Unemployment down to 6.6%

[Sallow]

Obama's presidency has modeled Reagans in unemployment as Reagan had 10% during his term.

Took until about this time in his presidency to really recover.

Except he doesn't have a "Tip O'Neil" helping him out.

Reagan's "recovery" was the result of massive government spending.

 

[Sallow]

Do you really believe that unemployment is only 6.6%? If you do, you're nuts. With all of the people who have dropped out of even looking for a job unemployment is actually over 10%. More Democratic cooking of the books...

Ah..so..now they are cooked.

 

[edthecynic]

obama's presidency has modeled reagans in unemployment as reagan had 10% during his term.

Took until about this time in his presidency to really recover.

wonder what the labor participation rate was?

Hhhmm

-geaux

63.7% with no Boomers retiring.

 

[edthecynic]

I don't really like to call you a moron, but you keep acting like one. 1994 ring a bell? That's when the Republicans took control of the House and the Senate, forced welfare reform and a balanced budget down Clinton's throat!

The percent of people working is smaller than it has been since 1978.

You're effing delusional!

Nah, delusional is believing that Republicans took control of the Congress in 1994.

Ha! Ha! I'm right and you're wrong:
Congress runs into 'Republican Revolution' Nov. 8, 1994 - Andrew Glass - POLITICO.com

Now, that proves you're either delusional or just another Liberal moron!

Weren't they sworn in in Jan 1995??? There was not one day in 1994 that the GOP controlled Congress.

That proves the Right can't even read a calendar.

 

[Amelia]

Democrats called 2004 a "jobless recovery" and their sheeple took them seriously.

The numbers State Senator Obama was trashing were 5.6% unemployment and 310,000 new jobs the month before.

How can you "talk down" a robust economy??? The GOP have been trying to talk down the economy for the last 5 years and yet the economy is growing. The most the GOP have been able to do is slow down the recovery, but all their doom and gloom talk has failed to cause a crash like the Bush Regime accomplished. The Bush economy crashed because it was a house of cards, the GOP have failed to crash the Obama economy with their doom and gloom talk because it is founded on solid economic principles.

So obviously the 5.6% was a fake number because Bush never counted his 80,000,000 not in labor force. Bush's real UE was 42%

It wasn't robust. But it was showing signs of recovering from the 2001 recession and from 9/11, and the left needed to nip that in the bud. And the media helped by not reporting the good news honestly and thus helping drag down consumer confidence. The media is finally not talking up Obama numbers anymore because there's so obviously not anything to talk up and because Obama has been reinstalled in office and his administration thanked them by sicking the Justice dept. on them ... but if they treated Bush numbers in 2004 the way they treated Obama's numbers for the past five years, maybe we could have weathered the storm which was on the horizon better.

The GOP don't need to crash the Obama economy because he's working very hard to dampen it himself.

Obama never met an economic disincentive he didn't like. Um, well, there are some he sort of acts like he dislikes, but since stuff he decries now is stuff he did when he was a Senator we can't take his present murmuring seriously.

 

[Faun]

I don't really like to call you a moron, but you keep acting like one. 1994 ring a bell? That's when the Republicans took control of the House and the Senate, forced welfare reform and a balanced budget down Clinton's throat!

The percent of people working is smaller than it has been since 1978.

You're effing delusional!

Nah, delusional is believing that Republicans took control of the Congress in 1994.

Ha! Ha! I'm right and you're wrong:
Congress runs into 'Republican Revolution' Nov. 8, 1994 - Andrew Glass - POLITICO.com

Now, that proves you're either delusional or just another Liberal moron!

Holyfuckingshit!

You said, "1994 ring a bell? That's when the Republicans took control of the House and the Senate"

Rightard, Republicans won the election in 1994 -- they didn't take control of the Congress until 1995.

104th (1995–1997)

104th Congress (1995-1997)


104th Congress adjourns

"We've got good news for you," Lott jokingly told the president, in an acknowledgment of the numerous clashes the White House and Congress have had since January 1995 when Republicans took control of both houses of Congress.

Rightards are such imbeciles.

 

[TheGreatGatsby]

Good job Obama.

By 2016, hardly anyone will be working but official unemployment will be 5%.


Job growth remains weak in January; unemployment rate falls to 6.6% - latimes.com

Obama doesn't understand simple seventh grade math. He even admitted as much.

 

[edthecynic]

The numbers State Senator Obama was trashing were 5.6% unemployment and 310,000 new jobs the month before.

How can you "talk down" a robust economy??? The GOP have been trying to talk down the economy for the last 5 years and yet the economy is growing. The most the GOP have been able to do is slow down the recovery, but all their doom and gloom talk has failed to cause a crash like the Bush Regime accomplished. The Bush economy crashed because it was a house of cards, the GOP have failed to crash the Obama economy with their doom and gloom talk because it is founded on solid economic principles.

So obviously the 5.6% was a fake number because Bush never counted his 80,000,000 not in labor force. Bush's real UE was 42%

It wasn't robust. But it was showing signs of recovering from the 2001 recession and from 9/11, and the left needed to nip that in the bud. And the media helped by not reporting the good news honestly and thus helping drag down consumer confidence. The media is finally not talking up Obama numbers anymore because there's so obviously not anything to talk up, but if they treated Bush numbers in 2004 the way they treated Obama's numbers for the past five years, maybe we could have weathered the storm which was on the horizon better.

The GOP don't need to crash the Obama economy because he's working very hard to dampen it himself.

Obama never met an economic disincentive he didn't like. Um, well, there are some he sort of acts like he dislikes, but since stuff he decries now is stuff he did when he was a Senator we can't take his present murmuring seriously.

Again you can't "talk down" an economy, even a weak one. If you could the GOP would have been successful in talking down the Obama economy. God knows they have tried hard enough!

And rather than fight Bush over the economy, the Dems were the ones who helped the Bush economy the most. When Bush only wanted tax cuts for the wealthy, the Dems fought for and won the $300 and $600 rebates for everyone which is what actually saved the Bush economy. Once there were no more Dem rebates the Bush economic house of cards fell like a ton of bricks.

 

[Amelia]

How can you "talk down" a robust economy??? The GOP have been trying to talk down the economy for the last 5 years and yet the economy is growing. The most the GOP have been able to do is slow down the recovery, but all their doom and gloom talk has failed to cause a crash like the Bush Regime accomplished. The Bush economy crashed because it was a house of cards, the GOP have failed to crash the Obama economy with their doom and gloom talk because it is founded on solid economic principles.

So obviously the 5.6% was a fake number because Bush never counted his 80,000,000 not in labor force. Bush's real UE was 42%

It wasn't robust. But it was showing signs of recovering from the 2001 recession and from 9/11, and the left needed to nip that in the bud. And the media helped by not reporting the good news honestly and thus helping drag down consumer confidence. The media is finally not talking up Obama numbers anymore because there's so obviously not anything to talk up, but if they treated Bush numbers in 2004 the way they treated Obama's numbers for the past five years, maybe we could have weathered the storm which was on the horizon better.

The GOP don't need to crash the Obama economy because he's working very hard to dampen it himself.

Obama never met an economic disincentive he didn't like. Um, well, there are some he sort of acts like he dislikes, but since stuff he decries now is stuff he did when he was a Senator we can't take his present murmuring seriously.

Again you can't "talk down" an economy, even a weak one. If you could the GOP would have been successful in talking down the Obama economy. God knows they have tried hard enough!

And rather than fight Bush over the economy, the Dems were the ones who helped the Bush economy the most. When Bush only wanted tax cuts for the wealthy, the Dems fought for and won the $300 and $600 rebates for everyone which is what actually saved the Bush economy. Once there were no more Dem rebates the Bush economic house of cards fell like a ton of bricks.

You can talk down an economy. You can have high levels of employment and an upward swing in employment but not report on it and instead stress a low consumer confidence number and set up a loop which reinforces the low consumer confidence number no matter how much reason there is for confidence to improve.

The media was all about low consumer confidence in 2004 and 2005. Maybe we might have been more resilient if they had given the kind of upbeat reports they gave about Obama's crappy numbers.

And yet Obama still has crappy numbers in spite of a media who tried their best to talk his performance up, and in spite of all he has done to artificially buoy up Wall Street.

 

[edthecynic]

It wasn't robust. But it was showing signs of recovering from the 2001 recession and from 9/11, and the left needed to nip that in the bud. And the media helped by not reporting the good news honestly and thus helping drag down consumer confidence. The media is finally not talking up Obama numbers anymore because there's so obviously not anything to talk up, but if they treated Bush numbers in 2004 the way they treated Obama's numbers for the past five years, maybe we could have weathered the storm which was on the horizon better.

The GOP don't need to crash the Obama economy because he's working very hard to dampen it himself.

Obama never met an economic disincentive he didn't like. Um, well, there are some he sort of acts like he dislikes, but since stuff he decries now is stuff he did when he was a Senator we can't take his present murmuring seriously.

Again you can't "talk down" an economy, even a weak one. If you could the GOP would have been successful in talking down the Obama economy. God knows they have tried hard enough!

And rather than fight Bush over the economy, the Dems were the ones who helped the Bush economy the most. When Bush only wanted tax cuts for the wealthy, the Dems fought for and won the $300 and $600 rebates for everyone which is what actually saved the Bush economy. Once there were no more Dem rebates the Bush economic house of cards fell like a ton of bricks.

You can talk down an economy. You can have high levels of employment and an upward swing in employment but not report on it and instead stress a low consumer confidence number and set up a loop which reinforces the low consumer confidence number no matter how much reason there is for confidence to improve.

The media was all about low consumer confidence in 2004 and 2005. Maybe we might have been more resilient if they had given the kind of upbeat reports they gave about Obama's crappy numbers.

And yet Obama still has crappy numbers in spite of a media who tried their best to talk his performance up, and in spite of all he has done to artificially buoy up Wall Street.

Obama has steadily improving numbers since the bottom of the Bush Depression. Only the Right would call steady improvement "crappy."

 

[TemplarKormac]

So, what do you liberals define as a success? The status quo? When 1,754,000 people leave the workforce or are discouraged from work in the past two months combined, who gives a damn if it was the same amount last year? It means people are dropping out of the workforce at an alarming rate! It's that many more people who won't be available to fill important jobs!

How do you not see this?

WTF???

When I look at the BLS stats, I see a decrease of 80,000 discouraged folks. Where on Earth are you looking that you see an increase of 1,754,000???

Simple Arithmetic, Faun.

In December of last year, 917,000 people left the workforce. Last month 837,000 people left the workforce.

917,000 + 837,000 = 1,754,000

Do try to keep up.

 

[Faun]

So, what do you liberals define as a success? The status quo? When 1,754,000 people leave the workforce or are discouraged from work in the past two months combined, who gives a damn if it was the same amount last year? It means people are dropping out of the workforce at an alarming rate! It's that many more people who won't be available to fill important jobs!

How do you not see this?

WTF???

When I look at the BLS stats, I see a decrease of 80,000 discouraged folks. Where on Earth are you looking that you see an increase of 1,754,000???

Simple Arithmetic, Faun.

In December of last year, 917,000 people left the workforce. Last month 837,000 people left the workforce.

917,000 + 837,000 = 1,754,000

Do try to keep up.

You are as ignorant as they come ...

To see how many people left the workforce, you have to look at the workforce numbers...

12/2013: -347,000
01/2014: +523,000

Bureau of Labor Statistics Data

So in reality, the workforce has actually grown by 176,000 over the last 2 months.

What you're referencing is a subset of that number -- 'Not in Labor Force, Searched For Work and Available, Discouraged Reasons For Not Currently Looking'

Bureau of Labor Statistics Data

... but you're idiotically treating those numbers as though they're cumulative. They're not, dumbfuck -- those are monthly totals.

The cumulative figures are:

12/2013: 155,000
01/2014: -80,000

Bureau of Labor Statistics Data

So the increase for the last two months is not 1,754,000, as you moronically claimed ... it's 75,000

 

[Faun]

Again you can't "talk down" an economy, even a weak one. If you could the GOP would have been successful in talking down the Obama economy. God knows they have tried hard enough!

And rather than fight Bush over the economy, the Dems were the ones who helped the Bush economy the most. When Bush only wanted tax cuts for the wealthy, the Dems fought for and won the $300 and $600 rebates for everyone which is what actually saved the Bush economy. Once there were no more Dem rebates the Bush economic house of cards fell like a ton of bricks.

You can talk down an economy. You can have high levels of employment and an upward swing in employment but not report on it and instead stress a low consumer confidence number and set up a loop which reinforces the low consumer confidence number no matter how much reason there is for confidence to improve.

The media was all about low consumer confidence in 2004 and 2005. Maybe we might have been more resilient if they had given the kind of upbeat reports they gave about Obama's crappy numbers.

And yet Obama still has crappy numbers in spite of a media who tried their best to talk his performance up, and in spite of all he has done to artificially buoy up Wall Street.

Obama has steadily improving numbers since the bottom of the Bush Depression. Only the Right would call steady improvement "crappy."

We are now into the 47th consecutive month of growth in the private sector to the tune of 8½ million jobs gained.

That's what rightards call "failure."

 

[edthecynic]

So, what do you liberals define as a success? The status quo? When 1,754,000 people leave the workforce or are discouraged from work in the past two months combined, who gives a damn if it was the same amount last year? It means people are dropping out of the workforce at an alarming rate! It's that many more people who won't be available to fill important jobs!

How do you not see this?

WTF???

When I look at the BLS stats, I see a decrease of 80,000 discouraged folks. Where on Earth are you looking that you see an increase of 1,754,000???

Simple Arithmetic, Faun.

In December of last year, 917,000 people left the workforce. Last month 837,000 people left the workforce.

917,000 + 837,000 = 1,754,000

Do try to keep up.

Simpleton Arithmetic, you mean!

 

[Faun]

WTF???

When I look at the BLS stats, I see a decrease of 80,000 discouraged folks. Where on Earth are you looking that you see an increase of 1,754,000???

Simple Arithmetic, Faun.

In December of last year, 917,000 people left the workforce. Last month 837,000 people left the workforce.

917,000 + 837,000 = 1,754,000

Do try to keep up.

Simpleton Arithmetic, you mean!

917,000 + 837,000

917,000 - 837,000

What's the difference in Conserva-la-la land?

 

[JoeB131]

Hey, dipshit, in 1955, the average lifespan was 68 years. Today it's 80.

So, yeah, it's not a big surprise that white males have a higher percentage of being out of the workforce through retirement.

Man, that's Obama's fault, too? ******* Obama!

 

[pinqy]

So, what do you liberals define as a success? The status quo? When 1,754,000 people leave the workforce or are discouraged from work in the past two months combined, who gives a damn if it was the same amount last year? It means people are dropping out of the workforce at an alarming rate! It's that many more people who won't be available to fill important jobs!

How do you not see this?

WTF???

When I look at the BLS stats, I see a decrease of 80,000 discouraged folks. Where on Earth are you looking that you see an increase of 1,754,000???

Simple Arithmetic, Faun.

In December of last year, 917,000 people left the workforce. Last month 837,000 people left the workforce.

917,000 + 837,000 = 1,754,000

Do try to keep up.

You're misinterpreting the numbers. You're citing the total number of discouraged that month, not the change. Don't know why you would think that was the change when every other number in every other table is the monthly level.

 

[L.K.Eder]

So, what do you liberals define as a success? The status quo? When 1,754,000 people leave the workforce or are discouraged from work in the past two months combined, who gives a damn if it was the same amount last year? It means people are dropping out of the workforce at an alarming rate! It's that many more people who won't be available to fill important jobs!

How do you not see this?

WTF???

When I look at the BLS stats, I see a decrease of 80,000 discouraged folks. Where on Earth are you looking that you see an increase of 1,754,000???

Simple Arithmetic, Faun.

In December of last year, 917,000 people left the workforce. Last month 837,000 people left the workforce.

917,000 + 837,000 = 1,754,000

Do try to keep up.

you are so adorable. hahahahahaha

 

[Politico]

Oh FFS you people are ridiculous. There is only one number. You take the population. deduct the elderly, adolescent and indigent. The number left over is how many are unemployed.

 

[Faun]

After making a complete fool of himself on several levels in this thread, it seems templar has had the good sense to run away from it.