Economic Facts that Obama Keeps Ignoring

[edthecynic]

In fact, the labor force participation rate has dropped from where it was 12 months ago. It was 62.9 in January 2015. It was 62.6 last month.

Why are wing-nuts too stupid to understand demographics?
See chart 4:

http://www.bls.gov/opub/mlr/2002/09/art3full.pdf

I cite the actual numbers, and you cite a chart from 2002?

By the way, if you look at the BLS employment reports for January 2009 and December 2016, you'll find that the total number of employed persons of the civilian workforce has gone up by only 7.8 million, from 142,099,000 to 149,929,000. Under Bush, the total number of employed persons of the civilian workforce rose from 135,999,000 to 142,099,000, an increase of 6.1 million, and Bush's numbers were impacted by 9/11, the 2002 and 2008 recessions, and six of the 10 costliest hurricanes in American history (four of them are in the top six, including Katrina, the most expensive of all time).

BULLSHIT!

Bush went from 137,778,000 in Jan 2001 to 142,152,000 in Jan 2009, an increase of only 4,374,000. During that same period unemployment increased from 6,023,000 to 12,056,000 an increase of 6,033,000 giving Bush a net loss of 1,533,000 jobs. And all those bush "impacts" were minor compared to the clusterfuck Bush handed Obama.

Under Obama employment increased from 142,152,000 to 149,929,000 an increase of 7,777,000. During that same period unemployment decreased from 12,056,000 to 7,904,000 a decrease of 4,152,000.

Bureau of Labor Statistics Data

 

[mikegriffith1]

In fact, the labor force participation rate has dropped from where it was 12 months ago. It was 62.9 in January 2015. It was 62.6 last month.

Why are wing-nuts too stupid to understand demographics?
See chart 4:

http://www.bls.gov/opub/mlr/2002/09/art3full.pdf

I cite the actual numbers, and you cite a chart from 2002?

By the way, if you look at the BLS employment reports for January 2009 and December 2016, you'll find that the total number of employed persons of the civilian workforce has gone up by only 7.8 million, from 142,099,000 to 149,929,000. Under Bush, the total number of employed persons of the civilian workforce rose from 135,999,000 to 142,099,000, an increase of 6.1 million, and Bush's numbers were impacted by 9/11, the 2002 and 2008 recessions, and six of the 10 costliest hurricanes in American history (four of them are in the top six, including Katrina, the most expensive of all time).

BULLSHIT!

Bush went from 137,778,000 in Jan 2001 to 142,152,000 in Jan 2009, an increase of only 4,374,000. During that same period unemployment increased from 6,023,000 to 12,056,000 an increase of 6,033,000 giving Bush a net loss of 1,533,000 jobs. And all those bush "impacts" were minor compared to the clusterfuck Bush handed Obama.

Under Obama employment increased from 142,152,000 to 149,929,000 an increase of 7,777,000. During that same period unemployment decreased from 12,056,000 to 7,904,000 a decrease of 4,152,000.

Bureau of Labor Statistics Data

Nope. I was citing the civilian workforce employment numbers. Just go check the January 2001, January 2009, and December 2015 BLS employment reports. The numbers I cited are accurate, as you'll see if you'll go check the above-mentioned reports. I understand that you wanna include the government employee numbers, but I was citing the civilian employment numbers.

And, again, Obama's numbers weren't impacted by two recessions, 9/11, and six of the most expensive hurricanes in American history. Obama's numbers have been affected by most of the 2008 recession and one top-10 hurricane.

Furthermore, there's no denying that median household income has dropped, that Obama's recovery is the first recovery in modern history to include two entire quarters of negative GDP growth, that minorities have done terribly in Obama's economy, that record numbers of people have just given up finding a job in Obama's economy (hence the substandard labor force participation rate), that Obama has exploded the national debt to dangerous levels (and has now blown up the deficit again with his latest spending spree), and that the U-6 unemployment rate has been much higher under Obama than it was under Bush. Facts are facts, no matter how much you want to ignore them.

 

[edthecynic]

In fact, the labor force participation rate has dropped from where it was 12 months ago. It was 62.9 in January 2015. It was 62.6 last month.

Why are wing-nuts too stupid to understand demographics?
See chart 4:

http://www.bls.gov/opub/mlr/2002/09/art3full.pdf

I cite the actual numbers, and you cite a chart from 2002?

By the way, if you look at the BLS employment reports for January 2009 and December 2016, you'll find that the total number of employed persons of the civilian workforce has gone up by only 7.8 million, from 142,099,000 to 149,929,000. Under Bush, the total number of employed persons of the civilian workforce rose from 135,999,000 to 142,099,000, an increase of 6.1 million, and Bush's numbers were impacted by 9/11, the 2002 and 2008 recessions, and six of the 10 costliest hurricanes in American history (four of them are in the top six, including Katrina, the most expensive of all time).

BULLSHIT!

Bush went from 137,778,000 in Jan 2001 to 142,152,000 in Jan 2009, an increase of only 4,374,000. During that same period unemployment increased from 6,023,000 to 12,056,000 an increase of 6,033,000 giving Bush a net loss of 1,533,000 jobs. And all those bush "impacts" were minor compared to the clusterfuck Bush handed Obama.

Under Obama employment increased from 142,152,000 to 149,929,000 an increase of 7,777,000. During that same period unemployment decreased from 12,056,000 to 7,904,000 a decrease of 4,152,000.

Bureau of Labor Statistics Data

Nope. I was citing the civilian workforce employment numbers. Just go check the January 2001, January 2009, and December 2015 BLS employment reports. The numbers I cited are accurate, as you'll see if you'll go check the above-mentioned reports. I understand that you wanna include the government employee numbers, but I was citing the civilian employment numbers.

And, again, Obama's numbers weren't impacted by two recessions, 9/11, and six of the most expensive hurricanes in American history. Obama's numbers have been affected by most of the 2008 recession and one top-10 hurricane.

You linked nothing, I linked to the actual BLS numbers for the civilian labor force employment numbers.

Here they are again from 1948 to the present:
Bureau of Labor Statistics Data

And here they are where you can choose the period of time you choose to cover:
Table A-1. Employment status of the civilian population by sex and age

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

In fact, the labor force participation rate has dropped from where it was 12 months ago. It was 62.9 in January 2015. It was 62.6 last month.

Why are wing-nuts too stupid to understand demographics?
See chart 4:

http://www.bls.gov/opub/mlr/2002/09/art3full.pdf

I cite the actual numbers, and you cite a chart from 2002?

By the way, if you look at the BLS employment reports for January 2009 and December 2016, you'll find that the total number of employed persons of the civilian workforce has gone up by only 7.8 million, from 142,099,000 to 149,929,000. Under Bush, the total number of employed persons of the civilian workforce rose from 135,999,000 to 142,099,000, an increase of 6.1 million, and Bush's numbers were impacted by 9/11, the 2002 and 2008 recessions, and six of the 10 costliest hurricanes in American history (four of them are in the top six, including Katrina, the most expensive of all time).

BULLSHIT!

Bush went from 137,778,000 in Jan 2001 to 142,152,000 in Jan 2009, an increase of only 4,374,000. During that same period unemployment increased from 6,023,000 to 12,056,000 an increase of 6,033,000 giving Bush a net loss of 1,533,000 jobs. And all those bush "impacts" were minor compared to the clusterfuck Bush handed Obama.

Under Obama employment increased from 142,152,000 to 149,929,000 an increase of 7,777,000. During that same period unemployment decreased from 12,056,000 to 7,904,000 a decrease of 4,152,000.

Bureau of Labor Statistics Data

Nope. I was citing the civilian workforce employment numbers. Just go check the January 2001, January 2009, and December 2015 BLS employment reports. The numbers I cited are accurate, as you'll see if you'll go check the above-mentioned reports. I understand that you wanna include the government employee numbers, but I was citing the civilian employment numbers.

And, again, Obama's numbers weren't impacted by two recessions, 9/11, and six of the most expensive hurricanes in American history. Obama's numbers have been affected by most of the 2008 recession and one top-10 hurricane.

Furthermore, there's no denying that median household income has dropped, that Obama's recovery is the first recovery in modern history to include two entire quarters of negative GDP growth, that minorities have done terribly in Obama's economy, that record numbers of people have just given up finding a job in Obama's economy (hence the substandard labor force participation rate), that Obama has exploded the national debt to dangerous levels (and has now blown up the deficit again with his latest spending spree), and that the U-6 unemployment rate has been much higher under Obama than it was under Bush. Facts are facts, no matter how much you want to ignore them.

1. 
   Obama Owns Worst Economic Numbers in 80 Years, Since 1932
   
   www.thegatewaypundit.com/facts-are-facts-obama-owns-worst-economic- numbers-in-80-years-since-1932/
   ‎
   Jul 30, 2015 ... If we leave out the sharp recession of 1945-46 following World War II, Obamalooks even worse, ranking dead last among all presidents since ...
   Obama Owns Worst Economic Numbers in 80 Years, Since 1932
   
   www.thegatewaypundit.com/.../facts-are-facts-obama-owns-worst-economic- numbers-in-80-years-since-1932/
   ‎
   Jul 30, 2015 ... No other president since the Great Depression has presided over such a .....Obama's economic recovery is the worst in history and we never ...
   The Obama Economic Record: The Worst Five Years Since World ...
   
   dailycaller.com/.../the-obama-economic-record-the-worst-five-years-since- world-war-ii/
   ‎
   Aug 11, 2014 ... If we leave out the sharp recession of 1945-46 following World War II, Obamalooks even worse, ranking dead last among all presidents since ...
   Obama Owns Worst Economic Numbers In 80 Years, Done More ...
   
   investmentwatchblog.com/obama-owns-worst-economic-numbers-in-80- years-done-more-damage-to-this-country-than-anyone/
   ‎
   Aug 1, 2015 ... If we leave out the sharp recession of 1945-46 following World War II, Obamalooks even worse, ranking dead last among all presidents since ...
   'ECONOMIC RECOVERY' UNDER OBAMA IS THE WORST SINCE ...
   
   overpassesforamerica.com/?p=10358
   ‎
   Jun 1, 2015 ... truth about obama economy ... of 0.7%, worsening the outlook on what wasalready the worst economic recovery since the Great Depression.

 

[mikegriffith1]

We just found out a couple weeks ago that the 2015 4th Quarter GDP growth was a pathetic 0.7%--or less than 1%. That's almost stagnation. The 3rd Quarter GDP growth was an anemic (i.e., very weak) 2%. Dropping from a sorry growth rate of 2% down to a near-stagnation rate of 0.7% is a drop of over 100%.

I noticed on C-SPAN the other day that Bernie Sanders was talking about the U-6 unemployment rate and how it's a more accurate measurement of the employment situation. Of course, the U-6 is at a miserable 9.9%. Here's a good explanation from Investopedia on why the U-6 is the most accurate measurement of the jobs situation:

The U-3 unemployment rate is a comparatively narrow technical measure that leaves out a whole swath of out-of-work people who are willing and able to take a job but who don't fit the narrow BLS definition of "unemployed." For example, a stonemason who wants to work but who has become discouraged by a lack of opportunity in the midst of a deep economic recession would not be included in U-3 unemployment. A marketing executive who is laid off at age 57 and stops scheduling new job interviews due to her experience of age discrimination would not be included in U-3 unemployment. A person who only works one six-hour shift per week because no full-time jobs are available in his area would not be included in U-3 unemployment.

In contrast to the U-3 rate, the U-6 unemployment rate includes all of these cases. Consequently, the U-6 rate is much truer to a natural, non-technical understanding of what it means to be unemployed. By capturing discouraged workers, underemployed workers and other folks who exist on the margins of the labor market, the U-6 rate provides a broad picture of the underutilization of labor in the country. In this sense, the U-6 rate is the true unemployment rate. (The True Unemployment Rate: U6 Vs. U3 | Investopedia)​

Would any liberal care to compare the U-6 rate under Obama vs. under Bush? Under Bush the U-6 rate averaged about 8.8%. Under Obama the U-6 rate has averaged about 13%.

And what else have we gotten from Obamanomics:

* A drop in median household income of over $1,000.
* Two entire quarters of negative GDP growth during the supposed Obama "recovery."
* A record number of people on food stamps.
* The largest increase in the national debt in American history.
* The interest on the national debt--just the interest--is now the fourth largest budget item of the federal budget. It tops the portion we spend on veterans benefits, education, transportation, housing, and food/agriculture.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Bernie Sanders was talking about the U-6 unemployment rate .

I find U6 to be about where it should be with little evidence that its higher now than the historical average. It might be a touch high as is the LFPR which you hear more about but nothing serious .

Also, lets keep in mind that Obama put about 1 million people extra on disability who otherwise would be counted as unemployed but even this would only move unemployment from the current 4.9 to 5.6%.

So you'd say 4.9% is good but the 7 years it took to get there makes it worst recovery in modern history and a recovery whose slowness is compounded by lower, not higher incomes.

 

[Wilbur Right]

So you'd say 4.9% is good but the 7 years it took to get there makes it worst recovery in modern history and a recovery whose slowness is compounded by lower, not higher incomes.

Man its to bad that Repubs didnt win the WH so they could have continued to work on the complete destruction of the American economy.

Still, the worst recovery under Obama is much better than the economic disaster left to us citizens by Republican leaders.

Remember when the Repubican controlled COngress was gonna focus like a lazer on JOBS JOBS JOBS?

What the fuck happened to those Republican jobs? Republican figured out how to ship jobs OUt of the country (how many millions of jobs did Bush lose? I forget.)
But for some reason Republicans cant figure out how to create jobs.

Its Obamas fault the Republicans are worthless isnt it.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Man its to bad that Repubs didnt win the WH so they could have continued to work on the complete destruction of the American economy.

Still, the worst recovery under Obama is much better than the economic disaster left to us citizens by Republican leaders.

Remember when the Repubican controlled COngress was gonna focus like a lazer on JOBS JOBS JOBS?

What the fuck happened to those Republican jobs? Republican figured out how to ship jobs OUt of the country (how many millions of jobs did Bush lose? I forget.)
But for some reason Republicans cant figure out how to create jobs.

Its Obamas fault the Republicans are worthless isnt it.

dear, Bush was a liberal, Cruz is ultra conservative, Trump is in his own Republican category. Ask your Mom to help you understand that the term Republican is too vague to be useful. Let us know if she gets through to you.

 

[Agit8r]

This just in; 10,000 baby boomers retire every day... since December 2010!

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

This just in; 10,000 baby boomers retire every day... since December 2010!

and your point is???

 

[Agit8r]

This just in; 10,000 baby boomers retire every day... since December 2010!

and your point is???

Just pointing that these things don't happen in a vacuum. The OP is comparing apples and oranges.

 

[Kosh]

This just in; 10,000 baby boomers retire every day... since December 2010!

and your point is???

Just pointing that these things don't happen in a vacuum. The OP is comparing apples and oranges.

Far left drones often have no point, but they will post their religious dogma over and over again, no matter how many times it is debunked..

Now hush!

Mommy and Daddy are trying to watch the Super Bowl!

 

[Agit8r]

This just in; 10,000 baby boomers retire every day... since December 2010!

and your point is???

Just pointing that these things don't happen in a vacuum. The OP is comparing apples and oranges.

Far left drones often have no point, but they will post their religious dogma over and over again, no matter how many times it is debunked..

Now hush!

Mommy and Daddy are trying to watch the Super Bowl!

you seem a bit distracted from that

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Far left drones often have no point, but they will post their religious dogma over and over again, no matter how many times it is debunked..

this is true!! the USMB liberals seem defeated. You don't see one left who dares advance a substantive argument in support of liberalism.

 

[Kosh]

This just in; 10,000 baby boomers retire every day... since December 2010!

and your point is???

Just pointing that these things don't happen in a vacuum. The OP is comparing apples and oranges.

Far left drones often have no point, but they will post their religious dogma over and over again, no matter how many times it is debunked..

Now hush!

Mommy and Daddy are trying to watch the Super Bowl!

you seem a bit distracted from that

See it is like dealing with a two year old, typical far left drone!


Now hush!

Mommy and Daddy are trying to watch the Super Bowl!

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

This just in; 10,000 baby boomers retire every day... since December 2010!

and your point is???

Just pointing that these things don't happen in a vacuum. The OP is comparing apples and oranges.

Far left drones often have no point, but they will post their religious dogma over and over again, no matter how many times it is debunked..

Now hush!

Mommy and Daddy are trying to watch the Super Bowl!

you seem a bit distracted from that

See it is like dealing with a two year old, typical far left drone!


Now hush!

Mommy and Daddy are trying to watch the Super Bowl!

this is true!! the USMB liberals seem defeated. You don't see one left who dares advance a substantive argument in support of liberalism.

 

[leftwinger]

Freedom to die in the gutter during ANOTHER corrupt Pub bubble/bust, dupe?

I have never seen anyone dying in the gutter. However, the last 8 years have seen a steady increase in the Nightly line outside the NATL Guard Armory, begging outside the strip mall, on street medians etc. The Solutions? Open border wider and bring in muslim terrorist by the planeload. nice!

 

[edthecynic]

Also, lets keep in mind that Obama put about 1 million people extra on disability who otherwise would be counted as unemployed but even this would only move unemployment from the current 4.9 to 5.6%.

Disability awards have been DECLINING since 2010.

 

[bripat9643]

Part of the problem is the far right wanks won't train or re-train for better paying jobs, the immigrants many of them do, and the wanks cry.

Yep,

Then the very party they vote for brings in 100k or more h1b's and immigrants to do it instead. LOL!!!

The republican party defunds education and limits a persons ability to get a education in order to compete....

Republicans for the past 35 years has been fighting to send our industry to china and mexico. Yet, they blame Obama? lol, lol, lol!!!!! Obama has created 14 million jobs and fought to rebuild some of our industry.

The vast expansion in H1-B started during the Clinton Administration, numskull. The Democrat party is the one destroying the middle class with cheap foreign labor, not the Republican party.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Also, lets keep in mind that Obama put about 1 million people extra on disability who otherwise would be counted as unemployed but even this would only move unemployment from the current 4.9 to 5.6%.

Disability awards have been DECLINING since 2010.

Newly released data from the Social Security Administration reveal that the number of Americans collecting disability payments is at an all-time high — 10,962,532 — more, to put to put it in perspective, than the total number of people living in Greece.
CNS News writes, “April was the 195th straight month that the number of American workers collecting federal disability payments increased. The last time the number of Americans collecting disability decreased was in January 1997.” But in 1997, that decrease was a miniscule one of just 249 people.
Record Number: 10.9 Million Americans Collecting Disability