No Jobs created since Obama took office, LINK

[Syphon]

.

There are many people who believe that Obama was handed a big, steaming pile of crap, an economic disaster of historic proportions, a staggering and massively complicated spider's web of financial fecal matter that this country has never seen.

Yes, Republicans, I know, it's not true, it was all just a little blip from which we should recovered immediately, back on our merry, prosperous, "exceptional" way. We should have come roaring back after that little down dip like a horny lion. That recession was nothing special, just another bump in the road. I get it, I get it.

But for those who think that's not true, the only thing that will matter is the trajectory of the economy on Election Day. If the trajectory is up, Obama's back in. If it's down, it'll be Romney. If it's flat, it'll be a toss-up. A decent Republican candidate might well win regardless, but it is what it is. These numbers are irrelevant.

.

Mac the wheels had come off, no doubt about that

GWB was handed a recession and 9-11 in 8 months in 2001, not the same, not like it wasin 08, but it was notgoing great either, 9-11 was a huge event

BHO spent his first 2 years cramming down the health care reform law down our throats and lying about GM paying us back (they still owe us 50 billion, +-) and even with there stock there still 15-25 billion short

And what exactly did going from a deficit of 163 billion in 2007 to where we are today do for us? (budget short-fall 2007, from 2006 congress) what is it 1.4 trillion a year now?

These are not partisan quotations, it is accurate information that if people use to decide our next president (which I think enough will) its a no brainer

By the way out health care system is fine, the way we insure it is the issue that needs attention, Obama's way as best I can see was not the way we should have "attacked" it

the largest drivers of the deficit are the wars, medicare part d and the 2001/2003 tax cuts. that and interest on the debt as well. all GOP passed legislation.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

Looks like the american public for good reason is not buying it, and yes the Obama Admin has changed the available job # so it has been modified

No, they didn't.

How would the Obama Administration be able to "change" the number of available jobs?

Yes they did
If you are offended that under ObamaCare you may be considered "a unit," you should know that under Obama employment stats you may not even exist! In fact, a lot of non-working adults who existed in October apparently no longer do exist officially.
In other words, in the universe Obama took over from George W. Bush, the unemployment rate would still be over 11%. Now, the last time I checked, the planet has not gotten smaller, nor has the population of the United States. (I am not sure about the sea levels.) To thinking people, there is no legitimate reason to shrink the potential labor pool.Of course, there is an illegitimate reason to do so: to protect the governing record of Barack Obama. Anyone who follows politics even casually knows that if the general public ever really figured out that the real unemployment rate is over 11%, Obama would have zero chance of re-election.
Can you imagine the screams of protest from the media if a Republican president had altered the formula for calculating the rate of the unemployed to magically make the numbers appear better than what they really are on the eve of his re-election campaign? The real unemployment rate is over 11%, and even that rate is misleading because it doesn't include the people who no longer qualify for unemployment benefits because they've been unemployed so long. Only one person in the media seemed to question the unemployment rate statistics released on Friday, and he's the man credited with being the father of the Tea Party movement.
Advance Indiana: Obama Administration Manipulated Unemployment Statistics To Achieve Lower Rate

The argument is that the labor pool is changing due to "demographics" apples to apples is not the same as it was when Obama took office

That post is so full of fail, I don't even know where to begin.

Obama has altered no formulas. The reason the labor pool is smaller is because people have given up looking for work. Obama didn't "force" them to give up looking for work, nor did he change how the numbers are calculated. Your blogs are LYING TO YOU.

Do some research, learn what these things mean, and get back to me.

Your post is even more full of fail because UI benefits have nothing to do with Unemployment rates. That's just more lying nonsense from your blog sources.

 

[hortysir]

LOL. You whining assholes. The President could pay off the deficit, find a way to give us all a million dollar refund, and have full employment, and you would still be whining. You guys are not only liars, you are total fruitcakes.

Employment is improving, the market is going up, and housing will be coming back. And you will be damning the whole thing, hoping for more misery for your fellow Americans.

First section of yours is pure conjecture.
If we were doing that well, I'd vote him in a hot minute.

You need to back up the second section with facts. (not pretty graphs, either)

 

[JRK]

.

There are many people who believe that Obama was handed a big, steaming pile of crap, an economic disaster of historic proportions, a staggering and massively complicated spider's web of financial fecal matter that this country has never seen.

Yes, Republicans, I know, it's not true, it was all just a little blip from which we should recovered immediately, back on our merry, prosperous, "exceptional" way. We should have come roaring back after that little down dip like a horny lion. That recession was nothing special, just another bump in the road. I get it, I get it.

But for those who think that's not true, the only thing that will matter is the trajectory of the economy on Election Day. If the trajectory is up, Obama's back in. If it's down, it'll be Romney. If it's flat, it'll be a toss-up. A decent Republican candidate might well win regardless, but it is what it is. These numbers are irrelevant.

.

Mac the wheels had come off, no doubt about that

GWB was handed a recession and 9-11 in 8 months in 2001, not the same, not like it wasin 08, but it was notgoing great either, 9-11 was a huge event

BHO spent his first 2 years cramming down the health care reform law down our throats and lying about GM paying us back (they still owe us 50 billion, +-) and even with there stock there still 15-25 billion short

And what exactly did going from a deficit of 163 billion in 2007 to where we are today do for us? (budget short-fall 2007, from 2006 congress) what is it 1.4 trillion a year now?

These are not partisan quotations, it is accurate information that if people use to decide our next president (which I think enough will) its a no brainer

By the way out health care system is fine, the way we insure it is the issue that needs attention, Obama's way as best I can see was not the way we should have "attacked" it

the largest drivers of the deficit are the wars, medicare part d and the 2001/2003 tax cuts. that and interest on the debt as well. all GOP passed legislation.

what wars?
Iraq is over thanks to the trroops and GWB making sure it ended as it did
Do you know how to look up tax revenues?
Bush Tax Cut Myths | Tax Revenue Increases | Capital Gains Tax
Ok what else, oh yea the deficit
compare the last GOP budget 2007 (from 06)
vs any of Obamas
U.S. 2007 Budget Deficit Falls to $163 Billion (Update1) - Bloomberg
now this 163 billion dollar defict does include Iraq, tax cuts etc

PLEASE STOP WITH THE INFO WITHOUT CHECKING THE FACTS

 

[sealybobo]

How come no one on the right is talking about the DOW closing over 13000 today!

 

[JRK]

No, they didn't.

How would the Obama Administration be able to "change" the number of available jobs?

Yes they did
If you are offended that under ObamaCare you may be considered "a unit," you should know that under Obama employment stats you may not even exist! In fact, a lot of non-working adults who existed in October apparently no longer do exist officially.
In other words, in the universe Obama took over from George W. Bush, the unemployment rate would still be over 11%. Now, the last time I checked, the planet has not gotten smaller, nor has the population of the United States. (I am not sure about the sea levels.) To thinking people, there is no legitimate reason to shrink the potential labor pool.Of course, there is an illegitimate reason to do so: to protect the governing record of Barack Obama. Anyone who follows politics even casually knows that if the general public ever really figured out that the real unemployment rate is over 11%, Obama would have zero chance of re-election.
Can you imagine the screams of protest from the media if a Republican president had altered the formula for calculating the rate of the unemployed to magically make the numbers appear better than what they really are on the eve of his re-election campaign? The real unemployment rate is over 11%, and even that rate is misleading because it doesn't include the people who no longer qualify for unemployment benefits because they've been unemployed so long. Only one person in the media seemed to question the unemployment rate statistics released on Friday, and he's the man credited with being the father of the Tea Party movement.
Advance Indiana: Obama Administration Manipulated Unemployment Statistics To Achieve Lower Rate

The argument is that the labor pool is changing due to "demographics" apples to apples is not the same as it was when Obama took office

That post is so full of fail, I don't even know where to begin.

Obama has altered no formulas. The reason the labor pool is smaller is because people have given up looking for work. Obama didn't "force" them to give up looking for work, nor did he change how the numbers are calculated. Your blogs are LYING TO YOU.

Do some research, learn what these things mean, and get back to me.

Your post is even more full of fail because UI benefits have nothing to do with Unemployment rates. That's just more lying nonsense from your blog sources.

Unemployment: The Dirty Little Secret Everyone's Ignoring | Fox News
is this a lie also? you need to do some re search bud, not me

 

[JRK]

The Dirty Secret About Our Unemployment Rate « Start Thinking Right
more?

 

[Sweet Willy]

I can't speak to the whole situation but our regional market is on the verge of bursting wide open with new jobs. Amazon just finished a new facility in Columbia with several hundred new jobs, and yet another Amazon facility in Spartanburg is underway bringing hundreds more jobs in the fall. There was a Caterpillar plant that was supposed to bring 500 jobs here about 7 or 8 years ago, but things got so bad they put it on ice, now, those 500 jobs are being filled as we speak.

You guys may have different circumstances but from what I can see on the ground, you're going to see unemployment take a huge drop this summer to 6% or less. The big boys are hiring again.

The down side? Well, our state gave these guys the farm to come here. And they just didn't have to. They were coming anyway for our horribly cheap labor. I was in NC for the opening of the Caterpillar plant there in the 90s and the starting wage was $15 - $17 an hour then. Not that I'm not glad to see the jobs come, but know what starting wage is for Caterpillar in SC, 20 years later? $10 an hour. That's right $10 an hour.

But few are complaining. They'll be glad to barely scrape by on bologna and bread. beats starving. And Cat makes billions! Bologna and billions, everyone's happy!

 

[hortysir]

How come no one on the right is talking about the DOW closing over 13000 today!

Because if we draw attention to the money we're making on stocks, you'll just want to raise the CG taxes.

 

[hortysir]

How come no one on the right is talking about the DOW closing over 13000 today!

And someone may very well be talking about it.

just not here.

This thread is about unemployment

 

[JRK]

How come no one on the right is talking about the DOW closing over 13000 today!

Because if we draw attention to the money we're making on stocks, you'll just want to raise the CG taxes.

what does that have to do with Obama?
Laying off millions had more to do with the stock market going up like it has along with Tarp from 08
profits, not jobs has the stock market were it is

 

[oreo]

2.4 Million Fewer Americans Working Now Than When Obama Signed Economic Stimulus | CNSNews.com

This link is 8 months old
We are still negative from 2008 in people working. How can the Libs state there has been 1 job created?

Now--now--Obama did create 1100 jobs with 500 million dollars of taxpayer money at Solyndra. Unfortunately they went bankrupt and so did the jobs.

 

[pinqy]

Yes they did
If you are offended that under ObamaCare you may be considered "a unit," you should know that under Obama employment stats you may not even exist! In fact, a lot of non-working adults who existed in October apparently no longer do exist officially.
In other words, in the universe Obama took over from George W. Bush, the unemployment rate would still be over 11%. Now, the last time I checked, the planet has not gotten smaller, nor has the population of the United States. (I am not sure about the sea levels.) To thinking people, there is no legitimate reason to shrink the potential labor pool.Of course, there is an illegitimate reason to do so: to protect the governing record of Barack Obama. Anyone who follows politics even casually knows that if the general public ever really figured out that the real unemployment rate is over 11%, Obama would have zero chance of re-election.
Can you imagine the screams of protest from the media if a Republican president had altered the formula for calculating the rate of the unemployed to magically make the numbers appear better than what they really are on the eve of his re-election campaign? The real unemployment rate is over 11%, and even that rate is misleading because it doesn't include the people who no longer qualify for unemployment benefits because they've been unemployed so long. Only one person in the media seemed to question the unemployment rate statistics released on Friday, and he's the man credited with being the father of the Tea Party movement.
Advance Indiana: Obama Administration Manipulated Unemployment Statistics To Achieve Lower Rate

The argument is that the labor pool is changing due to "demographics" apples to apples is not the same as it was when Obama took office

That post is so full of fail, I don't even know where to begin.

Obama has altered no formulas. The reason the labor pool is smaller is because people have given up looking for work. Obama didn't "force" them to give up looking for work, nor did he change how the numbers are calculated. Your blogs are LYING TO YOU.

Do some research, learn what these things mean, and get back to me.

Your post is even more full of fail because UI benefits have nothing to do with Unemployment rates. That's just more lying nonsense from your blog sources.

Unemployment: The Dirty Little Secret Everyone's Ignoring | Fox News
is this a lie also? you need to do some re search bud, not me

I note that it says nothing about manipulation or "the administration" shrinking the labor force. It's also 2 years old.

Let's do this: IN YOUR OWN WORDS, explain to the class exactly how the UE rate was calculated: where the data comes from, what the definitions are, and what the formula is. As much detail as possible, with links.

And then show from either Current Population Survey (CPS) - A Joint Effort Between the Bureau of Labor Statistics and the Census Bureau - U.S. Census Bureau or U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics or any other .gov or .edu source what methodological changes were made under Obama (everything is documented) and how the formula is different now.

Since i doubt you actually understand any of it (and since the forumla hasn't changed), and you're spouting nonsense like "available jobs", I don't expect you to even try.

 

[JRK]

That post is so full of fail, I don't even know where to begin.

Obama has altered no formulas. The reason the labor pool is smaller is because people have given up looking for work. Obama didn't "force" them to give up looking for work, nor did he change how the numbers are calculated. Your blogs are LYING TO YOU.

Do some research, learn what these things mean, and get back to me.

Your post is even more full of fail because UI benefits have nothing to do with Unemployment rates. That's just more lying nonsense from your blog sources.

Unemployment: The Dirty Little Secret Everyone's Ignoring | Fox News
is this a lie also? you need to do some re search bud, not me

I note that it says nothing about manipulation or "the administration" shrinking the labor force. It's also 2 years old.

Let's do this: IN YOUR OWN WORDS, explain to the class exactly how the UE rate was calculated: where the data comes from, what the definitions are, and what the formula is. As much detail as possible, with links.

And then show from either Current Population Survey (CPS) - A Joint Effort Between the Bureau of Labor Statistics and the Census Bureau - U.S. Census Bureau or U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics or any other .gov or .edu source what methodological changes were made under Obama (everything is documented) and how the formula is different now.

Since i doubt you actually understand any of it (and since the forumla hasn't changed), I don't expect you to even try.

Dec. 2011 is not 2 years ago
I do understand this
you have yet to post a link defending this event or for that matter disputing it, and I also understand that being proud of real UE of 14.9% while Our govt is spending trillions we do not have (from 163 billion in 2007) is just plain, well you make up your own mind what it is.

Being called names as well as implying one is dumb is a liberal thing when they lose the debate to facts
everytime, all the time

 

[GoneBezerk]

Well....he did create a bunch of backroom Govt jobs in DC like in the IRS to go on witch hunts for him.....but he's going to cut the military personnel to shreds to even out the Govt expansion.

Coming to a town near you, laid off military troops....

 

[NYcarbineer]

2.4 Million Fewer Americans Working Now Than When Obama Signed Economic Stimulus | CNSNews.com

This link is 8 months old
We are still negative from 2008 in people working. How can the Libs state there has been 1 job created?

You're counting the job creation against the job loss which was net negative until sometime into Obama's first year.

 

[hortysir]

2.4 Million Fewer Americans Working Now Than When Obama Signed Economic Stimulus | CNSNews.com

This link is 8 months old
We are still negative from 2008 in people working. How can the Libs state there has been 1 job created?

You're counting the job creation against the job loss which was net negative until sometime into Obama's first year.

Why wouldn't we count net-loss jobs during his first year?

Doesn that mean we can quit blaming Boooosh for 9-11???

 

[Syphon]

2.4 Million Fewer Americans Working Now Than When Obama Signed Economic Stimulus | CNSNews.com

This link is 8 months old
We are still negative from 2008 in people working. How can the Libs state there has been 1 job created?

You're counting the job creation against the job loss which was net negative until sometime into Obama's first year.

Why wouldn't we count net-loss jobs during his first year?

Doesn that mean we can quit blaming Boooosh for 9-11???

who said 9/11 was bush's fault?
his management of the aftermath was poor, but he didnt cause the event to happen.

 

[Chris]

Obama has added 3.9 million jobs since 2009.

Here’s what Bush left us with.....

Aug 2008 - 334,000 net JOBS LOST
Sep 2008 - 458,000 net JOBS LOST
Oct 2008 - 554,000 net JOBS LOST
Nov 2008 - 728,000 net JOBS LOST
Dec 2008 - 673,000 net JOBS LOST
Jan 2009 - 779,000 net JOBS LOST

 

[pinqy]

Unemployment: The Dirty Little Secret Everyone's Ignoring | Fox News
is this a lie also? you need to do some re search bud, not me

I note that it says nothing about manipulation or "the administration" shrinking the labor force. It's also 2 years old.

Let's do this: IN YOUR OWN WORDS, explain to the class exactly how the UE rate was calculated: where the data comes from, what the definitions are, and what the formula is. As much detail as possible, with links.

And then show from either Current Population Survey (CPS) - A Joint Effort Between the Bureau of Labor Statistics and the Census Bureau - U.S. Census Bureau or U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics or any other .gov or .edu source what methodological changes were made under Obama (everything is documented) and how the formula is different now.

Since i doubt you actually understand any of it (and since the forumla hasn't changed), I don't expect you to even try.

Dec. 2011 is not 2 years ago

that link is January 2010.

I do understand this

Not if you're talking nonsense like "changing the available jobs" which makes no sense, talking like the labor pool could be intentionally shrunk. You say you understand it, prove it! Explain the whole process. So far you've gotten NOTHING right.

you have yet to post a link defending this event or for that matter disputing it,

Because there was no "event."

and I also understand that being proud of real UE of 14.9%

14.9% is the U-6. It is NOT a measure of unemployment (and BLS certainly doesn't call it one) because it includes some employed.

Being called names as well as implying one is dumb is a liberal thing when they lose the debate to facts

I haven't called you any names. But you clearly know very little about labor force stats. Uou've said things that don't make any sense and at least one outright falsehood (that people not collecting benefits sren't counted as unemployed).

So I gave you a chance to explain what you think you understand, so those of us who have studied this stuff can figure out where you're off.