246,000 New Jobs Drop Rate to 7.7%

[Trajan]

Where is the link showing that this was actually voted on and passed by Congress?

How is it Obama's fault the GOP obstructionists won't pass Obama's budget???? He submitted one every year.

right and wrong, he is duty bound to submit the first Monday in feb. ...
guess what. this year? naaaaahh, not yet


Obama's budget to be submitted in April, not March - UPI.com


he also holds the record for the longest lapse in budget submittal at 98 days....


and your answer is just symptomatic of your lack of knowledge of the budget process.


succinctly, it goes like this-


he submits, the house and senate ( thats your AH-HA! moment Ed) have budget committees, they massage the presidents budget plan, they create a resolution, their floors pass it, they have a meeting between the senate and house to create the binding resolution which will be sent to the president for approval...he can of course alter ( and send it back for 'consideration' meaning changes he wants) approve, or veto whatever.This process is supposed ot be completed by October btw....more on that later.

see ed, the gop house did their work ( ah ha moment) , in 2011 and 2012, they took obamas plan, massaged it in committee and sent it to the senate so they could consider it......and thats your ah ha moment becasue there the whole thing ground to a halt. Thank you harry ried.


in 2009 the house ands senate passed the final resolution june of 2008 but, knowing they had good shot at winning the presidential election, they held off on submitting it to the president ( Bush) until....April 2009 and after they massaged bushs requests etc. out of it and obama signed it, with not ONE gop vote btw....the budget should have been approved in October....2008.

in 2010? Thank you nancy, there was no budget submitted to the senate at all.

so ed, any questions?

 

[edthecynic]

Here you go. Do some math. Lost of people below the age of 65 are on Disability.

Disabled worker beneficiaries distributed by age

And there is a good analysis of the data at this link:

Where Have All the Workers Gone? » Not Yet Europe

Slightly more than 6 % of the workforce, up 1% under Obama, is getting these payments. Even when the real recession actually ends, they will be getting these payments. Six percent of the US workforce is approximately 11 million individuals. Almost half of which have gone the rolls on in the last few years.

Nearly all of the disabilty caseload is of people between 45 and 65, with a distinct spike in new applicants at age 50, since the SS administration relaxes its scrutiny at that age. This means that people typically stay on disability for 10-15 years....


And then we have what Disability means to the SS administration:

"Disability" under Social Security is based on your inability to work. We consider you disabled under Social Security rules if:

You cannot do work that you did before;
We decide that you cannot adjust to other work because of your medical condition(s); and
Your disability has lasted or is expected to last for at least one year or to result in death.

Disability Planner: What We Mean By Disability


In essence, the Obama Administration is using SSDI as a form of welfare for people who can't find work and whose UI has run out.

Pure BULLSHIT!

First of all there is nothing there that supports your claim that they are collecting disability from the stress of running out of UI. In fact, your not credible "good analysis" that claims that APPLICATIONS spike at 50 because SS relaxes their scrutiny at that age is not reflected in a spike in awards at that age as shown by your first link. There is the exact same "spike" in awards at age 47 as age 50.

There are more people at ages 50 to 65 collecting disability because there are more of them in the overall population thanks to the baby boom, not because there was any relaxing of scrutiny.

and I don't think she said that the stress was due to running out of benefits..can you link to where she did please? I missed it.



uh huh, that many more? I don't think so, unless your hypothesizing again, with no facts.

Unless you have the numbers...be careful ed.

oh and your comment as to 50-65?

the average age for liability awards is 52.7 since 1960....and, aside from 1960-which was 57 , its been under 54 every single year.....so your 65 number as the high range is pure smoke.

Hey pinhead, I didn't say 65 was an average. I was commenting on this claim "Nearly all of the disabilty caseload is of people between 45 and 65, with a distinct spike in new applicants at age 50, since the SS administration relaxes its scrutiny at that age" and the average being 53 does not change it.

The whole point was that APPLICATIONS for DI are not AWARDS. The average age being 53 does not make an increase in APPLICATIONS into an increase in AWARDS.
Get it????????

 

[drivebymedia]

CONSTRUCTION JOBS SKYROCKET!!

After lagging housing starts for several months, construction jobs surged in February to the highest level in six years. Builders are clearly acting on the big jump in new home orders, but those jobs numbers could actually be higher, were they not hamstrung by a severe lack of workers


Housing Jobs Jump, but Many Workers Aren't Coming Back

 

[Meathead]

Who could have imagined celebrating a 7.7 unemployment rate in 2013 during Obama's first inauguration in 2009.

 

[drivebymedia]

A look at the hole Bush put us in, and the miracle recovery engineered by Barack Obama


United States GDP Growth Rate

 

[Truthmatters]

that is with the republican party doing everything they could think of to sabatoge our recovery

 

[drivebymedia]

"Surging stock prices and steady home-price increases have finally allowed Americans to regain the $16 trillion in wealth they lost to the Great Recession.

The gains are helping support the economy and could lead to further spending and growth"



Americans' net worth rebounds from recession | The Morning Sentinel, Waterville, ME

 

[drivebymedia]

McConnell used 390 filibusters to block the President's effort to recover the economy.

No need saying GOP failed again!

 

[Mad Scientist]

Why Americans have any complaint? Obama should be President for Life!

 

[akelch]

Lol.....

 

[Truthmatters]

Why Americans have any complaint? Obama should be President for Life!

you fool no one you right wing hack

why is the right full of such duplicitous liars?

 

[Rozman]

 

[Warrior102]

What is it with your "clapping hands" after each of your posts, faggot?

 

[Trajan]

Pure BULLSHIT!

First of all there is nothing there that supports your claim that they are collecting disability from the stress of running out of UI. In fact, your not credible "good analysis" that claims that APPLICATIONS spike at 50 because SS relaxes their scrutiny at that age is not reflected in a spike in awards at that age as shown by your first link. There is the exact same "spike" in awards at age 47 as age 50.

There are more people at ages 50 to 65 collecting disability because there are more of them in the overall population thanks to the baby boom, not because there was any relaxing of scrutiny.

and I don't think she said that the stress was due to running out of benefits..can you link to where she did please? I missed it.



uh huh, that many more? I don't think so, unless your hypothesizing again, with no facts.

Unless you have the numbers...be careful ed.

oh and your comment as to 50-65?

the average age for liability awards is 52.7 since 1960....and, aside from 1960-which was 57 , its been under 54 every single year.....so your 65 number as the high range is pure smoke.

Hey pinhead, I didn't say 65 was an average. I was commenting on this claim "Nearly all of the disabilty caseload is of people between 45 and 65, with a distinct spike in new applicants at age 50, since the SS administration relaxes its scrutiny at that age" and the average being 53 does not change it.

The whole point was that APPLICATIONS for DI are not AWARDS. The average age being 53 does not make an increase in APPLICATIONS into an increase in AWARDS.
Get it????????

hey Pinhead- I never said you said 65 WAS the average, you said COLLECTING, there, I highlighted it for you too, read what I write, not what you want to....is this were I call YOU an asshole now?

and, you used it as a dataset bracket simply because the award dies, CDR's become useless as the award is converted, its dishonest to use it that way in this conversation... but I am used to ed... the HUGE proportion of awards are to folks 48-55....get over it.

oh hey any questions on your charge of the gop obstructing the Obama ( cloud) budget(s)?

a simple,' yea, I was wrong' will do

 

[boedicca]

Bullshit!

Here you go. Do some math. Lost of people below the age of 65 are on Disability.

Disabled worker beneficiaries distributed by age

And there is a good analysis of the data at this link:

Where Have All the Workers Gone? » Not Yet Europe

Slightly more than 6 % of the workforce, up 1% under Obama, is getting these payments. Even when the real recession actually ends, they will be getting these payments. Six percent of the US workforce is approximately 11 million individuals. Almost half of which have gone the rolls on in the last few years.

Nearly all of the disabilty caseload is of people between 45 and 65, with a distinct spike in new applicants at age 50, since the SS administration relaxes its scrutiny at that age. This means that people typically stay on disability for 10-15 years....


And then we have what Disability means to the SS administration:

"Disability" under Social Security is based on your inability to work. We consider you disabled under Social Security rules if:

You cannot do work that you did before;
We decide that you cannot adjust to other work because of your medical condition(s); and
Your disability has lasted or is expected to last for at least one year or to result in death.

Disability Planner: What We Mean By Disability


In essence, the Obama Administration is using SSDI as a form of welfare for people who can't find work and whose UI has run out.

"We decide that you cannot adjust to other work because of your medical condition(s); and
Your disability has lasted or is expected to last for at least one year or to result in death."

Yep just can't find work....

Apparently none of you know it alls have ever filed for disability.
I could not walk, had to take massive amounts of painkillers and it took 6 months to get on disability.
And was determined to be terminal.
I was declined the first time.
Lots of paperwork and hassle.

So you eggspurts can just blow it out your asses do you hear?

Where on earth did I saw ALL DISABILITY Claims were due to long term unemployement related stress?

I'm sorry about your personal situation, but you are not typical of what has caused the huge increase in disability claims during the Great Recession & Nonrecovery Recovery.

 

[boedicca]

and I don't think she said that the stress was due to running out of benefits..can you link to where she did please? I missed it.



uh huh, that many more? I don't think so, unless your hypothesizing again, with no facts.

Unless you have the numbers...be careful ed.

oh and your comment as to 50-65?

the average age for liability awards is 52.7 since 1960....and, aside from 1960-which was 57 , its been under 54 every single year.....so your 65 number as the high range is pure smoke.

Hey pinhead, I didn't say 65 was an average. I was commenting on this claim "Nearly all of the disabilty caseload is of people between 45 and 65, with a distinct spike in new applicants at age 50, since the SS administration relaxes its scrutiny at that age" and the average being 53 does not change it.

The whole point was that APPLICATIONS for DI are not AWARDS. The average age being 53 does not make an increase in APPLICATIONS into an increase in AWARDS.
Get it????????

hey Pinhead- I never said you said 65 WAS the average, you said COLLECTING, there, I highlighted it for you too, read what I write, not what you want to....is this were I call YOU an asshole now?

and, you used it as a dataset bracket simply because the award dies, CDR's become useless as the award is converted, its dishonest to use it that way in this conversation... but I am used to ed... the HUGE proportion of awards are to folks 48-55....get over it.

oh hey any questions on your charge of the gop obstructing the Obama ( cloud) budget(s)?

a simple,' yea, I was wrong' will do

It's hopeless, friendo. The moonbats cannot read for comprehension and retention...nor can they interpret data.

 

[Warrior102]

It's hopeless, friendo. The moonbats cannot read for comprehension and retention...nor can they interpret data.

The fragrance of Obama's balls and ass blurs their minds.

 

[jknowgood]

One of my old neibors had a nineteen year old girlfriend that was on disability cause she was stupid. I do admit she was stupid, but she could work, I mean she was also a stripper. So stupid people can work, it's proven on here daily.

 

[corazonroto]

Long-Term Unemployed Rises, Real Unemployment Basically Unchanged
By Matt Cover

"...Despite adding an estimated 236,000 jobs in February, the number of long-term unemployed rose and the broader, real unemployment rate remained virtually unchanged..."

"The broader U6 unemployment rate, called the real unemployment rate by some because it provides a fuller measure of the jobless picture, remained largely unchanged in February, falling slightly from 14.4 percent to 14.3.
[/I]

U.S. U6 unemployment rates and all other BLS UI classifications (the real state of our economy) can be analyzed much better here at this very informative website:
Portal Seven | U6 Unemployment Rate

U-6 has never been the "REAL" unemployment rate. Answer this, how can the U-6 be the real unemployment rate when it includes people who are EMPLOYED?????? That's right, EMPLOYED workers are counted in the U-6 rate. U-6 is a measure of underutilization or underemployment. U-3 has always been the standard for unemployment for every Republican president, U-6 only became the "REAL" unemployment for Obama.

If 10 million Americans were only working one hour per week, they all would be counted as EMPLOYED under U-3. U-6 is simply a more "detailed" account of the state of our economy. Many reporters, economists, and authors (pro and anit-Obama) have chosen to label this is the "real unemployment rate" and I tend to agree. I also am pretty sure the U6 unemployment rate did not pop into existence on the day President Obama was elected. BLS has used that measurement for some time. It obviously became more relevant from 2007+ during the end of Republican George Bush's Presidency into the Democratic Obama Presidency due to the financial meltdown and ensuing economic woes we all have suffered for so long.

Technically U-3 is the standard for every president, whether they be a Democrat, Republican or other political classification, BLS reports the numbers the same way. U-6 just gives a better picture on what is really going on:


What is U6 unemployment rate ?

The U6 unemployment rate counts not only people without work seeking full-time employment (the more familiar U-3 rate), but also counts "marginally attached workers and those working part-time for economic reasons." Note that some of these part-time workers counted as employed by U-3 could be working as little as an hour a week. And the "marginally attached workers" include those who have gotten discouraged and stopped looking, but still want to work. The age considered for this calculation is 16 years and over

The Bureau of Labor Statistics measures employment and unemployment (of those over 16 years of age) using two different labor force surveys conducted by the United States Census Bureau (within the United States Department of Commerce) and/or the Bureau of Labor Statistics (within the United States Department of Labor) that gather employment statistics monthly. The Current Population Survey (CPS), or "Household Survey", conducts a survey based on a sample of 60,000 households. This Survey measures the unemployment rate based on the ILO definition. The data are also used to calculate 5 alternate measures of unemployment as a percentage of the labor force based on different definitions noted as U1 through U6:

•U1 : Percentage of labor force unemployed 15 weeks or longer.
•U2 : Percentage of labor force who lost jobs or completed temporary work.
•U3 : Official unemployment rate per ILO definition.
•U4 : U3 + "discouraged workers", or those who have stopped looking for work because current economic conditions make them believe that no work is available for them.
•U5 : U4 + other "marginally attached workers", or "loosely attached workers", or those who "would like" and are able to work, but have not looked for work recently.
•U6 : U5 + Part time workers who want to work full time, but cannot due to economic reasons.


Who is counted as unemployed?

Persons are classified as unemployed if they do not have a job, have actively looked for work in the prior 4 weeks, and are currently available for work. Actively looking for work may consist of any of the following activities:

•Contacting: ◦An employer directly or having a job interview
◦A public or private employment agency
◦Friends or relatives
◦A school or university employment center
•Sending out resumes or filling out applications
•Placing or answering advertisements
•Checking union or professional registers
•Some other means of active job search

Who is not in the labor force?

Labor force measures are based on the civilian non-institutional population 16 years old and over. Excluded are persons under 16 years of age, all persons confined to institutions such as nursing homes and prisons, and persons on active duty in the Armed Forces. The labor force is made up of the employed and the unemployed. The remainder—those who have no job and are not looking for one—are counted as "not in the labor force." Many who are not in the labor force are going to school or are retired. Family responsibilities keep others out of the labor force.

Portal Seven | U6 Unemployment Rate
Table A-15. Alternative measures of labor underutilization

Unemployment - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(see Hidden unemployment and Long-term unemployment and Limitations of the unemployment definition)

Hidden unemployment

Hidden, or covered, unemployment is the unemployment of potential workers that is not reflected in official unemployment statistics, due to the way the statistics are collected. In many countries only those who have no work but are actively looking for work (and/or qualifying for social security benefits) are counted as unemployed. Those who have given up looking for work (and sometimes those who are on Government "retraining" programs) are not officially counted among the unemployed, even though they are not employed. The same applies to those who have taken early retirement to avoid being laid off, but would prefer to be working.

The statistic also does not count the "underemployed" — those working fewer hours than they would prefer or in a job that doesn't make good use of their capabilities. In addition, those who are of working age but are currently in full-time education are usually not considered unemployed in government statistics. Traditional unemployed native societies who survive by gathering, hunting, herding, and farming in wilderness areas, may or may not be counted in unemployment statitics. Official statistics often underestimate unemployment rates because of hidden unemployment.

Limitations of the unemployment definition

Some critics believe that current methods of measuring unemployment are inaccurate in terms of the impact of unemployment on people as these methods do not take into account the 1.5% of the available working population incarcerated in U.S. prisons (who may or may not be working while incarcerated), those who have lost their jobs and have become discouraged over time from actively looking for work, those who are self-employed or wish to become self-employed, such as tradesmen or building contractors or IT consultants, those who have retired before the official retirement age but would still like to work (involuntary early retirees), those on disability pensions who, while not possessing full health, still wish to work in occupations suitable for their medical conditions, those who work for payment for as little as one-hour per week but would like to work full-time.[49]

It is possible to be neither employed nor unemployed by ILO definitions, i.e., to be outside of the "labour force."[26] These are people who have no job and are not looking for one. Many of these are going to school or are retired. Family responsibilities keep others out of the labour force. Still others have a physical or mental disability which prevents them from participating in labour force activities. And of course some people simply elect not to work, preferring to be dependent on others for sustenance.

 

[corazonroto]

...nobody has caught on to the Obama Administrations Emergency Unemployment Compensation Program Implementation Disaster and ARRA fraud.

1. Please read this sadly ignored petition and find my related posts here on USMB (about the Obama Administration's Economic Stimulus/ARRA Fraud and public Corruption I have been investigating):
https://www.change.org/petitions/de...re-robbing-the-unemployed-out-of-recovery-aid

2. And go through the story that these scans of related documents tell (notes at the bottom of each page as you go):
Abuse Of Authority All Documents Photos by corazonroto512 | Photobucket

THEN tell me how there has been ANY "recovery miracle", when in fact I have proven in a California Court of Law on 10/20/2011 in California Unemployment Insurance Appeals Board Case no A0-265448 that there are serious and illegal mistakes that have been published in the EUC08 program guidelines that have been issued to all states since August 15, 2008 (UIPL 23-08 change 1+ about "Multiple EUC Claims") (wasting and harming ARRA funds and subverting recovery efforts).

EUC08 was included into the American Reinvestment and Recovery Act of 2009 (ARRA) under Division B Title II Section 2001. That means according to section 5 these funds are "an emergency requirement and necessary to meet emergency needs". This also means that they are an important and vital part of the "Principles and Purposes" of the Act (ARRA), "(1) To preserve and create jobs and promote economic recovery, and (2) To assist those most impacted by the recession.". If our government is ignoring mistakes they made in this vital recovery program then they are subverting and violating our recovery efforts (no "miracle" nor "surprise").
ARRA Act Text/PDF:
http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=...3IH4DQ&usg=AFQjCNEhbIIYMwc_oTGs3ovaJKmwKvhe5A

The Obama Administration doesn't want to talk about this (obviously), since there are scans of the FOIA documents from 2011 that show they knew about this problem before the last election. Other FOIA documents show their own Department of Labor and many high level officials trying to subvert that just decision in a California court of law that refuted their EUC08 program policy mistakes (forcing claimants onto older and terminated EUC08 claims for less benefits over less time when they are legally eligible for higher paying claims based on the most recent benefit year and state unemployment claim that they just "exhausted").

I was all for hope and change, but the facts today are quite different (about the deeds vs the lofty and inspiring words). Wake up America...to this sad news: millions of claimants have been harmed and billions of dollars have been wasted in this vital recovery act program and the White House knows this is going on, preferring to cover the story up for as long as they can.

I don't say this lightly or without much evidence to back it up. Go through the links and my posts before you start jumping to conclusions or attacking me. I tried to WARN the Obama White House up to the point I caught them being involved and covering up information. They are actively trying to subvert my investigative efforts and just petitions to redress these serious grievances.

I just want to help the victims of these historic errors and get this historic blunder repaired, because the damage is greater than you can possibly imagine (29 million+ EUC08 claims since 2008 and the $90 billion spent so far along with many state tax dollars may have been negatively affected). There are millions of claimants out there, who like me were denied upwards of $20,000 in benefits due these errors (that I refuted in court restoring my funds).

(you might "try" to view my post as actually trying to support a possible "recovery miracle" THAT COULD HAVE HAPPENED if the EUC08 program was implemented properly and legally..then things would have been better...instead we have to deal with this mess sooner than later because our weak economy and too many struggling workers and families have been denied emergency designated ARRA funds)