Romney and GOP in Panic After Unemployment drops to 7.8%

[edthecynic]

My God, after 4 years of Obama unemployment at 7.8% is you saying the stimulus "worked?" Someone needs to slap some sense into you, here you go...

Would you prefer 12% unemployment without the stimulus?

Poll Results | IGM Forum

80% of the 40 economists surveyed agree with the CBO that the stimulus worked.

Are you an economist?

Real unemployement is 14.7%.... we spent a a gazillion $$ to get 14.7% real unemployment?

Real unemployment is 7.5%.
Gallup Daily: U.S. Employment

 

[edthecynic]

The same thing happened in Reagan's first term but you won't hear a rightwing nut anywhere say that that is why Reagan shouldn't have been re-elected.

Exactly.

Obama's unemployment rate almost exactly mirrors Reagan's.

It's morning in America.

Less the participation rate........Fair point........

The participation rate is meaningless, which is why the Right cling to it.

 

[Toro]

Exactly.

Obama's unemployment rate almost exactly mirrors Reagan's.

It's morning in America.

Less the participation rate........Fair point........

The participation rate is meaningless, which is why the Right cling to it.

What? Of course the participation rate is meaningful.

 

[Claudette]

Jesus. Anyone would think 7.8% UE is a good thing the way they are touting it.

Its better than 8.1% but not much.

Yeah. Barry should be touting that UE rating to the moon come the next debate.

Doubt it will get a mention. Bad is bad no matter how you cut it.

 

[thanatos144]

Grasping at straws is the term you progressives need to learn.

 

[Jarhead]

Romney and the GOP are in a panic?
Really?

Where?

Now...you want to see panic..?

"the air was thin"
"Romney lied"
"kerry was too soft an opponent to practice with"
"Obama couldnt attack or he would look like an angry black man"
"the air was thin"
"Obama was too busy being poresident to practice"
The air was thin"

Now THAT was panic.

 

[kaz]

Republicans are lying about unemployment because the stimulus worked.

All they have is lies.

My God, after 4 years of Obama unemployment at 7.8% is you saying the stimulus "worked?" Someone needs to slap some sense into you, here you go...

Would you prefer 12% unemployment without the stimulus?

Poll Results | IGM Forum

80% of the 40 economists surveyed agree with the CBO that the stimulus worked.

Are you an economist?

Government spending prevented unemployment from being 12%, chris isn't the only one who needs a wake up call. Government doesn't create anything, it only spends, so if it spent more, then our economy would create more jobs. An idiot couldn't make that up, only a liberal could.

 

[kaz]

Exactly.

Obama's unemployment rate almost exactly mirrors Reagan's.

It's morning in America.

Less the participation rate........Fair point........

The participation rate is meaningless, which is why the Right cling to it.

A ship is sinking because of a leak. Does the participation rate of the passengers who are bailing make a difference? Ed says no, it only matters what percentage of the ones who want to bail are able to bail...

 

[JimH52]

I would say we are very close to even right now, with Obama holding a slight leadin Electoral Votes. The next debate may bring one or the other over the top. The 7.8% is still sinking in for a lot of people. FOX will keep airing debate programs of course. This is the debate where Mitt gets to explain his inconsistencies...It is Foreign and Domstic poilicy!

Topic: Town meeting format including foreign and domestic policy
Air Time: 9:00-10:30 p.m. Eastern Time
Location: Hofstra University in Hempstead, New York (Tickets)
Sponsor: Commission on Presidential Debates
Participants: President Barack Obama and Governor Mitt Romney
Moderator: Candy Crowley (CNN Chief Political Correspondent)

The second presidential debate will take the form of a town meeting, in which citizens will ask questions of the candidates on foreign and domestic issues. Candidates each will have two minutes to respond, and an additional minute for the moderator to facilitate a discussion. The town meeting participants will be undecided voters selected by the Gallup Organization.

 

[Truthseeker420]

The same thing happened in Reagan's first term but you won't hear a rightwing nut anywhere say that that is why Reagan shouldn't have been re-elected.

Exactly.

Obama's unemployment rate almost exactly mirrors Reagan's.

It's morning in America.

Less the participation rate........Fair point........

Ad says workforce smaller under Barack Obama than any time since Jimmy Carter : Mostly False

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-m...s-workforce-smaller-under-barack-obama-any-t/

In 1980 and 1981, the size of the civilian labor force was a bit over 100 million. Today, even after a drop due to the most recent recession, it’s more than 150 million -- a 50 percent increase.

First, the rate did dip to 63.5 once during Reagan’s presidency, in September 1981.

Second, if you smooth out monthly volatility, labor force participation rates were close to indistinguishable during the final year of Carter and the first year of Reagan, most of which was a recessionary period. The average labor force participation rate in 1981 under Reagan was only one-tenth of 1 percentage point higher than it was in 1980 under Carter.

So the focus on Carter has a grain of truth, but even there the ad overplays its hand a bit.

That's because economic factors are not the only things that affect the labor force participation rate. The other big one is demographics, particularly the aging of the population.

In the 2000 Census, the number of Americans aged 60 to 69 -- that is, those who had recently hit retirement age or would do so within a few years -- was to about 20 million. But thanks to the Baby Boomers, the number surged in the 2010 Census to more than 29 million, almost a 50 percent increase. This matters because the more people aged 60 to 69, the more people who are passing into retirement age -- or, to put it another way, leaving the labor force. Even though more people proportionally are remaining in the workforce after retirement age, the difference isn’t big enough to cancel out the flood of new retirees.

 

[edthecynic]

Less the participation rate........Fair point........

The participation rate is meaningless, which is why the Right cling to it.

What? Of course the participation rate is meaningful.

Of course it is meaningless as a measure of true unemployment because it is affected by other factors than just economic factors. Right now the major factor is the retiring Boomers, and no matter who is president during the 20 years the Boomers are retiring the LPR will trend down. The only difference will be is that if a Republican is president the LPR will be ignored.

Now make no mistake, the Right know full well about the effect the Boomers have on the LPR as it was their major selling point for privatizing SS during the Bush Regime. The GOP kept telling us day after day how there would be less and less workers as more and more Boomers retired.
Remember?????