Unemployment falls to 8.3%

[Two Thumbs]

People saying they dont trust the numbers should not trust the numbers, ever, under any President, thus we have no benchmark to measure what's "good" and what's "bad" so, stop circle jerking with mundane nothingness.

go here if you need numbers

U.S. National Debt Clock : Real Time

They got everything.

Official UE = 13 Million
Actual UE = 23.2 Million

or

Over 16% UE. That's a lot of people and nothing to cheer about.

To you and full-auto.....

The formula has been stagnant - it's the same statistics used to calculate it under each President.

Two Thumbs: what I mean is, when Bush was looking sharp with his 4.-whatever % unemployment, there was that actual "real" UE number then, too, which was higher. There always is. Difference being, if a partisan's team is in office they use official, and the opposing team shouts "but but but real."

That's what I mean by the whole thing being a circle jerk. If you're going to cite the "real" number, then go ahead and downgrade Bush's good early UE numbers to "meh."

I've known the numbers were shady for a while.

that's why I luuuuv that link. You can go back in time [sorta] and make comparisons and get the actual info.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

People saying they dont trust the numbers should not trust the numbers, ever, under any President, thus we have no benchmark to measure what's "good" and what's "bad" so, stop circle jerking with mundane nothingness.

go here if you need numbers

U.S. National Debt Clock : Real Time

They got everything.

Official UE = 13 Million
Actual UE = 23.2 Million

or

Over 16% UE. That's a lot of people and nothing to cheer about.

The 'real' number you idiots keep referring to is simply U-6, which is a number the bureau of Labor Statistics reports every month.

It is currently at a 36 month low, right along with the U-3 'official' number.

You and I have already been through this. and you still keep talking about that lie. Go look at that graph again.

 

[Cuyo]

People saying they dont trust the numbers should not trust the numbers, ever, under any President, thus we have no benchmark to measure what's "good" and what's "bad" so, stop circle jerking with mundane nothingness.

go here if you need numbers

U.S. National Debt Clock : Real Time

They got everything.

Official UE = 13 Million
Actual UE = 23.2 Million

or

Over 16% UE. That's a lot of people and nothing to cheer about.

To you and full-auto.....

The formula has been stagnant - it's the same statistics used to calculate it under each President.

Two Thumbs: what I mean is, when Bush was looking sharp with his 4.-whatever % unemployment, there was that actual "real" UE number then, too, which was higher. There always is. Difference being, if a partisan's team is in office they use official, and the opposing team shouts "but but but real."

That's what I mean by the whole thing being a circle jerk. If you're going to cite the "real" number, then go ahead and downgrade Bush's good early UE numbers to "meh."

Fairly simple concept, no? But it just... won't... sink... in.

 

[NYcarbineer]

People saying they dont trust the numbers should not trust the numbers, ever, under any President, thus we have no benchmark to measure what's "good" and what's "bad" so, stop circle jerking with mundane nothingness.

go here if you need numbers

U.S. National Debt Clock : Real Time

They got everything.

Official UE = 13 Million
Actual UE = 23.2 Million

or

Over 16% UE. That's a lot of people and nothing to cheer about.

To you and full-auto.....

The formula has been stagnant - it's the same statistics used to calculate it under each President.

Two Thumbs: what I mean is, when Bush was looking sharp with his 4.-whatever % unemployment, there was that actual "real" UE number then, too, which was higher. There always is. Difference being, if a partisan's team is in office they use official, and the opposing team shouts "but but but real."

That's what I mean by the whole thing being a circle jerk. If you're going to cite the "real" number, then go ahead and downgrade Bush's good early UE numbers to "meh."

They're trying a classic propaganda tactic. The official number is getting too good for them to badmouth without being laughed at,

so they're trying to substitute one of the obscure alternative measures (i.e. U-6, which has been calculated and report since 1994) and make it appear that some sort of chicanery has gone on.

In short, it's bullshit. When GW Bush had 6% unemployment, the 'real' number was 10%. Did you hear that from these idiots back then? of course not...

 

[bigrebnc1775]

People saying they dont trust the numbers should not trust the numbers, ever, under any President, thus we have no benchmark to measure what's "good" and what's "bad" so, stop circle jerking with mundane nothingness.

go here if you need numbers

U.S. National Debt Clock : Real Time

They got everything.

Official UE = 13 Million
Actual UE = 23.2 Million

or

Over 16% UE. That's a lot of people and nothing to cheer about.

To you and full-auto.....

The formula has been stagnant - it's the same statistics used to calculate it under each President.

Two Thumbs: what I mean is, when Bush was looking sharp with his 4.-whatever % unemployment, there was that actual "real" UE number then, too, which was higher. There always is. Difference being, if a partisan's team is in office they use official, and the opposing team shouts "but but but real."

That's what I mean by the whole thing being a circle jerk. If you're going to cite the "real" number, then go ahead and downgrade Bush's good early UE numbers to "meh."

Bush was just as bad as obama is, when are democrats going to stop using the bush defense while defending obama?

 

[NYcarbineer]

go here if you need numbers

U.S. National Debt Clock : Real Time

They got everything.

Official UE = 13 Million
Actual UE = 23.2 Million

or

Over 16% UE. That's a lot of people and nothing to cheer about.

The 'real' number you idiots keep referring to is simply U-6, which is a number the bureau of Labor Statistics reports every month.

It is currently at a 36 month low, right along with the U-3 'official' number.

if only you dropped the "idiots" from your phraseology, we'd all be having a helluva time.

Do you dispute that what they are propagating is 'idiocy'?

 

[Full-Auto]

People saying they dont trust the numbers should not trust the numbers, ever, under any President, thus we have no benchmark to measure what's "good" and what's "bad" so, stop circle jerking with mundane nothingness.

go here if you need numbers

U.S. National Debt Clock : Real Time

They got everything.

Official UE = 13 Million
Actual UE = 23.2 Million

or

Over 16% UE. That's a lot of people and nothing to cheer about.

To you and full-auto.....

The formula has been stagnant - it's the same statistics used to calculate it under each President.

Two Thumbs: what I mean is, when Bush was looking sharp with his 4.-whatever % unemployment, there was that actual "real" UE number then, too, which was higher. There always is. Difference being, if a partisan's team is in office they use official, and the opposing team shouts "but but but real."

That's what I mean by the whole thing being a circle jerk. If you're going to cite the "real" number, then go ahead and downgrade Bush's good early UE numbers to "meh."

Good points. I would tell you though they have adjusted how they count unemployment twice in my lifetime. Now if we could get past the family feud survey.

 

[Two Thumbs]

People saying they dont trust the numbers should not trust the numbers, ever, under any President, thus we have no benchmark to measure what's "good" and what's "bad" so, stop circle jerking with mundane nothingness.

go here if you need numbers

U.S. National Debt Clock : Real Time

They got everything.

Official UE = 13 Million
Actual UE = 23.2 Million

or

Over 16% UE. That's a lot of people and nothing to cheer about.

The 'real' number you idiots keep referring to is simply U-6, which is a number the bureau of Labor Statistics reports every month.

It is currently at a 36 month low, right along with the U-3 'official' number.

That site is all numbers. Are you calling me an idiot for linking it?

and a little fyi for ya; It's been over big 0 line of death for 36 months and still is.

you, he, liberals, dems leftist, have nothing to cheer about when 23.2 MILLION people are out of work.

 

[Two Thumbs]

The 'real' number you idiots keep referring to is simply U-6, which is a number the bureau of Labor Statistics reports every month.

It is currently at a 36 month low, right along with the U-3 'official' number.

if only you dropped the "idiots" from your phraseology, we'd all be having a helluva time.

Do you dispute that what they are propagating is 'idiocy'?

Did you even check the link?

Is US DEBT CLOCK a secret conservative attempt to undermine Obama?

 

[NYcarbineer]

To you and full-auto.....

The formula has been stagnant - it's the same statistics used to calculate it under each President.

Two Thumbs: what I mean is, when Bush was looking sharp with his 4.-whatever % unemployment, there was that actual "real" UE number then, too, which was higher. There always is. Difference being, if a partisan's team is in office they use official, and the opposing team shouts "but but but real."

That's what I mean by the whole thing being a circle jerk. If you're going to cite the "real" number, then go ahead and downgrade Bush's good early UE numbers to "meh."

They're trying a classic propaganda tactic. The official number is getting too good for them to badmouth without being laughed at,

so they're trying to substitute one of the obscure alternative measures (i.e. U-6, which has been calculated and report since 1994) and make it appear that some sort of chicanery has gone on.

In short, it's bullshit. When GW Bush had 6% unemployment, the 'real' number was 10%. Did you hear that from these idiots back then? of course not...

agreed, except the "idiots" part.

From the guy who accused them of engaging in a circle jerk, idiocy is too harsh a description?? lol

 

[bigrebnc1775]

To you and full-auto.....

The formula has been stagnant - it's the same statistics used to calculate it under each President.

Two Thumbs: what I mean is, when Bush was looking sharp with his 4.-whatever % unemployment, there was that actual "real" UE number then, too, which was higher. There always is. Difference being, if a partisan's team is in office they use official, and the opposing team shouts "but but but real."

That's what I mean by the whole thing being a circle jerk. If you're going to cite the "real" number, then go ahead and downgrade Bush's good early UE numbers to "meh."

Bush was just as bad as obama is, when are democrats going to stop using the bush defense while defending obama?

Bush had nothing to do with the "defense," he was just an example used within said "defense," but you're not exactly the sharpest tool in the shed to know wtf I'm actually talking abo0t, so g'day wreckless.

When you can't make a valid point insult and head for the hill's got it.

But why do liberals use the bush defense while defending obama. Bush was just as bad as obama is. Talk about being about not being the sharpest tool, at least I don 't support that shit stain in the white house unlike you be a tool defective at best for obama.

 

[NYcarbineer]

if only you dropped the "idiots" from your phraseology, we'd all be having a helluva time.

Do you dispute that what they are propagating is 'idiocy'?

Did you even check the link?

Is US DEBT CLOCK a secret conservative attempt to undermine Obama?

I already went through this yesterday. The debt clock number is U-6. That is the unemployment number the BLS reports which includes parttime workers, discouraged unemployed, etc.

It always runs about 80% higher than the official UE number, which is U-3. It is not some unique 'Obama' phenomenon,

except to the extent that you people are trying to make it so. Which is idiocy.