Romney and GOP in Panic After Unemployment drops to 7.8%

[kaz]

So what you're really saying is that Obama inherited an unemployment situation that was much worse than the official UE number indicated.

Actually I didn't address that point at all.

You didn't address that because you don't want us to adjust ALL the UE numbers higher; you only want to adjust Obama's current number higher,

because you're an intellectual dishonest person.

By your 'logic' and standards, I could say that Barack Obama

inherited an unemployment rate of 14.2% and now has it down to 7.8%.

you really are a ditzy broad. I didn't address it because i can't address every fucking point in the entire fucking world in every fucking post.

Rather then respond to the point I made, you told me what point you think I should have made and now you're informing me of what my view should have been when I made it.

If you want to ASK me my opinion on a point, ASK. In the mean time, go fuck yourself. Seriously.

 

[Rocko]

7.8%

Prove it is wrong

Of course it's right, but that doesn't doesn't mean we should be celebrating this economy.

You can celebrate going from 10.2% to 7.8% can't you?

Republicans celebrated Reagans 7.4% when he got reelected

No, 7.8% is horrible considering we've been in a recovery for over three years.

Regan was not re-elected with unemployment at 7.4%. No president has ever been re-elected with unemployment above 7.2%.

 

[blackhawk]

The Obama lead in the RCP poll has gone from 3.2 to 1.8 I'm sorry who is in a panic?

You found one poll out of over a dozen that gave Mitt the liar a little bump. Of course that poll was taken before the 7.8% But it was a nice try...

The RCP average is based on a combination of several poll not one and you are basing your partisan opinion on polls that have not come out yet how about you wait and see what the polls reflect about the 7.8%. I know you want to look at just the 7.8 number maybe you should dig a little deeper for example the unemployment rate for blacks and Hispanics changed very little with the rate at 13.4 for blacks and 9.9 for Hispanics you would also find the number for the long term unemployed changed very little and accounted for 40.1 percent of the unemployed. Maybe you should look at a little more than just the headlines.
http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=4&cad=rja&sqi=2&ved=0CC4QFjAD&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.bls.gov%2Fnews.release%2Fempsit.nr0.htm&ei=2H1wUOPDF8W0qAHygoGYBw&usg=AFQjCNE_ZTN6Qz4k-hZHkeWIAgOiLgFa4g&sig2=YyO3k-DGPIDZOA__xWE3WQ

 

[Katzndogz]

Of course it's right, but that doesn't doesn't mean we should be celebrating this economy.

You can celebrate going from 10.2% to 7.8% can't you?

Republicans celebrated Reagans 7.4% when he got reelected

No, 7.8% is horrible considering we've been in a recovery for over three years.

Regan was not re-elected with unemployment at 7.4%. No president has ever been re-elected with unemployment above 7.2%.

The 7.8 figure stretches credulity so far, it snapped.

 

[JoeB131]

I've been watching politics for 32 years. I've never seen anyone question the BLS figures until now

That's because you're a moron. The unemployment rate is constantly criticized as under-counting the unemployed.

True, but no one has ever really questioned the integrity of the people who gather the information... until now...

Because they just took away Romney's talking point.

 

[Katzndogz]

The intelligence report took away obama's talking point that the attack on Benghazi was because we have a First Amendment.

 

[kaz]

I've been watching politics for 32 years. I've never seen anyone question the BLS figures until now

That's because you're a moron. The unemployment rate is constantly criticized as under-counting the unemployed.

True, but no one has ever really questioned the integrity of the people who gather the information... until now...

Because they just took away Romney's talking point.

And 873,000 people finding jobs in an economy that added 114,000 jobs is actually a pretty good talking point, isn't it?

 

[NYcarbineer]

Actually I didn't address that point at all.

You didn't address that because you don't want us to adjust ALL the UE numbers higher; you only want to adjust Obama's current number higher,

because you're an intellectual dishonest person.

By your 'logic' and standards, I could say that Barack Obama

inherited an unemployment rate of 14.2% and now has it down to 7.8%.

you really are a ditzy broad. I didn't address it because i can't address every fucking point in the entire fucking world in every fucking post.

Rather then respond to the point I made, you told me what point you think I should have made and now you're informing me of what my view should have been when I made it.

If you want to ASK me my opinion on a point, ASK. In the mean time, go fuck yourself. Seriously.

Then address it. Grow up, and address it.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Of course it's right, but that doesn't doesn't mean we should be celebrating this economy.

You can celebrate going from 10.2% to 7.8% can't you?

Republicans celebrated Reagans 7.4% when he got reelected

No, 7.8% is horrible considering we've been in a recovery for over three years.

Regan was not re-elected with unemployment at 7.4%. No president has ever been re-elected with unemployment above 7.2%.

The UE rate was 7.4% in October of 1984. That would have been the official UE rate as of the 1984 election.

FDR was re-elected twice with UE in the teens. So you were wrong on both points. Stop being wrong.

Now. Please.

 

[Foxfyre]

That's because you're a moron. The unemployment rate is constantly criticized as under-counting the unemployed.

True, but no one has ever really questioned the integrity of the people who gather the information... until now...

Because they just took away Romney's talking point.

And 873,000 people finding jobs in an economy that added 114,000 jobs is actually a pretty good talking point, isn't it?

If Romney doesn't use this as a talking point he is an idiot. I'm pretty sure though that he has his math wizards working on it so the real deal can be told.

 

[kaz]

You didn't address that because you don't want us to adjust ALL the UE numbers higher; you only want to adjust Obama's current number higher,

because you're an intellectual dishonest person.

By your 'logic' and standards, I could say that Barack Obama

inherited an unemployment rate of 14.2% and now has it down to 7.8%.

you really are a ditzy broad. I didn't address it because i can't address every fucking point in the entire fucking world in every fucking post.

Rather then respond to the point I made, you told me what point you think I should have made and now you're informing me of what my view should have been when I made it.

If you want to ASK me my opinion on a point, ASK. In the mean time, go fuck yourself. Seriously.

Then address it. Grow up, and address it.

Of course unemployment was undercounted under W.

1) I'm a libertarian, not a Republican, which you know, you just aren't smart enough to know the difference. I've repeatedly said including across current discussions that W was a horrible President.

2) It's an irrelevant point to the discussion. Unemployment is barely below where it was when Obama took office. Whether you use the government number or the true, full number, the same thing is true. Obama's policies directly lead to a poor economy and a high unemployment.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Romney and GOP in Panic After Unemployment drops to 7.8%

So much for your username being truthful.
Not like I expected anything different though.
Yawn.

I would call it a panic, too.

I've been watching politics for 32 years. I've never seen anyone question the BLS figures until now.

The closest was in 1983, I think it was, when Reagan's DOL recalculated how the UR was calculated by including people in the military as employed. And that was a legitimate critique of how the method was used.

Point being- Romney's main talking point is that unemployment (which went wild under Bush) has remained above 8% for Obama's entire term.

Except now it's under 8%.

The rightwing propaganda machine has been trying to fuck with the UE numbers ever since Obama has been president, or least ever since they thought they could blame the numbers on him.

Early on they started with the 'real' unemployment number, effectively U-6 instead of U-3 which is the official 'headline' number,

trying to create the false impression that suddenly, AFTER Obama became president, an erroneously low number was being used instead of the 'real' number.

The insanity of this current conspiracy theory is new.

Take note, I was the first to predict it would happen, about 830 something yesterday morning.

 

[JoeB131]

Of course it's right, but that doesn't doesn't mean we should be celebrating this economy.

You can celebrate going from 10.2% to 7.8% can't you?

Republicans celebrated Reagans 7.4% when he got reelected

No, 7.8% is horrible considering we've been in a recovery for over three years.

Regan was not re-elected with unemployment at 7.4%. No president has ever been re-elected with unemployment above 7.2%.

Before Reagan got re-elected with an Unemployment number of 7.4 (October 1984), no president ever got re-elected with a number over 5.6. (Nixon in 1972)

A better figure is, is unemployment better than it was when he took office, or the worst it got in his term.

Carter inherited an unemployment rate of 7.5%, it got to a low of 5.6 in 1979, and went back up to 7.5. He lost.

Bush-41 inherited an unemployment rate of 5.4 and ended up with one of 7.3, down from a recent high of 7.8. He lost.

Now, for the winners.

Reagan had an unemployment rate of 7.5, it shot up to 10.8 at one point, and got down to 7.4. He won. Easily.

Clinton inherited an unemployment rate of 7.3, it never got higher than where he started and was at 5.2 when he stood for re-election. He won.

Bush-41 got an unemployment rate of 3.9, it went to a high of 6.3 and was at 5.4 when he stood for re-election.

In short, if it's worse than what you found it or what it was... you lose. If it's only as bad as what you found it, and it gets better from its worst, you win.

So Obama inherited a 7.8 from Bush, it got to high of 10% very quickly, and has receded to 7.8

He's probably closer to Reagan, Clinton and Bush-43 than Carter and Bush-41.

 

[NYcarbineer]

you really are a ditzy broad. I didn't address it because i can't address every fucking point in the entire fucking world in every fucking post.

Rather then respond to the point I made, you told me what point you think I should have made and now you're informing me of what my view should have been when I made it.

If you want to ASK me my opinion on a point, ASK. In the mean time, go fuck yourself. Seriously.

Then address it. Grow up, and address it.

Of course unemployment was undercounted under W.

1) I'm a libertarian, not a Republican, which you know, you just aren't smart enough to know the difference. I've repeatedly said including across current discussions that W was a horrible President.

2) It's an irrelevant point to the discussion. Unemployment is barely below where it was when Obama took office. Whether you use the government number or the true, full number, the same thing is true. Obama's policies directly lead to a poor economy and a high unemployment.

Then what were the policy mistakes by Ronald Reagan, who inherited a 7.5% UE rate and was re-elected with UE at 7.4%?

What did HE do that directly led to a poor economy and high unemployment?

 

[Unkotare]

Soooooo.......obama crashes and burns in an important debate, Romney's poll numbers start climbing, and then, just then, employment figures of dubious accounting suddenly show improvement that has proven unattainable for his entire term up to this point. I guess you just never know what's gonna happen...........

What’s interesting is that you and others on the right now consider the polls accurate, when they weren’t before Wednesday; and government data not accurate when they reflect a drop in unemployment, but the same government sources had accurate data when the unemployment rate remained unchanged.

No, the same sources had low-balled the numbers all along.

 

[Foxfyre]

This might be a different take on the jobs report, but it seems to me that until such time as one party or the other starts to at least sound like they are positive about the future of this nation rather than how bad our nation is, and how we have lost this edge, or how we are 3rd rate etc. The nation as a whole, will stay in the same position it is now. One good thing about President Reagan was that regardless of how bad the economy seemed or how bad this nation had let itself slide downwards, the positive outlook from the White House went a long long way in providing real leadership that helped in a small way spur the nation to action. In my humble opinion that is one of the jobs a President should take sersiously, and that is leadership and being a leader means being the biggest cheerleader for this Nation and it's people rather than seeking to to find ways to show how bad our nation is. In short, perhaps it's time we have a leader who can stop talking about what we CANT do and find one who can talk about what we CAN do.!!

I didn't want your good post to go unmentioned here, Navy.

Reagan took office by promising to get unnecessary government taxes and regulation off the backs of those who drive the economy, and to restore America's strength and prestige. He did both, and he did it by understanding that government cannot generate or create wealth, but it can implement policy that encourage and inspire the people to generate wealth. And yes, his optimism and belief in the American people to dig themselves out was infectious. And made him not only the most demonized President of all time, but the most popular. In his re-election in 1986, he carried almost 60% of the vote and carried every single state except Mondale's Minnesota and he almost got that. He cut the tax rates across the board and yes, he did raise some taxes but he did that smart and in ways that did not discourage economic growth.

And yes, the raw numbers suggest that things weren't all perfect and wonderful, but the record is impressive. Once his policies kicked in--that always takes a year or two--we enjoyed an unprecedented period of sustained peacetime impressive economic growth.

A criticism of Reagan's policies is that they created a situation in which the rich got richer while the poor got poorer. However, a 1990 Bureau of the Census study revealed that all income groups realized gains from 1980 to 1989. Average real income rose by 15%. Average household income for the lowest fifth was $6,836 in 1980 and $7,372 in 1989. The gains of those in the upper levels were greater, however -- in 1980 the average household income for the highest fifth was $73,752, and that rose to $90,150 in 1989. A Treasury Department study showed that there was great mobility within the levels, with 86 percent of those who were in the lowest fifth in 1979 moving into higher income categories by 1989. In fact, more people moved up than down in every income group except the top 1% -- in that group, 53% went down. The poverty rate did, however, rise from 11.7% in 1979 to 13.5% in 1990, according to Business Week. Provocateurs like Mitch Snyder used grossly exaggerated and misleading numbers to claim that an epidemic of homelessness reflected the government's callous attitude toward the less fortunate. (Snyder claimed there were 2-3 million homeless when, in fact, as a thorough study by HUD indicated, there were but 250,000 to 350,000; in 1989 Snyder admitted his figures were bogus.)
The Reagan Presidency: An Overview

And though the dollar benefits were greater for the "rich" than they were for the "poor", during Reagan's tenure the "poor" increased in income more than 15% while the "rich" increased in income by 8%.

Obama cannot point to ANY income group that has improved overall during his tenure except for Congress and government employees. Nobody keeps on an employee who has not mastered his/her job and become productive within a few weeks or months. We should not keep on a President who has not mastered his/her job and become productive after three years nine months.

Things weren't perfect after three and a half years of Reagan's first term, but subtantial and noticeable improvement had been achieved in almost every economic indicator. He deserved re-election.

Obama doesn't. And he certainly doesn't based on a 7.8% unemployment rate that even if we accept it as true and honest has not improved the unemployment situation since Obama took office.

 

[ilia25]

We have a $16 trillion debt. That represents an average of $50,000 the Congress has spent every single second for the last 100 years. Obama's jobs act offered only another enormus stimulus spending bill after the last one failed to create jobs.

How do you know that the first stimulus failed? It stopped the unemployment from rising further.

As for the deficit, they are always high in a depressed economy, that is why we it needed more stimulus.

Given that track record, anybody who voted for Obama's so-called "jobs act" would need his/her head served up on a platter.

That "track record" was simply the right-wing propaganda, which many people believe only because that is what they wanted to hear.

The House has sent any number of jobs bills--REAL jobs bills that would actually loosen up some of the venture capital and would have created jobs.

That is another right-wing lie. There are huge sums of venture capital that are sitting unused. Loosening even more would change nothing. We have stimulate demand, rather than giving investors even more money.

 

[kaz]

Then what were the policy mistakes by Ronald Reagan, who inherited a 7.5% UE rate and was re-elected with UE at 7.4%?

What did HE do that directly led to a poor economy and high unemployment?

He made a butt stupid deal with the Democrats that he would increase taxes one dollar for every three dollars in spending cuts, which they reneged on. No duh.

Then he got smart and cut and simplified taxes and left office with a 4.2% unemployment rate.

Obama on the other hand has insisted on higher taxes which target job creators.

 

[Katzndogz]

This fake UE drop hasn't fooled anyone and obama is still going down. This lie, is piling up on all the other lies and is starting to topple the royal regime.

 

[nitroz]

That's funny.....
Like we're going to panic because of a small drop like this, when we know it's going to be adjusted and right back up there JUST BEFORE THE ELECTIONS.

No...we're not worried dear. But if it makes you feel better...just keep think it

Oh it's not a "small" drop.

Big picture is that it is a huge drop. Unemployment was at 10% in October of 2009. That's before the stimulus was implemented and Obama's policies took effect.

His numbers..in this regard..are better then George W. Bush's.

/Thread