No Jobs created since Obama took office, LINK

[JRK]

If we were still counting unemployment the same way we were when Bush left office the rate would be 11% today. As it is Gallup says it's 9.1% using the same numbers that the BLS uses. The Obama Administration uses "Seasonal Adjusted" to lower the rate to 8.3%.

This isn't the slightest bit true.

BLS has not changed the way they calculate the U3 rate since Obama has been President. The number is calculated the SAME way.

different number

 

[pinqy]

If we were still counting unemployment the same way we were when Bush left office the rate would be 11% today. As it is Gallup says it's 9.1% using the same numbers that the BLS uses. The Obama Administration uses "Seasonal Adjusted" to lower the rate to 8.3%.

This isn't the slightest bit true.

BLS has not changed the way they calculate the U3 rate since Obama has been President. The number is calculated the SAME way.

different number

Do you care to elaborate? Are you claiming, as Mudwhistle was, that the Obama administration calculates the data differently? Or are you saying something else?

 

[JRK]

This isn't the slightest bit true.

BLS has not changed the way they calculate the U3 rate since Obama has been President. The number is calculated the SAME way.

different number

Do you care to elaborate? Are you claiming, as Mudwhistle was, that the Obama administration calculates the data differently? Or are you saying something else?

They do
it has to do with the number of people in the "workforce"
Its no different than the "way" it has been done for some time, but that constant used to calcs the % has changed more than any other time
Bush vs. Obama: Unemployment (May 2011 Jobs Data) | Reflections of a Rational Republican

look at the graphs on this link, they are accurate as well as show clearly the rapid pace the number of people within the work-force have changed

My issue with this admin is there obvious mis use of information as well as there constant, well lying

The number of people not working at this level does not need any of this, people on the street know how bad it is

 

[pinqy]

different number

Do you care to elaborate? Are you claiming, as Mudwhistle was, that the Obama administration calculates the data differently? Or are you saying something else?

They do
it has to do with the number of people in the "workforce"
Its no different than the "way" it has been done for some time, but that constant used to calcs the % has changed more than any other time

There is no "constant" used. I've explained this before: Every month the population is surveyed and people are classified as Employed, Unemployed, or Not in the Labor Force. Employed and Unemployed are added together and that's the Labor Force. It's not a "constant," it can't be purposefully changed...it's just a sum. The administration doesn't have anything to do with it. The Labor Force goes up or down and back and forth...this recession happened to be a longer period of people dropping out or not joining. Nobody manipulated anything. I'm not even sure how you think they could. A concrete example, with math, would be nice.

look at the graphs on this link, they are accurate as well as show clearly the rapid pace the number of people within the work-force have changed

Yes, many people who had been looking stopped looking, many people lost/left their job and didn't look for a new one, fewer people turning 16 looked for work, and fewer people who hadn't been trying to work started trying again. That's what affected the Labor Force and the participation rate.

Any real analyst recognized the changes and knew the full picture.

My issue with this admin is there obvious mis use of information as well as there constant, well lying

How was it mis-used? What "should" have been done instead? And what specific lies are you referring to?

And note again how old your links are. The Labor Force, and the Participation Rate are going back up. In Feb, the UE rate stayed the same because BOTH Employment AND Unemployment went up as people rejoined the Labor Force.

 

[Decepticon]

What I don't get is that the people who wrecked the economy in the first place now say the only way to get our economy back is to give it to the people who wrecked it last time.

Well, are you going to do anything besides tax cuts for the rich that balloon our deficits and encourage profit taking over GROWING businesses ?

Are you going to deregulate business so we get another Wall Street crash?

I know...are you going to lie us into another war at a cost of 4 TRILLION dollars and 4000+ of our guys DEAD?

Yes?
Then **** you.

 

[JRK]

What I don't get is that the people who wrecked the economy in the first place now say the only way to get our economy back is to give it to the people who wrecked it last time.

Well, are you going to do anything besides tax cuts for the rich that balloon our deficits and encourage profit taking over GROWING businesses ?

Are you going to deregulate business so we get another Wall Street crash?

I know...are you going to lie us into another war at a cost of 4 TRILLION dollars and 4000+ of our guys DEAD?

Yes?
Then **** you.

F--- you?
are you nuts?
the wars which were approves thru congress cost much less than 2 trillion and the deficit ballon began in 2008, after the left took over congress. In 2007 (2006 congress) we had a deficit of 163 billion with 2 wars full bore
U.S. 2007 Budget Deficit Falls to $163 Billion (Update1) - Bloomberg

the troops getting killed in wars happen as sad as it is. 9-11 had close to that many killed in one day with no reason

de regulation had nothing to do with the housing collapse, if it did it occured in the late 90s with the repeal of Glass Segall

Now chill out, dont be angry about things that are not true. If your going to be pissed, be pissed about things that really occured

 

[JRK]

Do you care to elaborate? Are you claiming, as Mudwhistle was, that the Obama administration calculates the data differently? Or are you saying something else?

They do
it has to do with the number of people in the "workforce"
Its no different than the "way" it has been done for some time, but that constant used to calcs the % has changed more than any other time

There is no "constant" used. I've explained this before: Every month the population is surveyed and people are classified as Employed, Unemployed, or Not in the Labor Force. Employed and Unemployed are added together and that's the Labor Force. It's not a "constant," it can't be purposefully changed...it's just a sum. The administration doesn't have anything to do with it. The Labor Force goes up or down and back and forth...this recession happened to be a longer period of people dropping out or not joining. Nobody manipulated anything. I'm not even sure how you think they could. A concrete example, with math, would be nice.

look at the graphs on this link, they are accurate as well as show clearly the rapid pace the number of people within the work-force have changed

Yes, many people who had been looking stopped looking, many people lost/left their job and didn't look for a new one, fewer people turning 16 looked for work, and fewer people who hadn't been trying to work started trying again. That's what affected the Labor Force and the participation rate.

Any real analyst recognized the changes and knew the full picture.

My issue with this admin is there obvious mis use of information as well as there constant, well lying

How was it mis-used? What "should" have been done instead? And what specific lies are you referring to?

And note again how old your links are. The Labor Force, and the Participation Rate are going back up. In Feb, the UE rate stayed the same because BOTH Employment AND Unemployment went up as people rejoined the Labor Force.

his 1st lie would be the creation of jobs, we are still well below 09 levels when he took office

his 2nd lie would be the 'defict" he in herited, part of the failed stimulus as well as his 1/2 of tarp added to the 09 debt, as well as he signed the spending budget for 09
Obama Will Sign Spending Bill Despite Earmarks | Fox News
Also much of the debt from the 09 budget came from job loss (loss of tax revenue) no matter how you cut the cake, the facts are just that
Issa: Obama Administration Corrupt: TARP is “Walking-Around Money” for Obama : Stop The ACLU
The Truth about Obama's Budget Deficits, in Pictures
heritage gives the 08 defict of over 800 billion to GWB, that 500 billion dollars Obama owns is a big lie

his 3rd lie and to me his biggest is calling GM a success story, they still owe us billions
he also made claim those UAW jobs would be lost, this is not true, the UAW would have lost jobs, but the jobs would have been replaced by Ford or non-union jobs in the south such as Toyota
Bailout List: Banks, Auto Companies, and More | Eye on the Bailout | ProPublica

His 4th lie is no new taxes, the "fine" for not getting health ins is nothing but a tax.
Justices Skeptical That Health Care Mandate Is A ‘Tax’ | TPMDC

you want me to go on, there are a very big lie's in his entire agenda if you ask me, some are opinion
the 08 debt
the GM success story
the creation of jobs when we are still replacing jobs lost are not opinions

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

Yeah, but Obama saved 4 gabillionydabilliony jobs!!!

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

What I don't get is that the people who wrecked the economy in the first place now say the only way to get our economy back is to give it to the people who wrecked it last time.

Well, are you going to do anything besides tax cuts for the rich that balloon our deficits and encourage profit taking over GROWING businesses ?

Are you going to deregulate business so we get another Wall Street crash?

I know...are you going to lie us into another war at a cost of 4 TRILLION dollars and 4000+ of our guys DEAD?

Yes?
Then **** you.

F--- you?
are you nuts?
the wars which were approves thru congress cost much less than 2 trillion and the deficit ballon began in 2008, after the left took over congress. In 2007 (2006 congress) we had a deficit of 163 billion with 2 wars full bore
U.S. 2007 Budget Deficit Falls to $163 Billion (Update1) - Bloomberg

the troops getting killed in wars happen as sad as it is. 9-11 had close to that many killed in one day with no reason

de regulation had nothing to do with the housing collapse, if it did it occured in the late 90s with the repeal of Glass Segall

Now chill out, dont be angry about things that are not true. If your going to be pissed, be pissed about things that really occured

Where's the fun in that? Plus you can't blame Bush for everything.

 

[JRK]

What I don't get is that the people who wrecked the economy in the first place now say the only way to get our economy back is to give it to the people who wrecked it last time.

Well, are you going to do anything besides tax cuts for the rich that balloon our deficits and encourage profit taking over GROWING businesses ?

Are you going to deregulate business so we get another Wall Street crash?

I know...are you going to lie us into another war at a cost of 4 TRILLION dollars and 4000+ of our guys DEAD?

Yes?
Then **** you.

F--- you?
are you nuts?
the wars which were approves thru congress cost much less than 2 trillion and the deficit ballon began in 2008, after the left took over congress. In 2007 (2006 congress) we had a deficit of 163 billion with 2 wars full bore
U.S. 2007 Budget Deficit Falls to $163 Billion (Update1) - Bloomberg

the troops getting killed in wars happen as sad as it is. 9-11 had close to that many killed in one day with no reason

de regulation had nothing to do with the housing collapse, if it did it occured in the late 90s with the repeal of Glass Segall

Now chill out, dont be angry about things that are not true. If your going to be pissed, be pissed about things that really occured

Where's the fun in that? Plus you can't blame Bush for everything.

Its fun to be normal, this left wing hate and lying is a dis order
any-way your right, for them blaming bush is a way of life

 

[pinqy]

They do
it has to do with the number of people in the "workforce"
Its no different than the "way" it has been done for some time, but that constant used to calcs the % has changed more than any other time

There is no "constant" used. I've explained this before: Every month the population is surveyed and people are classified as Employed, Unemployed, or Not in the Labor Force. Employed and Unemployed are added together and that's the Labor Force. It's not a "constant," it can't be purposefully changed...it's just a sum. The administration doesn't have anything to do with it. The Labor Force goes up or down and back and forth...this recession happened to be a longer period of people dropping out or not joining. Nobody manipulated anything. I'm not even sure how you think they could. A concrete example, with math, would be nice.


Yes, many people who had been looking stopped looking, many people lost/left their job and didn't look for a new one, fewer people turning 16 looked for work, and fewer people who hadn't been trying to work started trying again. That's what affected the Labor Force and the participation rate.

Any real analyst recognized the changes and knew the full picture.

My issue with this admin is there obvious mis use of information as well as there constant, well lying

How was it mis-used? What "should" have been done instead? And what specific lies are you referring to?

And note again how old your links are. The Labor Force, and the Participation Rate are going back up. In Feb, the UE rate stayed the same because BOTH Employment AND Unemployment went up as people rejoined the Labor Force.

his 1st lie would be the creation of jobs, we are still well below 09 levels when he took office

Not really a lie, though. Continuing the job losses from 2008, Private non-farm payroll jobs went from 110,985,000 in Jan 2009 to 106,773,000 (-4.2 million) in Feb 2010. BUT since then Private non-farm payroll jobs have gone UP to 110,711,000 in Feb 2012 (+3.9 million) So it IS true that under Obama 3.9 million jobs have been created, though that's not the whole truth as it ignores the initial loss of 4.2 million.
On the other hand, pointing out that we are still below Jan 2009 (though only by 274,000) ignores it had been much worse and 3.9 million jobs were created from the low point.

The rest is irrelevant to the thread. I though you meant lies about job creation/UE rate, etc.

 

[JRK]

There is no "constant" used. I've explained this before: Every month the population is surveyed and people are classified as Employed, Unemployed, or Not in the Labor Force. Employed and Unemployed are added together and that's the Labor Force. It's not a "constant," it can't be purposefully changed...it's just a sum. The administration doesn't have anything to do with it. The Labor Force goes up or down and back and forth...this recession happened to be a longer period of people dropping out or not joining. Nobody manipulated anything. I'm not even sure how you think they could. A concrete example, with math, would be nice.


Yes, many people who had been looking stopped looking, many people lost/left their job and didn't look for a new one, fewer people turning 16 looked for work, and fewer people who hadn't been trying to work started trying again. That's what affected the Labor Force and the participation rate.

Any real analyst recognized the changes and knew the full picture.

How was it mis-used? What "should" have been done instead? And what specific lies are you referring to?

And note again how old your links are. The Labor Force, and the Participation Rate are going back up. In Feb, the UE rate stayed the same because BOTH Employment AND Unemployment went up as people rejoined the Labor Force.

his 1st lie would be the creation of jobs, we are still well below 09 levels when he took office

Not really a lie, though. Continuing the job losses from 2008, Private non-farm payroll jobs went from 110,985,000 in Jan 2009 to 106,773,000 (-4.2 million) in Feb 2010. BUT since then Private non-farm payroll jobs have gone UP to 110,711,000 in Feb 2012 (+3.9 million) So it IS true that under Obama 3.9 million jobs have been created, though that's not the whole truth as it ignores the initial loss of 4.2 million.
On the other hand, pointing out that we are still below Jan 2009 (though only by 274,000) ignores it had been much worse and 3.9 million jobs were created from the low point.

The rest is irrelevant to the thread. I though you meant lies about job creation/UE rate, etc.

ckaiming you have created any jobs from day 1 when your not there yet is a lie
from same
with link
2007...... 137,598 115,380 22,233 724 7,630 13,879
2008...... 136,790 114,281 21,335 767 7,162 13,406
2009...... 130,807 108,252 18,558 694 6,016 11,847

2010...... 129,874 107,384 17,751 705 5,518 11,528
2011...... 131,359 109,254 18,021 784 5,504 11,733
ftp://ftp.bls.gov/pub/suppl/empsit.ceseeb1.txt
the truth lies in his claim is millionss
the truth is not and according to this info unless we cretaed 5 million sense 2011, were still at a neg. from 08 end

 

[LogikAndReazon]

Heck, lets add 32 million uninsureds to the health system, have state bureaucrats run it, and it will be cheaper too !!!

Fairytales can come true

 

[JRK]

Heck, lets add 32 million uninsureds to the health system, have state bureaucrats run it, and it will be cheaper too !!!

Fairytales can come true

wat amazes me is the number of people who have lost all common sense
Its the same with the job market
We have "fewer people" in the "job market" used to calculate the "8.4"% UE rate

the U6 is @ 15 but we are creating jobs

 

[NYcarbineer]

his 1st lie would be the creation of jobs, we are still well below 09 levels when he took office

Not really a lie, though. Continuing the job losses from 2008, Private non-farm payroll jobs went from 110,985,000 in Jan 2009 to 106,773,000 (-4.2 million) in Feb 2010. BUT since then Private non-farm payroll jobs have gone UP to 110,711,000 in Feb 2012 (+3.9 million) So it IS true that under Obama 3.9 million jobs have been created, though that's not the whole truth as it ignores the initial loss of 4.2 million.
On the other hand, pointing out that we are still below Jan 2009 (though only by 274,000) ignores it had been much worse and 3.9 million jobs were created from the low point.

The rest is irrelevant to the thread. I though you meant lies about job creation/UE rate, etc.

ckaiming you have created any jobs from day 1 when your not there yet is a lie
from same
with link
2007...... 137,598 115,380 22,233 724 7,630 13,879
2008...... 136,790 114,281 21,335 767 7,162 13,406
2009...... 130,807 108,252 18,558 694 6,016 11,847

2010...... 129,874 107,384 17,751 705 5,518 11,528
2011...... 131,359 109,254 18,021 784 5,504 11,733
ftp://ftp.bls.gov/pub/suppl/empsit.ceseeb1.txt
the truth lies in his claim is millionss
the truth is not and according to this info unless we cretaed 5 million sense 2011, were still at a neg. from 08 end

The economy lost 3 million jobs in the first 6 months of Obama's presidency.

Of course if you count them against Obama's record on jobs his numbers don't look good.

But why would you?

 

[pinqy]

Its the same with the job market
We have "fewer people" in the "job market" used to calculate the "8.4"% UE rate

Why the quotation marks? And you're still talking as though the Labor Force is something exogenous. It's not. It changes all the time as the number of employed and unemployed change. It went up a lot during the 60's and 70's as more and more women joined the Labor Force. It went down a lot during this recession, and it probably won't go back up to its previous height as more and more Baby Boomers retire and drop out of the Labor Force.

You seem to think the change of the Labor Force is some kind of manipulation or trickery, and I'm not sure why you would think that.

the U6 is @ 15 but we are creating jobs

And? Not sure what you think the relationship is or why you would think it's any different from the U3 relationship. The U6 has been steadily dropping.

 

[JRK]

Its the same with the job market
We have "fewer people" in the "job market" used to calculate the "8.4"% UE rate

Why the quotation marks? And you're still talking as though the Labor Force is something exogenous. It's not. It changes all the time as the number of employed and unemployed change. It went up a lot during the 60's and 70's as more and more women joined the Labor Force. It went down a lot during this recession, and it probably won't go back up to its previous height as more and more Baby Boomers retire and drop out of the Labor Force.

You seem to think the change of the Labor Force is some kind of manipulation or trickery, and I'm not sure why you would think that.

the U6 is @ 15 but we are creating jobs

And? Not sure what you think the relationship is or why you would think it's any different from the U3 relationship. The U6 has been steadily dropping.

Pingy you are not a quitter, I will you give you that
Trickery? what I have said no matter the reason is true
Yes the U6 is dropping, but that has nothing to do with were we where at the end of 08 and where we are today

Job creation is simple, and to put it simple we are not where weneed to be, were we where at the end of 2008

Thats with trillions thrown at it, some for good reason, some from laoss of tax revenue, allot just wasted

We need lower corporate tax rate in exchange for a real minimum wage

We need a lower corporate tax rate in exchange for bringing those monies back as well as turning those monies loose

We need a real ebnergy program that allows growth, not some dream. You cannot fly a jet with a solar panel, The chevy Volt failed
you drill for oil, move it, refine it move the finished product in Florida, you sell houses again
forget Texas

same with all states, each needs a new way to skin a cat, not dreams and new taxes (threats)

We need an income tax program that is steady, with no threats
We need a capital gains tax that makes sense

We were within 163 billion of a balanced budget in 2007, why?
5% UE, nothing else

 

[NYcarbineer]

U-6 is falling more than U-3.

 

[JRK]

Ignore
NY your on ignore, what you have to say does not matter any more

 

[uscitizen]

What happened to those jobs that Boehner promised us would be created if we extended the
Bush tax cuts?