More economic good news! GDP rebounds 4%

[ScreamingEagle]

If that doesn't allow you to figure this snarl of lies out then you are past my ability to remedy your affliction. Most likely it is self inflicted.

Unfortunately for liars like Hall, the BLS actually measures and reports the number of discouraged workers, which is less than 1 million and not the phony made up 6 million of Koch stooge Hall.

Employment Situation Summary

Among the marginally attached, there were 676,000 discouraged workers in June, a
decrease of 351,000 from a year earlier. (The data are not seasonally adjusted.)
Discouraged workers are persons not currently looking for work because they believe
no jobs are available for them.

You do realize that Keith Hall was the BLS Commissioner under G.W. Bush and Obama? He knows very well how things are calculated and what's included. John Crudele is the liar here. He says Dr. Hall says the numbers are wrong, but doesn't have a quote for that. Nor is there a quote of Dr. Hall saying discouraged are the only reason for the drop in the Labor Force (and keep in mind that interview was a couple of years ago when discouraged was a much higher number).
The UE rate is meant to measure the percent of people trying to work who are failing. That's it. But things can be a bit more complicated and even including discouraged or all marginally attached doesn't account for everything.

A person who takes an early retirement, where they would prefer to work, but prefer retirement to the hassle of looking for a job, would not identify as discouraged or marginally attached.

A student or stay-home spouse who wanted a job for extra money or something else to keep occupied who decides the labor market is too hard and the minimum wage job they'd get isn't worth it would also state they didn't want a job and so not show up as discouraged or marginally attached.

These groups are "loosely attached to the Labor Force" and are not measured because you can't measure them...it's too subjective. But you can see the effect in the Participation Rate and the employment-population ratio while you cannot see any direct reflection.

funny that....it's like missing the elephant in the room....

the 100 million 'non-working' Americans are still out there.....how do they manage....?
you might find alot of those 'discouraged' workers in the growing number of disability recipients and the swelling welfare rolls.....

Welfare Hits Record Levels After 50 Years of War on Poverty

Disability claims skyrocket: Here's why - Apr. 11, 2013

 

[AceRothstein]

Unfortunately for liars like Hall, the BLS actually measures and reports the number of discouraged workers, which is less than 1 million and not the phony made up 6 million of Koch stooge Hall.

Employment Situation Summary

Among the marginally attached, there were 676,000 discouraged workers in June, a
decrease of 351,000 from a year earlier. (The data are not seasonally adjusted.)
Discouraged workers are persons not currently looking for work because they believe
no jobs are available for them.

You do realize that Keith Hall was the BLS Commissioner under G.W. Bush and Obama? He knows very well how things are calculated and what's included. John Crudele is the liar here. He says Dr. Hall says the numbers are wrong, but doesn't have a quote for that. Nor is there a quote of Dr. Hall saying discouraged are the only reason for the drop in the Labor Force (and keep in mind that interview was a couple of years ago when discouraged was a much higher number).
The UE rate is meant to measure the percent of people trying to work who are failing. That's it. But things can be a bit more complicated and even including discouraged or all marginally attached doesn't account for everything.

A person who takes an early retirement, where they would prefer to work, but prefer retirement to the hassle of looking for a job, would not identify as discouraged or marginally attached.

A student or stay-home spouse who wanted a job for extra money or something else to keep occupied who decides the labor market is too hard and the minimum wage job they'd get isn't worth it would also state they didn't want a job and so not show up as discouraged or marginally attached.

These groups are "loosely attached to the Labor Force" and are not measured because you can't measure them...it's too subjective. But you can see the effect in the Participation Rate and the employment-population ratio while you cannot see any direct reflection.

funny that....it's like missing the elephant in the room....

the 100 million 'non-working' Americans are still out there.....how do they manage....?
you might find alot of those 'discouraged' workers in the growing number of disability recipients and the swelling welfare rolls.....

Welfare Hits Record Levels After 50 Years of War on Poverty

Disability claims skyrocket: Here's why - Apr. 11, 2013

Most of those 100 million people are non-working because they don't want to be working. They are retired, disabled, in school or stay at home parents. It would be great if everyone who wanted a job could get one but people really need to stop using the non-working Americans number. It makes them look like they don't know what they are talking about.

 

[boedicca]

You do realize that Keith Hall was the BLS Commissioner under G.W. Bush and Obama? He knows very well how things are calculated and what's included. John Crudele is the liar here. He says Dr. Hall says the numbers are wrong, but doesn't have a quote for that. Nor is there a quote of Dr. Hall saying discouraged are the only reason for the drop in the Labor Force (and keep in mind that interview was a couple of years ago when discouraged was a much higher number).
The UE rate is meant to measure the percent of people trying to work who are failing. That's it. But things can be a bit more complicated and even including discouraged or all marginally attached doesn't account for everything.

A person who takes an early retirement, where they would prefer to work, but prefer retirement to the hassle of looking for a job, would not identify as discouraged or marginally attached.

A student or stay-home spouse who wanted a job for extra money or something else to keep occupied who decides the labor market is too hard and the minimum wage job they'd get isn't worth it would also state they didn't want a job and so not show up as discouraged or marginally attached.

These groups are "loosely attached to the Labor Force" and are not measured because you can't measure them...it's too subjective. But you can see the effect in the Participation Rate and the employment-population ratio while you cannot see any direct reflection.

funny that....it's like missing the elephant in the room....

the 100 million 'non-working' Americans are still out there.....how do they manage....?
you might find alot of those 'discouraged' workers in the growing number of disability recipients and the swelling welfare rolls.....

Welfare Hits Record Levels After 50 Years of War on Poverty

Disability claims skyrocket: Here's why - Apr. 11, 2013

Most of those 100 million people are non-working because they don't want to be working. They are retired, disabled, in school or stay at home parents. It would be great if everyone who wanted a job could get one but people really need to stop using the non-working Americans number. It makes them look like they don't know what they are talking about.

That is an out and out lie.

A great deal of the un and underemployed are young workers. Check out the unemployment stats for black and hispanic youth, and then let us know how well Obamanomics is working for them.

 

[AceRothstein]

funny that....it's like missing the elephant in the room....

the 100 million 'non-working' Americans are still out there.....how do they manage....?
you might find alot of those 'discouraged' workers in the growing number of disability recipients and the swelling welfare rolls.....

Welfare Hits Record Levels After 50 Years of War on Poverty

Disability claims skyrocket: Here's why - Apr. 11, 2013

Most of those 100 million people are non-working because they don't want to be working. They are retired, disabled, in school or stay at home parents. It would be great if everyone who wanted a job could get one but people really need to stop using the non-working Americans number. It makes them look like they don't know what they are talking about.

That is an out and out lie.

A great deal of the un and underemployed are young workers. Check out the unemployment stats for black and hispanic youth, and then let us know how well Obamanomics is working for them.

It isn't a lie. A large majority of the 100 million non-employed in this country fall into one of the groups I mentioned. Of course the millions that are unemployed make up part of that, I never said they didn't.

 

[ScreamingEagle]

You do realize that Keith Hall was the BLS Commissioner under G.W. Bush and Obama? He knows very well how things are calculated and what's included. John Crudele is the liar here. He says Dr. Hall says the numbers are wrong, but doesn't have a quote for that. Nor is there a quote of Dr. Hall saying discouraged are the only reason for the drop in the Labor Force (and keep in mind that interview was a couple of years ago when discouraged was a much higher number).
The UE rate is meant to measure the percent of people trying to work who are failing. That's it. But things can be a bit more complicated and even including discouraged or all marginally attached doesn't account for everything.

A person who takes an early retirement, where they would prefer to work, but prefer retirement to the hassle of looking for a job, would not identify as discouraged or marginally attached.

A student or stay-home spouse who wanted a job for extra money or something else to keep occupied who decides the labor market is too hard and the minimum wage job they'd get isn't worth it would also state they didn't want a job and so not show up as discouraged or marginally attached.

These groups are "loosely attached to the Labor Force" and are not measured because you can't measure them...it's too subjective. But you can see the effect in the Participation Rate and the employment-population ratio while you cannot see any direct reflection.

funny that....it's like missing the elephant in the room....

the 100 million 'non-working' Americans are still out there.....how do they manage....?
you might find alot of those 'discouraged' workers in the growing number of disability recipients and the swelling welfare rolls.....

Welfare Hits Record Levels After 50 Years of War on Poverty

Disability claims skyrocket: Here's why - Apr. 11, 2013

Most of those 100 million people are non-working because they don't want to be working. They are retired, disabled, in school or stay at home parents. It would be great if everyone who wanted a job could get one but people really need to stop using the non-working Americans number. It makes them look like they don't know what they are talking about.

retired and children are not included in the working age population...

lots of people today turn to Big Government for support....coincidentally over 100 million...

By 2011, Census Bureau data released last year showed that the number of Americans receiving means-tested federal welfare benefits outnumbered those with year-round full-time jobs. Almost $1 trillion annually goes to the programs, with over 100 million Americans receiving some sort of benefits — not including Social Security, Medicare, or unemployment. Under ObamaCare, with its massive subsidies even for those earning many times more income than the poverty level, dependence is expected to surge even further.

Welfare Hits Record Levels After 50 Years of War on Poverty

 

[edthecynic]

Unfortunately for liars like Hall, the BLS actually measures and reports the number of discouraged workers, which is less than 1 million and not the phony made up 6 million of Koch stooge Hall.

Employment Situation Summary

Among the marginally attached, there were 676,000 discouraged workers in June, a
decrease of 351,000 from a year earlier. (The data are not seasonally adjusted.)
Discouraged workers are persons not currently looking for work because they believe
no jobs are available for them.

You do realize that Keith Hall was the BLS Commissioner under G.W. Bush and Obama? He knows very well how things are calculated and what's included. John Crudele is the liar here. He says Dr. Hall says the numbers are wrong, but doesn't have a quote for that. Nor is there a quote of Dr. Hall saying discouraged are the only reason for the drop in the Labor Force (and keep in mind that interview was a couple of years ago when discouraged was a much higher number).
The UE rate is meant to measure the percent of people trying to work who are failing. That's it. But things can be a bit more complicated and even including discouraged or all marginally attached doesn't account for everything.

A person who takes an early retirement, where they would prefer to work, but prefer retirement to the hassle of looking for a job, would not identify as discouraged or marginally attached.

A student or stay-home spouse who wanted a job for extra money or something else to keep occupied who decides the labor market is too hard and the minimum wage job they'd get isn't worth it would also state they didn't want a job and so not show up as discouraged or marginally attached.

These groups are "loosely attached to the Labor Force" and are not measured because you can't measure them...it's too subjective. But you can see the effect in the Participation Rate and the employment-population ratio while you cannot see any direct reflection.

funny that....it's like missing the elephant in the room....

the 100 million 'non-working' Americans are still out there.....how do they manage....?
you might find alot of those 'discouraged' workers in the growing number of disability recipients and the swelling welfare rolls.....

Welfare Hits Record Levels After 50 Years of War on Poverty

Disability claims skyrocket: Here's why - Apr. 11, 2013

The disability claims in your link are complete lies because they know you are too lazy to check a lie you want to believe.

Your lying source makes this false claim below where they exaggerate 1.6 million into over 23 million.

From your link:
"All told, the federal government spent nearly $250 billion in 2011 paying more than 23 million Americans some type of disability claim."

Here is the actual number of disability awards for the last 5 years, including spouses and children:

Beneficiary Data

Number of awards and average monthly amount
Year - Total Number - Average amount
2009 1,571,060 $866.02
2010 1,683,115 $867.63
2011 1,638,469 $884.99
2012 1,557,943 $886.32
2013 1,396,944 $892.57

 

[AceRothstein]

funny that....it's like missing the elephant in the room....

the 100 million 'non-working' Americans are still out there.....how do they manage....?
you might find alot of those 'discouraged' workers in the growing number of disability recipients and the swelling welfare rolls.....

Welfare Hits Record Levels After 50 Years of War on Poverty

Disability claims skyrocket: Here's why - Apr. 11, 2013

Most of those 100 million people are non-working because they don't want to be working. They are retired, disabled, in school or stay at home parents. It would be great if everyone who wanted a job could get one but people really need to stop using the non-working Americans number. It makes them look like they don't know what they are talking about.

retired and children are not included in the working age population...

lots of people today turn to Big Government for support....coincidentally over 100 million...

By 2011, Census Bureau data released last year showed that the number of Americans receiving means-tested federal welfare benefits outnumbered those with year-round full-time jobs. Almost $1 trillion annually goes to the programs, with over 100 million Americans receiving some sort of benefits — not including Social Security, Medicare, or unemployment. Under ObamaCare, with its massive subsidies even for those earning many times more income than the poverty level, dependence is expected to surge even further.

Welfare Hits Record Levels After 50 Years of War on Poverty

Current number of people not in the labor force. 90,817,000
Current number of people not in the labor force who want a job now. 6,694,000

 

[Synthaholic]

Was that the goal?

The goal was to avoid a Bush Depression, and keep it limited to a Bush Recession.

Ahh, you blamed Bush for Obama's shortcomings.... How new!

So Stock market more than doubled, $20 trillion in wealth added to the economy, unemployment dropped over 4% is now a shortcoming?

Maybe from the perspective of a Republican Congressman!

 

[ScreamingEagle]

You do realize that Keith Hall was the BLS Commissioner under G.W. Bush and Obama? He knows very well how things are calculated and what's included. John Crudele is the liar here. He says Dr. Hall says the numbers are wrong, but doesn't have a quote for that. Nor is there a quote of Dr. Hall saying discouraged are the only reason for the drop in the Labor Force (and keep in mind that interview was a couple of years ago when discouraged was a much higher number).
The UE rate is meant to measure the percent of people trying to work who are failing. That's it. But things can be a bit more complicated and even including discouraged or all marginally attached doesn't account for everything.

A person who takes an early retirement, where they would prefer to work, but prefer retirement to the hassle of looking for a job, would not identify as discouraged or marginally attached.

A student or stay-home spouse who wanted a job for extra money or something else to keep occupied who decides the labor market is too hard and the minimum wage job they'd get isn't worth it would also state they didn't want a job and so not show up as discouraged or marginally attached.

These groups are "loosely attached to the Labor Force" and are not measured because you can't measure them...it's too subjective. But you can see the effect in the Participation Rate and the employment-population ratio while you cannot see any direct reflection.

funny that....it's like missing the elephant in the room....

the 100 million 'non-working' Americans are still out there.....how do they manage....?
you might find alot of those 'discouraged' workers in the growing number of disability recipients and the swelling welfare rolls.....

Welfare Hits Record Levels After 50 Years of War on Poverty

Disability claims skyrocket: Here's why - Apr. 11, 2013

The disability claims in your link are complete lies because they know you are too lazy to check a lie you want to believe.

Your lying source makes this false claim below where they exaggerate 1.6 million into over 23 million.

From your link:
"All told, the federal government spent nearly $250 billion in 2011 paying more than 23 million Americans some type of disability claim."

Here is the actual number of disability awards for the last 5 years, including spouses and children:

Beneficiary Data

Number of awards and average monthly amount
Year - Total Number - Average amount
2009 1,571,060 $866.02
2010 1,683,115 $867.63
2011 1,638,469 $884.99
2012 1,557,943 $886.32
2013 1,396,944 $892.57

aren't those the new 'awards'....or new recipients.....per year....? you can't believe that over 250 Billion is going to 1.5 million people every year....

$250 billion divided by 25 million = 10,000

i believe this still stands....

All told, the federal government spent nearly $250 billion in 2011 paying more than 23 million Americans some type of disability claim. That's about 7% of the overall population, and 16% of the workforce.

Disability claims skyrocket: Here's why - Apr. 11, 2013

Forbes agrees...
How Americans Game the $200 Billion-a-Year 'Disability-Industrial Complex' - Forbes

 

[pinqy]

retired and children are not included in the working age population...

BLS doesn't use a "working age population," they use the Adult Civilian Non-Institutional population: 16 years and older, no upper limit on age. Excludes military, prisoners, and those in institutions. The only retires, then, that it excludes are nursing home residents.

 

[edthecynic]

funny that....it's like missing the elephant in the room....

the 100 million 'non-working' Americans are still out there.....how do they manage....?
you might find alot of those 'discouraged' workers in the growing number of disability recipients and the swelling welfare rolls.....

Welfare Hits Record Levels After 50 Years of War on Poverty

Disability claims skyrocket: Here's why - Apr. 11, 2013

The disability claims in your link are complete lies because they know you are too lazy to check a lie you want to believe.

Your lying source makes this false claim below where they exaggerate 1.6 million into over 23 million.

From your link:
"All told, the federal government spent nearly $250 billion in 2011 paying more than 23 million Americans some type of disability claim."

Here is the actual number of disability awards for the last 5 years, including spouses and children:

Beneficiary Data

Number of awards and average monthly amount
Year - Total Number - Average amount
2009 1,571,060 $866.02
2010 1,683,115 $867.63
2011 1,638,469 $884.99
2012 1,557,943 $886.32
2013 1,396,944 $892.57

aren't those the new 'awards'....or new recipients.....per year....? you can't believe that over 250 Billion is going to 1.5 million people every year....

$250 billion divided by 25 million = 10,000

i believe this still stands....

All told, the federal government spent nearly $250 billion in 2011 paying more than 23 million Americans some type of disability claim. That's about 7% of the overall population, and 16% of the workforce.

Disability claims skyrocket: Here's why - Apr. 11, 2013

Forbes agrees...
How Americans Game the $200 Billion-a-Year 'Disability-Industrial Complex' - Forbes

Those are the awards during Obama's term, you are not going to stick him with the awards before he took office are you? Oh wait, you are on the Right, never mind.

Even so there are now June 2014 only 10,971,450 disabled workers and dependents total, not any where near 23 million!

See for yourself:

Benefits in current payment status

 

[edthecynic]

funny that....it's like missing the elephant in the room....

the 100 million 'non-working' Americans are still out there.....how do they manage....?
you might find alot of those 'discouraged' workers in the growing number of disability recipients and the swelling welfare rolls.....

Welfare Hits Record Levels After 50 Years of War on Poverty

Disability claims skyrocket: Here's why - Apr. 11, 2013

The disability claims in your link are complete lies because they know you are too lazy to check a lie you want to believe.

Your lying source makes this false claim below where they exaggerate 1.6 million into over 23 million.

From your link:
"All told, the federal government spent nearly $250 billion in 2011 paying more than 23 million Americans some type of disability claim."

Here is the actual number of disability awards for the last 5 years, including spouses and children:

Beneficiary Data

Number of awards and average monthly amount
Year - Total Number - Average amount
2009 1,571,060 $866.02
2010 1,683,115 $867.63
2011 1,638,469 $884.99
2012 1,557,943 $886.32
2013 1,396,944 $892.57

aren't those the new 'awards'....or new recipients.....per year....? you can't believe that over 250 Billion is going to 1.5 million people every year....

$250 billion divided by 25 million = 10,000

i believe this still stands....

All told, the federal government spent nearly $250 billion in 2011 paying more than 23 million Americans some type of disability claim. That's about 7% of the overall population, and 16% of the workforce.

Disability claims skyrocket: Here's why - Apr. 11, 2013

Forbes agrees...
How Americans Game the $200 Billion-a-Year 'Disability-Industrial Complex' - Forbes

The radical Right-wingers at Forbes are never going to tell the truth about anything. Disability awards were up because of aging Boomers and Bush's 2 wars, now that the wars are winding down, new awards have DECLINED the last 4 years!!!! Forbes is full of shit!

 

[JimBowie1958]

USMB conservatives are truly ridiculous.

And yet we have proven our point. The GDP increase is not the final number and it got a boost from the redefinition of how they calculate the GDP, which also, btw includes government spending, so the more the Obama Regime prints money the better the economy does, supposedly.

Also it was demonstrated via MITs Billion Price Index that the US has had much higher levels of inflation than the Obama Regime admits to.

And it has also been shown that these numbers are meaningless since we can have a lower unemployment rate and still have more people out of work and on welfare.

We can have low inflation and still have sky-rocketing prices.

We can have a growth in GDP and still have fewer Americans employed for the same hours and pay that they had in 2008.

Whatever you call a statistical improvement is unrelated to the kind of economic life most Americans are living and that was what the original purpose was in collecting these data to start with.

In other words, the feds are now lying to us on a recurring basis. The only sector to benefit from Obama's policies are the left aligned corporate world and Wall Street banksters.

If recognizing that and call it out is ridiculous in your mind, I am quite happy to be ridiculous.

 

[JimBowie1958]

The disability claims in your link are complete lies because they know you are too lazy to check a lie you want to believe.

Your lying source makes this false claim below where they exaggerate 1.6 million into over 23 million.

From your link:
"All told, the federal government spent nearly $250 billion in 2011 paying more than 23 million Americans some type of disability claim."

Here is the actual number of disability awards for the last 5 years, including spouses and children:

Beneficiary Data

Number of awards and average monthly amount
Year - Total Number - Average amount
2009 1,571,060 $866.02
2010 1,683,115 $867.63
2011 1,638,469 $884.99
2012 1,557,943 $886.32
2013 1,396,944 $892.57

aren't those the new 'awards'....or new recipients.....per year....? you can't believe that over 250 Billion is going to 1.5 million people every year....

$250 billion divided by 25 million = 10,000

i believe this still stands....

All told, the federal government spent nearly $250 billion in 2011 paying more than 23 million Americans some type of disability claim. That's about 7% of the overall population, and 16% of the workforce.

Disability claims skyrocket: Here's why - Apr. 11, 2013

Forbes agrees...
How Americans Game the $200 Billion-a-Year 'Disability-Industrial Complex' - Forbes

The radical Right-wingers at Forbes are never going to tell the truth about anything. Disability awards were up because of aging Boomers and Bush's 2 wars, now that the wars are winding down, new awards have DECLINED the last 4 years!!!! Forbes is full of shit!

Agreed. Forbes only wants welfare for corporations and anything else they consider a waste of money.

Forbes is part of the corporate crony complex on the right. There is just as large and robust a corporate crony complex on the left.

American workers are getting screwed over by the corporate crony system on BOTH side of the spectrum, not just one side of it.

 

[Zander]

Looks like the Stock Market disagrees with the OP......

 

[KissMy]

Looks like the Stock Market disagrees with the OP......

Wrong - Stocks sold off because the Fed tapered QE.

 

[Zander]

Looks like the Stock Market disagrees with the OP......

Wrong - Stocks sold off because the Fed tapered QE.

did it sell off the 4 other times "the Fed tapered QE"?

 

[Synthaholic]

Here is your problem Zander

Rightwing celebration of a negative GDP has been negated by a 4% second quarter growth. There is one more quarter before the November elections. It is all or nothing for Republicans. Another strong quarter and your ....Obama has trashed the economy card is worthless

Maybe you should try....Benghazi, Benghazi, Benghazi

Is it not grand how -2% means nothing to you but a guess of +4% proves all of history wrong? Is it not wonderful that you can take this single number of 4% that you yourself know will be revised down and claim how it spells doom for Republicans?

Well, what are Republicans going to run on?
GDP has rebounded and unemployment should be below 6%
Obamacare did not cause the collapse of our healthcare system as predicted by Republicans

I guess you still got Benghazi and the IRS

When it was 5% under Bush, Republicans claimed that equaled full employment, since the 5% represented people no longer looking for work.

So Obama is close to full employment!

 

[edthecynic]

Is it not grand how -2% means nothing to you but a guess of +4% proves all of history wrong? Is it not wonderful that you can take this single number of 4% that you yourself know will be revised down and claim how it spells doom for Republicans?

Well, what are Republicans going to run on?
GDP has rebounded and unemployment should be below 6%
Obamacare did not cause the collapse of our healthcare system as predicted by Republicans

I guess you still got Benghazi and the IRS

When it was 5% under Bush, Republicans claimed that equaled full employment, since the 5% represented people no longer looking for work.

So Obama is close to full employment!

Two can play the same game!

But Bush's "REAL" unemployment was almost 25% because there were 80 million not working and 12 million unemployed when he left office, that's 92 million total not working but eating and the work force was smaller then.

 

[Synthaholic]

I don't like the GOP so I don;t care what they run on.

Fact is Obamacare is widely unpopular and has some very real challenges headed it's way... The employer mandate that as been held off will but big.

No one believes the UE rate, well Obama-bots do but the UE rate is known as a joke number and that's to people that are not even political.

The economy is doing so wonderful that everytime a number is released there is a mountain of people waiting to see wtf it is... That's because we all know the economy 6 years later and well over 12 trillion in stimulus later is teetering on falling back to a recession.

Is that it?

Republicans are going to run on "The unemployment numbers are fake?

I dono as like I said I don;t care what the GOP will run on... I'm not a Republican. Thought I made that incredibly clear.

You're a Rightwinger, regardless of whether you are a registered Republican.

You're not fooling anyone.