[edthecynic]

To cut through all the bullshit....Obama's job record sucks. Anyone who argues otherwise is a fool or a dupe.....or both.

Both. You could cherry pick some factoid and show that Herbert Hoover's economic record was better than Reagan's if you wanted to.

Hell, everyone's economic record is better than St Ronnie's, all his numbers are cooked.
See how that works!

 

[Theowl32]

Bush inherited a recession

Bush burst the dot com bubble and then he burst the housing bubble, both created by the GOP Congress.

The dotcom bubble burst in the Summer of 2000, you fucking dipshit. You stupid fucking moron. You fucking hack.

And who controlled Congress in the Summer of 2000, you fucking dipshit. You stupid fucking moron. You fucking hack.

Oh, so congress caused the tech bubble to burst? Lol. You are stupid. Please explain how they did that.

Besides, you miserable sack of left wing shit, you said the tech bubble happened under bush. The fucking tech bubble burst under Clinton.

I will be waiting for you to explain to all of us how congress caused the bubble to burst on the tech stocks.

You ignorant pile of shit.

 

[BULLDOG]

The U-6 was NEVER the "real" unemployment rate, and Bush's U-6 was never 10%, bush had the BLS cook the numbers. See that knife cuts both ways!!!

The U-6 gives you the whole story about the employment situation. The regular jobless number, the U-3, can be very misleading, especially when many businesses have cut employee hours in response to Obamacare, and especially when we have so many people who are severely under-employed.

How would Bush have gotten the Department of Labor to cook the numbers? Do you have any evidence for that claim? How have the reporting criteria changed from when, or before, Bush was in office? Doesn't the BLS report the same types of numbers? So how could Bush have "cooked the numbers"?

Anyway, the central point is that when you consider the U-6, it becomes clear that the economy under Obama is performing markedly worse than it did under Bush--or under Clinton, or Bush Sr., or Reagan, or Carter.

Since Reagan is generally considered the gold standard in right wing ideology, I doubt you would argue that any of the others you list would compare to him, so lets start at the top. Nobody, even you, can accuse Forbes of being a liberal mouthpiece, but they say Obama Outperforms Reagan On Jobs, Growth And Investing.

Obama Outperforms Reagan On Jobs Growth And Investing - Forbes

Forbes is actually a liberal mouthpiece.
Next.

Of course you would say that. Just another example of how right wingers disagree with anything that doesn't support their current claim even if they know that's wrong. That's what happens when the entire party decides integrity isn't one of their goals.

 

[BULLDOG]

To cut through all the bullshit....Obama's job record sucks. Anyone who argues otherwise is a fool or a dupe.....or both.

Typical teabagger response. "Don't bother me with facts. Rush told me, so facts don't matter"

 

[Siete]

many businesses have cut employee hours in response to Obamacare

No matter how many times you gullible SUCKERS parrot that GOP scripted lie, it will STILL be a lie, not that you care.

When Obamacare was passed there were 9,233,000 working PT for economic reasons and there are 6,810,000 now, over 2.4 million LESS.

In spite of being exposed to the facts, I'm sure you will keep on parroting the lie you love to parrot.

the baby boomers are retiring now days Ed. Try to keep up.

But that would only explain the increase in PT work for NONeconomic reasons, Boomers cutting their hours upon reaching retirement age, it does not explain the DECLINE in PT work for economic reasons like Obamacare.

no part time to it. Boomers retire and leave the work force completely.

 

[The Rabbi]

To cut through all the bullshit....Obama's job record sucks. Anyone who argues otherwise is a fool or a dupe.....or both.

Both. You could cherry pick some factoid and show that Herbert Hoover's economic record was better than Reagan's if you wanted to.

Hell, everyone's economic record is better than St Ronnie's, all his numbers are cooked.
See how that works!

I see that you're an idiot. Is that the point you were trying to make?

 

[The Rabbi]

many businesses have cut employee hours in response to Obamacare

No matter how many times you gullible SUCKERS parrot that GOP scripted lie, it will STILL be a lie, not that you care.

When Obamacare was passed there were 9,233,000 working PT for economic reasons and there are 6,810,000 now, over 2.4 million LESS.

In spite of being exposed to the facts, I'm sure you will keep on parroting the lie you love to parrot.

the baby boomers are retiring now days Ed. Try to keep up.

But that would only explain the increase in PT work for NONeconomic reasons, Boomers cutting their hours upon reaching retirement age, it does not explain the DECLINE in PT work for economic reasons like Obamacare.

no part time to it. Boomers retire and leave the work force completely.

Wrong. People retiring is part of the picture, but the largest number of people outside the workforce are under 30.

 

[pinqy]

To cut through all the bullshit....Obama's job record sucks. Anyone who argues otherwise is a fool or a dupe.....or both.

Both. You could cherry pick some factoid and show that Herbert Hoover's economic record was better than Reagan's if you wanted to.

Ok, what standard of measurement do you suggest would be a fair evaluation of Obama's job record or a fair comparison with some other President?

 

[edthecynic]

Bush inherited a recession

Bush burst the dot com bubble and then he burst the housing bubble, both created by the GOP Congress.

The dotcom bubble burst in the Summer of 2000, you fucking dipshit. You stupid fucking moron. You fucking hack.

And who controlled Congress in the Summer of 2000, you fucking dipshit. You stupid fucking moron. You fucking hack.

Oh, so congress caused the tech bubble to burst? Lol. You are stupid. Please explain how they did that.

Besides, you miserable sack of left wing shit, you said the tech bubble happened under bush. The fucking tech bubble burst under Clinton.

I will be waiting for you to explain to all of us how congress caused the bubble to burst on the tech stocks.

You ignorant pile of shit.

The same way the Right claims the Dem Congress caused the housing crash of the Bush Depression, and just like the Right said Obama controlled the economy well BEFORE he was elected, the SAME "logic" applies to Bush.

Notice how the Right has a shit fit whenever their moronic rationalizations are turned on them!!!

March 2, 2009
RUSH: To say that Obama has been in office only one month is not accurate from an effect on the world and an effect on the country standpoint. Barack Obama has been the controlling political authority on the economy for six months.

 

[Siete]

many businesses have cut employee hours in response to Obamacare

No matter how many times you gullible SUCKERS parrot that GOP scripted lie, it will STILL be a lie, not that you care.

When Obamacare was passed there were 9,233,000 working PT for economic reasons and there are 6,810,000 now, over 2.4 million LESS.

In spite of being exposed to the facts, I'm sure you will keep on parroting the lie you love to parrot.

the baby boomers are retiring now days Ed. Try to keep up.

But that would only explain the increase in PT work for NONeconomic reasons, Boomers cutting their hours upon reaching retirement age, it does not explain the DECLINE in PT work for economic reasons like Obamacare.

no part time to it. Boomers retire and leave the work force completely.

Wrong. People retiring is part of the picture, but the largest number of people outside the workforce are under 30.

wrong?

• The average prime working age LFPR since 2007 is 82.0%, and the average 55-and-over LFPR since 2007 is 40.1%

• The size of the 55-and-over population has increased by 15.619 million relative to that of the prime working age population since 2007

• 15.619 million multiplied by the difference between the two participation rates (82.0% - 40.1%) implies that this simple demographic shift alone has left only 6.544 million workers at the end of 2013 where there were 15.619 million at the end of 2007

• Subtract that 6.544 million still in the labor force from the 15.619 million who made the shift from the first bucket to the second bucket and you get 9.075 million people 55 years of age or over who have left the labor force over the past six years.

9 million in the last 6 years.

like I said, try and keep up.


Read more: Baby Boomers Are Retiring - Business Insider

 

[edthecynic]

many businesses have cut employee hours in response to Obamacare

No matter how many times you gullible SUCKERS parrot that GOP scripted lie, it will STILL be a lie, not that you care.

When Obamacare was passed there were 9,233,000 working PT for economic reasons and there are 6,810,000 now, over 2.4 million LESS.

In spite of being exposed to the facts, I'm sure you will keep on parroting the lie you love to parrot.

the baby boomers are retiring now days Ed. Try to keep up.

But that would only explain the increase in PT work for NONeconomic reasons, Boomers cutting their hours upon reaching retirement age, it does not explain the DECLINE in PT work for economic reasons like Obamacare.

no part time to it. Boomers retire and leave the work force completely.

Not all, some choose to reduce their hours.

Boomers Plan to Work Part-Time in Retirement - FlexJobs

18 Jun, 2014
Boomers Plan to Work Part-Time in Retirement
Jennifer Parris
In the past, you might have worked with the same company for decades, retired at age 65, and set off to find a new pastime to fill your carefree hours. Today’s boomers are doing quite the opposite and are actually planning to work part-time in retirement—and beyond.

According to a new survey commissioned by the nonprofit Transamerica Center for Retirement Studies, about 65 percent of baby boomers plan to work after age 65—or don’t even plan to retire at all. The two biggest motivating factors for them to continue working: income (or lack thereof) and health benefits.

 

[pinqy]

Wrong. People retiring is part of the picture, but the largest number of people outside the workforce are under 30.

Do you just make your own numbers up? A-38. Persons not in the labor force by desire and availability for work age and sex
For January 2015
Not in the Labor Force age 16-24 = 18,176,000
Not in the Labor Force age 25-54 = 23,820,000
Not in the Labor Force age 55+ = 51,677,000
So what math are you using to get largest not in the labor force are under 30?

 

[WelfareQueen]

To cut through all the bullshit....Obama's job record sucks. Anyone who argues otherwise is a fool or a dupe.....or both.

Typical teabagger response. "Don't bother me with facts. Rush told me, so facts don't matter"

 

[thereisnospoon]

The real unemployment rate, the one that most media talking heads rarely mention, is called the U-6, and according to the Department of Labor, the U-6 rate is now 11.3%. Under Obama the U-6 has been as high as 17%. See:

Chart What s the real unemployment rate

U6 Unemployment Rate Portal Seven

The Big Lie 5.6 Unemployment

In contrast, under George W. Bush, the U-6 stayed below 10% for the vast majority of his presidency, and it didn't go above 12% until the last three months of his second term. That sharp upswing came because of the Great Recession in 2008, which was largely caused by massive--and disastrous--federal intervention in the home loan industry (via Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, and the CRA), which led to the housing crisis, which in turn triggered--and largely caused--the Great Recession. See:

Did Deregulation and Capitalism Cause the Financial Crisis

(And it's worth noting that the Great Recession was needlessly made worse by senseless federal regulations such as the ridiculous federal mark-to-market regulations. Those regulations were later quietly changed, in recognition of the damage they had done during the early stages of the recession. For more on the damage done by the federal mark-to-market restrictions, see Suspend Mark-To-Market Now - Forbes and The mark to market fiasco.)

And every single liberal politician and their supporters deny this.
They then turn to the "Wall Street" narrative.