Obama Plays.. Unemployment Card...?

[pinqy]

Even under bush unemployment was at 5.5 and liberals were screaming it's the end of the world. Now they are content.

Correct. But Conservatives were NOT arguing that under Bush the "real UE rate" was 10% or so under the U-6.

There was no need. At the time unemployment being so low, it was not an issue.
Why on Earth would there be a necessity to argue a point when no one was remotely interested.
During most of the early to mid 2000's the US was at or near what is considered "full" employment.

So you only think there's a need to make the rate sound worse when it's already bad? The "real rate" is the U-3 when things are good and the U-6 when it's bad? You're sure the party in power doesn't affect your logic here? If you want I can use what you're claiming is "real unemployment" and apply it to the 2000's (though I'd have to use 35 hours/week as the minimum because that's how it's reported).

 

[edthecynic]

Eddie, this does not wash.
The real numbers do not lie.
What you have posted is nothing but the equivalent of blowing sunshine up the people's asses in order to make Obama look better.
Look, the people across the US know what the real deal is. All they have to do is pay attention to reality and ignore what certain politicians and their useful idiots are telling them what to believe.

I posted the REAL numbers directly from the source the liar claimed to use!!!!!!!!

But thank you for proving I was right in what I posted that is highlighted in red!!!!!

Yes, you did quote actual totals from BLS; however, that's not what the graph was intended to portray. The graph, as it is labeled, is intended to portray the "Reductions in Workforce Participation by Age Group", or the change in participation between young and old for the period from 2007 and 2012. This was to refute the administration's argument that the change in workforce participation was the result of aging Baby Boomers retiring. The graph indicates that the reduction in participation was mainly occurring in the 16-54 age group. The table supporting this is as follows:

There is a further explanation included in the link that Jroc posted.

First of all, the liar does not give any links so there is no way to check the numbers.

Second the liar calculates all his numbers against a moronic "Constant Workforce Participation (CWP)" which does not exist in the real world because babies are not born at a constant rate!!! If they were we wouldn't even be discussing the Baby Boomers!!!!

And thirdly, even using his "change in workforce reductions" for each age, the link I provided shows that info for the year from April 2011 to April 2012 shows an even bigger "change" over the last year alone than the current % I used earlier.

The 16-24 age group changed in 1 year from 17.865 million to 18.216 million or 351 thousand.
The 25-54 group from 22.922 million to 23.224 million or 302 thousand.
The 55+ group changed from 45.836 million to 47.419 million or 1.583 million.

As a % change the 16-54 group increased 29% not 74% and the 55+ group increased 71% not 26% in just the last year!!! 71% of the people leaving the workforce last year were over 55 years old!!!!!!!!

Again I remind you that every right-wing "expert" has been saying for over a decade and to this very day that the Boomers will be retiring in greater numbers than the new workers entering the workforce to take their place as the reason for privatizing SS, so they know that my numbers and the BLS numbers I linked to are true, but they still invent this CWP bullshit anyway, which is why no honest person trusts any stat from CON$.

Here is the BLS age breakdown of the NILF for this last year again:

A-38. Persons not in the labor force by desire and availability for work, age, and sex

 

[edthecynic]

Correct. But Conservatives were NOT arguing that under Bush the "real UE rate" was 10% or so under the U-6.

There was no need. At the time unemployment being so low, it was not an issue.
Why on Earth would there be a necessity to argue a point when no one was remotely interested.
During most of the early to mid 2000's the US was at or near what is considered "full" employment.

So you only think there's a need to make the rate sound worse when it's already bad? The "real rate" is the U-3 when things are good and the U-6 when it's bad? You're sure the party in power doesn't affect your logic here? If you want I can use what you're claiming is "real unemployment" and apply it to the 2000's (though I'd have to use 35 hours/week as the minimum because that's how it's reported).

Actually it does! If you remember they were rejecting Clinton's 3.9% U-3 rate as not the "real" rate before the U-3 rate became the "real" rate for Baby Bush.

 

[pinqy]

There was no need. At the time unemployment being so low, it was not an issue.
Why on Earth would there be a necessity to argue a point when no one was remotely interested.
During most of the early to mid 2000's the US was at or near what is considered "full" employment.

So you only think there's a need to make the rate sound worse when it's already bad? The "real rate" is the U-3 when things are good and the U-6 when it's bad? You're sure the party in power doesn't affect your logic here? If you want I can use what you're claiming is "real unemployment" and apply it to the 2000's (though I'd have to use 35 hours/week as the minimum because that's how it's reported).

Actually it does! If you remember they were rejecting Clinton's 3.9% U-3 rate as not the "real" rate before the U-3 rate became the "real" rate for Baby Bush.

Yeah, that was my sarcasm voice. It sounds just like my regular voice.

And I also remember liberals citing the U-6 as real unemployment during the 5% years of Bush.

 

[thereisnospoon]

So you only think there's a need to make the rate sound worse when it's already bad? The "real rate" is the U-3 when things are good and the U-6 when it's bad? You're sure the party in power doesn't affect your logic here? If you want I can use what you're claiming is "real unemployment" and apply it to the 2000's (though I'd have to use 35 hours/week as the minimum because that's how it's reported).

Actually it does! If you remember they were rejecting Clinton's 3.9% U-3 rate as not the "real" rate before the U-3 rate became the "real" rate for Baby Bush.

Yeah, that was my sarcasm voice. It sounds just like my regular voice.

And I also remember liberals citing the U-6 as real unemployment during the 5% years of Bush.

"I also remember"...."I heard" I read where"..
Please spare me the horseshit.
The numbers are not in favor of Obama so you obfuscate, spin and deny. And when all else fails, accuse others of lying...
Yeah ok.
Look, the economy and the bleak jobs market is going to be Obama's albatross. Deal with it.
And don't you dare "so you think" me. My words are clear. I use no ambiguity.
One of the many problems you liberal jerks have is you do not read. "You read into".
Liberalism= comprehension challenged.

 

[thereisnospoon]

There was no need. At the time unemployment being so low, it was not an issue.
Why on Earth would there be a necessity to argue a point when no one was remotely interested.
During most of the early to mid 2000's the US was at or near what is considered "full" employment.

So you only think there's a need to make the rate sound worse when it's already bad? The "real rate" is the U-3 when things are good and the U-6 when it's bad? You're sure the party in power doesn't affect your logic here? If you want I can use what you're claiming is "real unemployment" and apply it to the 2000's (though I'd have to use 35 hours/week as the minimum because that's how it's reported).

Actually it does! If you remember they were rejecting Clinton's 3.9% U-3 rate as not the "real" rate before the U-3 rate became the "real" rate for Baby Bush.

Who is "they"?
I do not recall anyone complaining about the economy during the Clinton years.
In fact, we were quite a prosperous nation once Clinton learned to work with the GOP controlled house and senate.
Liberalism was shoved aside and the government got out of the way of the private sector. And THAT is why the economy grew in the 90's

 

[pinqy]

Actually it does! If you remember they were rejecting Clinton's 3.9% U-3 rate as not the "real" rate before the U-3 rate became the "real" rate for Baby Bush.

Yeah, that was my sarcasm voice. It sounds just like my regular voice.

And I also remember liberals citing the U-6 as real unemployment during the 5% years of Bush.

"I also remember"...."I heard" I read where"..
Please spare me the horseshit.
The numbers are not in favor of Obama so you obfuscate, spin and deny. And when all else fails, accuse others of lying...

The numbers are not in favor of Obama, I've never said otherwise. As for obfuscation, tell me again how the u-3 is calculated? Still claiming it's only UI benefits?

Look, the economy and the bleak jobs market is going to be Obama's albatross. Deal with it.

Deal with it? What do I have to deal with? I've never been an Obama supporter, or a democrat. What do you think I have to deal with?

And don't you dare "so you think" me. My words are clear. I use no ambiguity.

right, you admitted you see no need for any consistent standard. And yes, that's exactly what you said

 

[thereisnospoon]

Yeah, that was my sarcasm voice. It sounds just like my regular voice.

And I also remember liberals citing the U-6 as real unemployment during the 5% years of Bush.

"I also remember"...."I heard" I read where"..
Please spare me the horseshit.
The numbers are not in favor of Obama so you obfuscate, spin and deny. And when all else fails, accuse others of lying...

The numbers are not in favor of Obama, I've never said otherwise. As for obfuscation, tell me again how the u-3 is calculated? Still claiming it's only UI benefits?

Look, the economy and the bleak jobs market is going to be Obama's albatross. Deal with it.

Deal with it? What do I have to deal with? I've never been an Obama supporter, or a democrat. What do you think I have to deal with?

And don't you dare "so you think" me. My words are clear. I use no ambiguity.

right, you admitted you see no need for any consistent standard. And yes, that's exactly what you said

Yeah sure you're not an Obama supporter. Ok.

 

[pinqy]

"I also remember"...."I heard" I read where"..
Please spare me the horseshit.
The numbers are not in favor of Obama so you obfuscate, spin and deny. And when all else fails, accuse others of lying...

The numbers are not in favor of Obama, I've never said otherwise. As for obfuscation, tell me again how the u-3 is calculated? Still claiming it's only UI benefits?

Deal with it? What do I have to deal with? I've never been an Obama supporter, or a democrat. What do you think I have to deal with?

And don't you dare "so you think" me. My words are clear. I use no ambiguity.

right, you admitted you see no need for any consistent standard. And yes, that's exactly what you said

Yeah sure you're not an Obama supporter. Ok.

Weren't you just complaining about calling people liars? But go ahead, show me where I've ever said anything in support of Obama.

But again, tell us how the UE rate is calculated. You just can't admit you were wrong, can you?

And why is it ok to use one standard of UE for Bush and then insist that standard is not the "real one" when Obama is president?

 

[rdean]

Sorry guys, that cards already been played. As the "Christian Science Monitor" points out.

Unemployment benefits: not until Bush tax cuts pass, Senate GOP says - CSMonitor.com

Congress lets unemployment benefits expire: 'What now' and six other questions - Who is losing their benefits? - CSMonitor.com

Bush Tax Cuts Had Little Positive Impact on the Economy

When did the Republicans become the party that want's to crush the middle class?

 

[thereisnospoon]

The numbers are not in favor of Obama, I've never said otherwise. As for obfuscation, tell me again how the u-3 is calculated? Still claiming it's only UI benefits?

Deal with it? What do I have to deal with? I've never been an Obama supporter, or a democrat. What do you think I have to deal with?

right, you admitted you see no need for any consistent standard. And yes, that's exactly what you said

Yeah sure you're not an Obama supporter. Ok.

Weren't you just complaining about calling people liars? But go ahead, show me where I've ever said anything in support of Obama.

But again, tell us how the UE rate is calculated. You just can't admit you were wrong, can you?

And why is it ok to use one standard of UE for Bush and then insist that standard is not the "real one" when Obama is president?

Illogical. You claim to be on the same side of the issue yet you argue with me.
That's simply not rational.
I don't converse with irrational people. Especially ones that insist they are ALWAYS right.
I am sure there is a blank wall around you. Go argue with that wall.
You needn't bother responding. It'll go unread.

 

[Jroc]

There are almost 4 people looking for work for every available job. Older workers would be dropping out of the job market because it is generally harder to get a job at 50 and over… Even earlier actually. "Baby boomers” between 55 and 65 should still be working, the point is there are fewer jobs out there, and Obama and his big government policies is one of the main reasons

 

[rdean]

There are almost 4 people looking for work for every available job. Older workers would be dropping out of the job market because it is generally harder to get a job at 50 and over… Even earlier actually. "Baby boomers” between 55 and 65 should still be working, the point is there are fewer jobs out there, and Obama and his big government policies is one of the main reasons

No it's not you ignorant fool. Unemployment for college grads is way down and the opportunity is ever better for those with "skills". Republicans crush education because they know an educated population mostly votes Democratic. You see Republicans doing everything they can to keep Americans from getting an education.

What is it you expect ignorant right wingers to work at in a high tech country? You can only use so many janitors.

 

[thereisnospoon]

The context was PURE SPITE because the election didn't go the way he wanted. THERE, take that!

Parsing The Messiah's Speech - The Rush Limbaugh Show
November 5, 2008
RUSH: I hope all your Joe the Plumbers are unemployed in six months! There.

RUSH: I hope all your Joe the Plumbers are unemployed in six months! There.

October 31, 2008
RUSH:* Joe the Plumber.* Now, Joe the Plumber is an average citizen

October? November?

Which is it?

Could it be Rush saw what was coming and he was correct?

All YOU have done is point to the fact that he was in context.

YOU dishonestly edited out the date for the first quote which was immediately after the election in November, and the October quote was to show exactly who your America-hating MessiahRushie means by "all your Joe the Plumbers," an "average citizen."

Your MessiahRushie SPITEFULLY hopes ALL average American citizens SUFFER because the election didn't go his way!!!

Oh stop your ever annoying whine fest.
The numbers look bad for Obama. This WILL be a campaign issue from which Obama cannot escape.

 

[The T]

October? November?

Which is it?

Could it be Rush saw what was coming and he was correct?

All YOU have done is point to the fact that he was in context.

YOU dishonestly edited out the date for the first quote which was immediately after the election in November, and the October quote was to show exactly who your America-hating MessiahRushie means by "all your Joe the Plumbers," an "average citizen."

Your MessiahRushie SPITEFULLY hopes ALL average American citizens SUFFER because the election didn't go his way!!!

Oh stop your ever annoying whine fest.
The numbers look bad for Obama. This WILL be a campaign issue from which Obama cannot escape.

And why we are seeing everything under the Sun other than REAL issues from Obama and the Left.

 

[thereisnospoon]

There are almost 4 people looking for work for every available job. Older workers would be dropping out of the job market because it is generally harder to get a job at 50 and over… Even earlier actually. "Baby boomers” between 55 and 65 should still be working, the point is there are fewer jobs out there, and Obama and his big government policies is one of the main reasons

No it's not you ignorant fool. Unemployment for college grads is way down and the opportunity is ever better for those with "skills". Republicans crush education because they know an educated population mostly votes Democratic. You see Republicans doing everything they can to keep Americans from getting an education.

What is it you expect ignorant right wingers to work at in a high tech country? You can only use so many janitors.

High tech? Yer kidding, right?
You come here and at 5pm you'll see all of the people coming out of the Microsoft building after work...90% are foreign born. Most of them of South Asian descent or native South Asian.
IT does not hire Americans.

 

[pinqy]

There are almost 4 people looking for work for every available job. Older workers would be dropping out of the job market because it is generally harder to get a job at 50 and over… Even earlier actually. "Baby boomers” between 55 and 65 should still be working, the point is there are fewer jobs out there, and Obama and his big government policies is one of the main reasons

No it's not you ignorant fool. Unemployment for college grads is way down and the opportunity is ever better for those with "skills".

No, he's right. There are about 3.5 job openings for every unemployed person. As for college grads, their unemployment is way up. It will always be lower than the national average, but we have to compare apples to apples. In 2007, pre-recession, the average UE rate for people 25 and older with a College degree was 2%. The April 2012 rate (seasonally adjusted) was 4%. Actual numbers the 2007 average was 0.9 million, April 2012 number was 1.9 million.

So while it's better for college grads, it's worse than it has been (high of 5% UE rate, compared to high of 3.2% in the early 90's recession)

 

[edthecynic]

I posted the REAL numbers directly from the source the liar claimed to use!!!!!!!!

But thank you for proving I was right in what I posted that is highlighted in red!!!!!

Yes, you did quote actual totals from BLS; however, that's not what the graph was intended to portray. The graph, as it is labeled, is intended to portray the "Reductions in Workforce Participation by Age Group", or the change in participation between young and old for the period from 2007 and 2012. This was to refute the administration's argument that the change in workforce participation was the result of aging Baby Boomers retiring. The graph indicates that the reduction in participation was mainly occurring in the 16-54 age group. The table supporting this is as follows:

There is a further explanation included in the link that Jroc posted.

First of all, the liar does not give any links so there is no way to check the numbers.

Second the liar calculates all his numbers against a moronic "Constant Workforce Participation (CWP)" which does not exist in the real world because babies are not born at a constant rate!!! If they were we wouldn't even be discussing the Baby Boomers!!!!

And thirdly, even using his "change in workforce reductions" for each age, the link I provided shows that info for the year from April 2011 to April 2012 shows an even bigger "change" over the last year alone than the current % I used earlier.

The 16-24 age group changed in 1 year from 17.865 million to 18.216 million or 351 thousand.
The 25-54 group from 22.922 million to 23.224 million or 302 thousand.
The 55+ group changed from 45.836 million to 47.419 million or 1.583 million.

As a % change the 16-54 group increased 29% not 74% and the 55+ group increased 71% not 26% in just the last year!!! 71% of the people leaving the workforce last year were over 55 years old!!!!!!!!

Again I remind you that every right-wing "expert" has been saying for over a decade and to this very day that the Boomers will be retiring in greater numbers than the new workers entering the workforce to take their place as the reason for privatizing SS, so they know that my numbers and the BLS numbers I linked to are true, but they still invent this CWP bullshit anyway, which is why no honest person trusts any stat from CON$.

Here is the BLS age breakdown of the NILF for this last year again:

A-38. Persons not in the labor force by desire and availability for work, age, and sex

I found the 2010 numbers so I can show the change from 2010 to 2011.
Persons not in the labor force by desire and availability for work, age, and sex

The 16-24 age group changed from 17.014 million to 17.201 million or 187 thousand.
The 25-54 group from 22.350 million to 23.961 million or 611 thousand.
The 55+ group changed from 44.577 million to 45.839 million or 1.262 million.

As a % change the 16-54 group increased 39% not 74% and the 55+ group increased 61% not 26% from 2010 to 2011. 61% of the people leaving the workforce in 2011 were over 55 years old!!!!!!!!

So to recap, 61% of the people leaving the work force from 2010 to 2011 were over 55 and 71% of the people leaving the workforce from April 2011 to April 2012 were over 55. Obviously it is the retiring Boomers who account for the bulk of the changes in the NILF.

 

[Katzndogz]

The more people obama can shift into a benefit program the lower the unemployment figure. Theoretically he can get the unemployment rate to 0 with enough people on welfare.

 

[8537]

Yup, I listened to Rush today.....

...and it seems by September the 20 week extension of unemployment with be canceled for all remaining States to make the unemployment numbers look good for the Obama 2012 election. Well, as we all know the unemployment figures are bullshit at best and many more unemployed will be filed under non-existent (unaccounted for) and also be receiving no unemployment benefits.

-- but Obama will look good to the uninformed for lower unemployment figures and blaming the Republicans is standard procedure I guess, so expect that and choose sides..

(I tried to get a link with some information on this but failed but I'm thinking this Obama ploy on the American people will be coming out soon...)

Oh looky here! We didn't even have to wait for the monthly unemployment report to have people claiming that the UE figure is derived from the number of people collecting unemployment.

This story writes itself, but it usually only does so one time per month.