Timmy makes up BS about the Commander-in-Chief, Obama!

[Iceweasel]

What are you claiming is inaccurate?

The UE numbers. Like I said. Try reading. Many have retired early or given up. Or are underemployed. Bush was hammered for 5% but now we are supposed to consider it a good thing even though it misrepresents the reality of jobs.

 

[pinqy]

What are you claiming is inaccurate?

The UE numbers. Like I said. Try reading. Many have retired early or given up. Or are underemployed. Bush was hammered for 5% but now we are supposed to consider it a good thing even though it misrepresents the reality of jobs.

Since people not trying to work and those who are working are not unemployed, what is inaccurate?
The Unemployment level for August is supposed to be the number of people who were available to work in August and who tried to work sometime from mid-September to mid-August. Do you think that the BLS estimate of between 7,713,000 and 8,279,000 is inaccurate?

In other words...does the UE level and rate accurately measure what it is supposed to measure or not?

 

[rightwinger]

Timmy said:

"Our GDP is one of the best in the world in downturn .
Unemployment is 4.9%
More Americans have health insurance than ever .
"Participation rate" and "GDP 3%" are cherry picked misleading stats because you can't use Normal economic indicators
The credit rating was because of the GOP gov shutdown (republican sabotage )


We can go round and round with this shit your spewing ."

Well the GDP was already the best before Obama took office and growth has slowed more then when Bush was in office. Therefore we are doing worse under Obama not better. I will admit there are other factors involved that the president has zero control over. However in no way is it an accomplishment.
More Americans have health insurance yes but it's unsustainable and is doomed to fail. Canada is a good example of Socialism in healthcare. Plus it's a rob Peter to pay Paul situation which is wrong. Also the quality of healthcare degrades due to fraud/abuse. The government has no business in healthcare. If you can't afford healthcare that's unfortunate but the onus does not fall on those who can.
The unemployment rate does not account for those who are no longer looking for work and becomes a useless statistic.

None of your points fit the "saved America" line your towing. We are worse off than when Bush left office and Bush was terrible so that speaks volumes to Obama's failure. He has also failed miserably on the world stage. Everything he gets involved in seems to only make matters worse.

GDP was negative in four of the five quarters before Obama took office

How can you claim that was "better"?

 

[Iceweasel]

What are you claiming is inaccurate?

The UE numbers. Like I said. Try reading. Many have retired early or given up. Or are underemployed. Bush was hammered for 5% but now we are supposed to consider it a good thing even though it misrepresents the reality of jobs.

Since people not trying to work and those who are working are not unemployed, what is inaccurate?
The Unemployment level for August is supposed to be the number of people who were available to work in August and who tried to work sometime from mid-September to mid-August. Do you think that the BLS estimate of between 7,713,000 and 8,279,000 is inaccurate?

In other words...does the UE level and rate accurately measure what it is supposed to measure or not?

True Unemployment Rate Is Far Higher Than 5.6 Percent
Americans may not be too surprised to learn that the 5.6 percent unemployment rate the U.S. Department of Labor is touting is entirely misleading. According to Gallup, the real unemployment rate is currently 12.6 percent.

The unemployment rate calculated by the Department of Labor is seriously flawed because it does not factor in whole groups of people that Americans would recognize as being unemployed, including those who are severely underemployed.

For example, a college graduate who is working only a few hours per week at the moment because he cannot find full-time work is not considered to be unemployed, even if his income is completely unlivable.


Gallup.com explains just how the government could get this figure so wrong:

If you, a family member or anyone is unemployed and has subsequently given up on finding a job — if you are so hopelessly out of work that you've stopped looking over the past four weeks — the Department of Labor doesn't count you as unemployed….

Say you're an out-of-work engineer or healthcare worker or construction worker or retail manager: If you perform a minimum of one hour of work in a week and are paid at least $20 — maybe someone pays you to mow their lawn — you're not officially counted as unemployed in the much-reported 5.6%.

The unemployment rate provided by the Department of Labor does not track individuals who fall under the “U-6” rate, which includes discouraged workers who have settled for part-time employment or have given up their job search altogether.

Gallup’s CEO Jim Clifton opines that the false unemployment rate released by the government “cruelly overlooks” a number of people who are struggling.

 

[rightwinger]

What are you claiming is inaccurate?

The UE numbers. Like I said. Try reading. Many have retired early or given up. Or are underemployed. Bush was hammered for 5% but now we are supposed to consider it a good thing even though it misrepresents the reality of jobs.

Since people not trying to work and those who are working are not unemployed, what is inaccurate?
The Unemployment level for August is supposed to be the number of people who were available to work in August and who tried to work sometime from mid-September to mid-August. Do you think that the BLS estimate of between 7,713,000 and 8,279,000 is inaccurate?

In other words...does the UE level and rate accurately measure what it is supposed to measure or not?

True Unemployment Rate Is Far Higher Than 5.6 Percent
Americans may not be too surprised to learn that the 5.6 percent unemployment rate the U.S. Department of Labor is touting is entirely misleading. According to Gallup, the real unemployment rate is currently 12.6 percent.

The unemployment rate calculated by the Department of Labor is seriously flawed because it does not factor in whole groups of people that Americans would recognize as being unemployed, including those who are severely underemployed.

For example, a college graduate who is working only a few hours per week at the moment because he cannot find full-time work is not considered to be unemployed, even if his income is completely unlivable.


Gallup.com explains just how the government could get this figure so wrong:

If you, a family member or anyone is unemployed and has subsequently given up on finding a job — if you are so hopelessly out of work that you've stopped looking over the past four weeks — the Department of Labor doesn't count you as unemployed….

Say you're an out-of-work engineer or healthcare worker or construction worker or retail manager: If you perform a minimum of one hour of work in a week and are paid at least $20 — maybe someone pays you to mow their lawn — you're not officially counted as unemployed in the much-reported 5.6%.

The unemployment rate provided by the Department of Labor does not track individuals who fall under the “U-6” rate, which includes discouraged workers who have settled for part-time employment or have given up their job search altogether.

Gallup’s CEO Jim Clifton opines that the false unemployment rate released by the government “cruelly overlooks” a number of people who are struggling.

U3 Unemployment is calculated the same as it has always been
U6 is also calculated the same as it always has been

U3 has been the traditional metric to report unemployment. It is only when Obama too office that Republicans insisted on U6

 

[rightwinger]

Oh I get it. The stats you don't like ..... they are lies ! Lol. If you say so .

I would love the UE stats if they were true. With over 92 million unemployed you'd have to be on drugs to buy it.

We do not have 92 million "unemployed" we have 92 million out of the workforce

That includes 50 million retirees, 10 million handicapped and 20 million stay at home moms/teens

 

[my2¢]

These politicians and party partisans on both sides can toss numbers around all day and it wouldn't matter. Folks are going to look at their own situation concerning their pay and the prices they're paying at the grocery store and the gas pump.

 

[Iceweasel]

These politicians and party partisans on both sides can toss numbers around all day and it wouldn't matter. Folks are going to look at their own situation concerning their pay and the prices they're paying at the grocery store and the gas pump.

And talk to their neighbors, family and friends. No one believes UE numbers except leftists. How can a 1% gdp growth equate to 5% unemployment? It's impossible.

 

[rightwinger]

These politicians and party partisans on both sides can toss numbers around all day and it wouldn't matter. Folks are going to look at their own situation concerning their pay and the prices they're paying at the grocery store and the gas pump.

And talk to their neighbors, family and friends. No one believes UE numbers except leftists. How can a 1% gdp growth equate to 5% unemployment? It's impossible.

U3 is 4.9%

BLS calculated the same way it always has been

 

[pinqy]

What are you claiming is inaccurate?

The UE numbers. Like I said. Try reading. Many have retired early or given up. Or are underemployed. Bush was hammered for 5% but now we are supposed to consider it a good thing even though it misrepresents the reality of jobs.

Since people not trying to work and those who are working are not unemployed, what is inaccurate?
The Unemployment level for August is supposed to be the number of people who were available to work in August and who tried to work sometime from mid-September to mid-August. Do you think that the BLS estimate of between 7,713,000 and 8,279,000 is inaccurate?

In other words...does the UE level and rate accurately measure what it is supposed to measure or not?

True Unemployment Rate Is Far Higher Than 5.6 Percent
Americans may not be too surprised to learn that the 5.6 percent unemployment rate the U.S. Department of Labor is touting is entirely misleading. According to Gallup, the real unemployment rate is currently 12.6 percent.

Based on BLS figures. It seems odd to claim that one number is wrong and another number, by the same people in the same report, is accurate.

The unemployment rate calculated by the Department of Labor is seriously flawed because it does not factor in whole groups of people that Americans would recognize as being unemployed, including those who are severely underemployed.

Why should it include them? What would be the rationale? The UE rate is supposed to measure unused available labor.

For example, a college graduate who is working only a few hours per week at the moment because he cannot find full-time work is not considered to be unemployed, even if his income is completely unlivable.

Ok, let's take this college grad working.....30 hours a week because he cannot find full time work. You want to call him unemployed. But working right next to him is a high school student working 10 hours a week because that's all he wants. You would call him employed.
So same job, same pay, and you'd call the person working more hours unemployed and the one working fewer hours employed. That makes no sense.

Gallup.com explains just how the government could get this figure so wrong:

If you, a family member or anyone is unemployed and has subsequently given up on finding a job — if you are so hopelessly out of work that you've stopped looking over the past four weeks — the Department of Labor doesn't count you as unemployed….

Because even if there was a job you wouldn't apply for it and couldn't be hired.

Say you're an out-of-work engineer or healthcare worker or construction worker or retail manager: If you perform a minimum of one hour of work in a week and are paid at least $20 — maybe someone pays you to mow their lawn — you're not officially counted as unemployed in the much-reported 5.6%.

There's no other objective way to handle it. I've worked more than one job for less than 5 hours a week, and that's all I wanted at the time.

The unemployment rate provided by the Department of Labor does not track individuals who fall under the “U-6” rate, which includes discouraged workers who have settled for part-time employment or have given up their job search altogether.

Well, yeah, that's why there is a U-6 rate. And it's all marginally attached (people who stopped looking for any reason but are now available) and part time for economic reasons...which includes full time workers who had less than 35 hours due to slow business.

Gallup’s CEO Jim Clifton opines that the false unemployment rate released by the government “cruelly overlooks” a number of people who are struggling.

It's not supposed to be a measure of suffering or struggling. And how would including those people improve their lives any? I don't get the "cruel" accusation.

So all your complaints about being inaccurate rest on the UE rate not measuring things that it's not supposed to and doesn't claim to measure.

 

[Syriusly]

These politicians and party partisans on both sides can toss numbers around all day and it wouldn't matter. Folks are going to look at their own situation concerning their pay and the prices they're paying at the grocery store and the gas pump.

And talk to their neighbors, family and friends. No one believes UE numbers except leftists. .

Well that is the always the argument of right wing nut jobs.

"The facts are all lies- believe us instead"

LOL

 

[Iceweasel]

These politicians and party partisans on both sides can toss numbers around all day and it wouldn't matter. Folks are going to look at their own situation concerning their pay and the prices they're paying at the grocery store and the gas pump.

And talk to their neighbors, family and friends. No one believes UE numbers except leftists. .

Well that is the always the argument of right wing nut jobs.

"The facts are all lies- believe us instead"

LOL

No one said that, liar. That's all leftists do.

 

[Syriusly]

These politicians and party partisans on both sides can toss numbers around all day and it wouldn't matter. Folks are going to look at their own situation concerning their pay and the prices they're paying at the grocery store and the gas pump.

And talk to their neighbors, family and friends. No one believes UE numbers except leftists. .

Well that is the always the argument of right wing nut jobs.

"The facts are all lies- believe us instead"

LOL

No one said that, liar. That's all leftists do.

Yeah- that is what right wing nut jobs always do- lie- and then lie about lying.

 

[Little-Acorn]

Are we supposed to know who/what "Timmy" is?

 

[JBond]

That was a reply to one of your posts.

What point do u want to address first ? The "3%" thing ? Which I have pointed out is an odd stat invented by conservatives to downplay the rebounding economy . Something like " he hasn't had 3 quarters in a row of 3% growth." Totally bizzare ?!

Obama failed to achieve 3% growth his entire presidency. Despite record debt and spending he still failed. Not a single year of 3% growth. No other president has failed in such a substantial way. This is what happens when you place a neophyte in charge of anything.

 

[pinqy]

That was a reply to one of your posts.

What point do u want to address first ? The "3%" thing ? Which I have pointed out is an odd stat invented by conservatives to downplay the rebounding economy . Something like " he hasn't had 3 quarters in a row of 3% growth." Totally bizzare ?!

Obama failed to achieve 3% growth his entire presidency. Despite record debt and spending he still failed. Not a single year of 3% growth. No other president has failed in such a substantial way. This is what happens when you place a neophyte in charge of anything.

What makes 3% a significant number? Or is it just the lowest number Obama has not gone over?

 

[rightwinger]

That was a reply to one of your posts.

What point do u want to address first ? The "3%" thing ? Which I have pointed out is an odd stat invented by conservatives to downplay the rebounding economy . Something like " he hasn't had 3 quarters in a row of 3% growth." Totally bizzare ?!

Obama failed to achieve 3% growth his entire presidency. Despite record debt and spending he still failed. Not a single year of 3% growth. No other president has failed in such a substantial way. This is what happens when you place a neophyte in charge of anything.

Since when did 3% growth become a magic number?

He had consistent growth over 8 years with no real peaks and no real valleys

He also saw more than a doubling of the stock market, unemployment drop 5%, 12 million new jobs, a strong dollar, low inflation and low energy prices

 

[JBond]

That was a reply to one of your posts.

What point do u want to address first ? The "3%" thing ? Which I have pointed out is an odd stat invented by conservatives to downplay the rebounding economy . Something like " he hasn't had 3 quarters in a row of 3% growth." Totally bizzare ?!

Obama failed to achieve 3% growth his entire presidency. Despite record debt and spending he still failed. Not a single year of 3% growth. No other president has failed in such a substantial way. This is what happens when you place a neophyte in charge of anything.

What makes 3% a significant number? Or is it just the lowest number Obama has not gone over?

It represents his significant failure compared to all other presidents. 3% is the minimum required to keep pace with population growth.

 

[rightwinger]

That was a reply to one of your posts.

What point do u want to address first ? The "3%" thing ? Which I have pointed out is an odd stat invented by conservatives to downplay the rebounding economy . Something like " he hasn't had 3 quarters in a row of 3% growth." Totally bizzare ?!

Obama failed to achieve 3% growth his entire presidency. Despite record debt and spending he still failed. Not a single year of 3% growth. No other president has failed in such a substantial way. This is what happens when you place a neophyte in charge of anything.

What makes 3% a significant number? Or is it just the lowest number Obama has not gone over?

It represents his significant failure compared to all other presidents. 3% is the minimum required to keep pace with population growth.

That is not true

In fact, we have one of the strongest GDP performance in the world. We compete in a global market and need to compare to other countries not GDPs from decades ago.

3% is a bogus number unrelated to any performance metric. created just for Obama

Want to talk about Labor Participation rate now?

 

[JBond]

The average growth rate since 1947 is 3.22%. Obama has failed to even meet the average.