Trump has been an amazing president

[harmonica]

......wrong--CNN is anti-white ..anti-Trump ...Fox news was never anti-Obama as CNN is anti-Trump
Fox never did crap like the Covington crap/etc

CNN never had two if its biggest on-air personalities get on stage and campaign with or for Obama or Hillary.

....no--Fox never did so much crap like CNN making Trump out to be racist/etc---for 2 YEARS!!!!!!!
..FOX never did the ''WHITE COP'' crap--over and and over ----BIG LIES.....
and you call Trump a liar
hahahahahahahhahahahahhahahahah

So, are you saying that FoxNews did not have two if its biggest on-air personalities get on stage and openly campaign with Trump?

Is that what you are claiming?

if anyone is racist--it's OBama--I've linked this many times

OH?? Did Obama keep blacks from living in his buildings???

Trump didn't either---I've been over this before--neither did Trump

 

[pinqy]

I never thought I’d see a president so focused on doing what’s best for Americans in my lifetime. It’s amazing to see how much he’s been able to accomplish while fighting the DC swamp.

Lowest unemployment in decades
The biggest wage increases we’ve seen in decades
The highest GDP we’ve seen in decades
etc... etc... etc...

Only the ignorant and clueless could see those accomplishments as being bad.

Well, shit ... he was handed the lowest unemployment rate in nearly sixteen years ... along with a growing economy ... so of course unemployment is even lower.

Bull crap. Obama's unemployment statistics were concocted using Chinese arithmetic, i.e. - a person who lost his job and later gave up looking for work was not considered unemployed. How is that possible? The guy doesn't have a fecking job so his ass is unemployed.

Are children, retirees, stay home moms, ttust-fund kids, disabled, etc unemployed because they don’t have jobs?

The U.S. has always defined unemployed as not working AND trying to get a job.

People not trying to work have never been considered unemployed...not since the Census first started to define it under President Harding.

Since Johnson, the specific requirements for classification as unemployed has been, did not work previous week, could have started work previous week, tried to work last four weeks.

Nothing in the definition or any calculation of unemployed changed under G.W. Bush, Obama or Trump.

 

[Hossfly]

I never thought I’d see a president so focused on doing what’s best for Americans in my lifetime. It’s amazing to see how much he’s been able to accomplish while fighting the DC swamp.

Lowest unemployment in decades
The biggest wage increases we’ve seen in decades
The highest GDP we’ve seen in decades
etc... etc... etc...

Only the ignorant and clueless could see those accomplishments as being bad.

Well, shit ... he was handed the lowest unemployment rate in nearly sixteen years ... along with a growing economy ... so of course unemployment is even lower.

Bull crap. Obama's unemployment statistics were concocted using Chinese arithmetic, i.e. - a person who lost his job and later gave up looking for work was not considered unemployed. How is that possible? The guy doesn't have a fecking job so his ass is unemployed.

Are children, retirees, stay home moms, ttust-fund kids, disabled, etc unemployed because they don’t have jobs?

The U.S. has always defined unemployed as not working AND trying to get a job.

People not trying to work have never been considered unemployed...not since the Census first started to define it under President Harding.

Since Johnson, the specific requirements for classification as unemployed has been, did not work previous week, could have started work previous week, tried to work last four weeks.

Nothing in the definition or any calculation of unemployed changed under G.W. Bush, Obama or Trump.

Unemployed simply means people who were working and are no longer working. If they gave up looking for work then they are still unemployed but Obama didn't count them as unemployed. His economics critters had a code from everyone who scratched their ass with their left hand on alternating days to people who just drove by a job site and were counted as not unemployed. I wish people would get all their shit in one pile and only consider that people are either working or not working. Simple deduction. Not that E-5, F-12 and Q-69 BS.

 

[Faun]

I never thought I’d see a president so focused on doing what’s best for Americans in my lifetime. It’s amazing to see how much he’s been able to accomplish while fighting the DC swamp.

Lowest unemployment in decades
The biggest wage increases we’ve seen in decades
The highest GDP we’ve seen in decades
etc... etc... etc...

Only the ignorant and clueless could see those accomplishments as being bad.

Well, shit ... he was handed the lowest unemployment rate in nearly sixteen years ... along with a growing economy ... so of course unemployment is even lower.

Bull crap. Obama's unemployment statistics were concocted using Chinese arithmetic, i.e. - a person who lost his job and later gave up looking for work was not considered unemployed. How is that possible? The guy doesn't have a fecking job so his ass is unemployed.

Are children, retirees, stay home moms, ttust-fund kids, disabled, etc unemployed because they don’t have jobs?

The U.S. has always defined unemployed as not working AND trying to get a job.

People not trying to work have never been considered unemployed...not since the Census first started to define it under President Harding.

Since Johnson, the specific requirements for classification as unemployed has been, did not work previous week, could have started work previous week, tried to work last four weeks.

Nothing in the definition or any calculation of unemployed changed under G.W. Bush, Obama or Trump.

Unemployed simply means people who were working and are no longer working. If they gave up looking for work then they are still unemployed but Obama didn't count them as unemployed. His economics critters had a code from everyone who scratched their ass with their left hand on alternating days to people who just drove by a job site and were counted as not unemployed. I wish people would get all their shit in one pile and only consider that people are either working or not working. Simple deduction. Not that E-5, F-12 and Q-69 BS.

"If they gave up looking for work then they are still unemployed but Obama didn't count them as unemployed"

You are the dumbest shit on the forum. No matter what reality you are shown, you still cling to your hallucinations.

People who aren't looking for a job are not considered "unemployed" by the BLS for the purposes of measuring the unemployment rate. This was as true under Obama as it was before Obama and as it is now under Trump.

Who is counted as unemployed?

People 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.​

emphasis added to highlight the ignorance of a rightard.

 

[Hossfly]

I never thought I’d see a president so focused on doing what’s best for Americans in my lifetime. It’s amazing to see how much he’s been able to accomplish while fighting the DC swamp.

Lowest unemployment in decades
The biggest wage increases we’ve seen in decades
The highest GDP we’ve seen in decades
etc... etc... etc...

Only the ignorant and clueless could see those accomplishments as being bad.

Well, shit ... he was handed the lowest unemployment rate in nearly sixteen years ... along with a growing economy ... so of course unemployment is even lower.

Bull crap. Obama's unemployment statistics were concocted using Chinese arithmetic, i.e. - a person who lost his job and later gave up looking for work was not considered unemployed. How is that possible? The guy doesn't have a fecking job so his ass is unemployed.

Are children, retirees, stay home moms, ttust-fund kids, disabled, etc unemployed because they don’t have jobs?

The U.S. has always defined unemployed as not working AND trying to get a job.

People not trying to work have never been considered unemployed...not since the Census first started to define it under President Harding.

Since Johnson, the specific requirements for classification as unemployed has been, did not work previous week, could have started work previous week, tried to work last four weeks.

Nothing in the definition or any calculation of unemployed changed under G.W. Bush, Obama or Trump.

Unemployed simply means people who were working and are no longer working. If they gave up looking for work then they are still unemployed but Obama didn't count them as unemployed. His economics critters had a code from everyone who scratched their ass with their left hand on alternating days to people who just drove by a job site and were counted as not unemployed. I wish people would get all their shit in one pile and only consider that people are either working or not working. Simple deduction. Not that E-5, F-12 and Q-69 BS.

"If they gave up looking for work then they are still unemployed but Obama didn't count them as unemployed"

You are the dumbest shit on the forum. No matter what reality you are shown, you still cling to your hallucinations.

People who aren't looking for a job are not considered "unemployed" by the BLS for the purposes of measuring the unemployment rate. This was as true under Obama as it was before Obama and as it is now under Trump.

Who is counted as unemployed?

People 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.​

emphasis added to highlight the ignorance of a rightard.

You're one of the smarter libs but you don't understand the difference of employed vs unemployed.

 

[Faun]

Well, shit ... he was handed the lowest unemployment rate in nearly sixteen years ... along with a growing economy ... so of course unemployment is even lower.

Bull crap. Obama's unemployment statistics were concocted using Chinese arithmetic, i.e. - a person who lost his job and later gave up looking for work was not considered unemployed. How is that possible? The guy doesn't have a fecking job so his ass is unemployed.

Are children, retirees, stay home moms, ttust-fund kids, disabled, etc unemployed because they don’t have jobs?

The U.S. has always defined unemployed as not working AND trying to get a job.

People not trying to work have never been considered unemployed...not since the Census first started to define it under President Harding.

Since Johnson, the specific requirements for classification as unemployed has been, did not work previous week, could have started work previous week, tried to work last four weeks.

Nothing in the definition or any calculation of unemployed changed under G.W. Bush, Obama or Trump.

Unemployed simply means people who were working and are no longer working. If they gave up looking for work then they are still unemployed but Obama didn't count them as unemployed. His economics critters had a code from everyone who scratched their ass with their left hand on alternating days to people who just drove by a job site and were counted as not unemployed. I wish people would get all their shit in one pile and only consider that people are either working or not working. Simple deduction. Not that E-5, F-12 and Q-69 BS.

"If they gave up looking for work then they are still unemployed but Obama didn't count them as unemployed"

You are the dumbest shit on the forum. No matter what reality you are shown, you still cling to your hallucinations.

People who aren't looking for a job are not considered "unemployed" by the BLS for the purposes of measuring the unemployment rate. This was as true under Obama as it was before Obama and as it is now under Trump.

Who is counted as unemployed?

People 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.​

emphasis added to highlight the ignorance of a rightard.

You're one of the smarter libs but you don't understand the difference of employed vs unemployed.

LOLOL

Even after I gave you the official definition, directly from the Bureau of Labor Statistics, you still don't get it.

... and again, that definition is still the same now as it was when Obama was president. Meaning according to you, Trump's "unemployment statistics are concocted using Chinese arithmetic."

 

[Wyatt earp]

I never thought I’d see a president so focused on doing what’s best for Americans in my lifetime. It’s amazing to see how much he’s been able to accomplish while fighting the DC swamp.

Lowest unemployment in decades
The biggest wage increases we’ve seen in decades
The highest GDP we’ve seen in decades
etc... etc... etc...

Only the ignorant and clueless could see those accomplishments as being bad.

Well, shit ... he was handed the lowest unemployment rate in nearly sixteen years ... along with a growing economy ... so of course unemployment is even lower.

Bull crap. Obama's unemployment statistics were concocted using Chinese arithmetic, i.e. - a person who lost his job and later gave up looking for work was not considered unemployed. How is that possible? The guy doesn't have a fecking job so his ass is unemployed.

Are children, retirees, stay home moms, ttust-fund kids, disabled, etc unemployed because they don’t have jobs?

The U.S. has always defined unemployed as not working AND trying to get a job.

People not trying to work have never been considered unemployed...not since the Census first started to define it under President Harding.

Since Johnson, the specific requirements for classification as unemployed has been, did not work previous week, could have started work previous week, tried to work last four weeks.

Nothing in the definition or any calculation of unemployed changed under G.W. Bush, Obama or Trump.

Unemployed simply means people who were working and are no longer working. If they gave up looking for work then they are still unemployed but Obama didn't count them as unemployed. His economics critters had a code from everyone who scratched their ass with their left hand on alternating days to people who just drove by a job site and were counted as not unemployed. I wish people would get all their shit in one pile and only consider that people are either working or not working. Simple deduction. Not that E-5, F-12 and Q-69 BS.

"If they gave up looking for work then they are still unemployed but Obama didn't count them as unemployed"

You are the dumbest shit on the forum. No matter what reality you are shown, you still cling to your hallucinations.

People who aren't looking for a job are not considered "unemployed" by the BLS for the purposes of measuring the unemployment rate. This was as true under Obama as it was before Obama and as it is now under Trump.

Who is counted as unemployed?

People 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.​

emphasis added to highlight the ignorance of a rightard.

Don't Be Fooled, The Obama Unemployment Rate Is 11%


167,780 viewsFeb 9, 2012, 11:33am
Don't Be Fooled, The Obama Unemployment Rate Is 11%



Barack Obama entered office in January, 2009, the labor force participation rate was 65.7%, meaning nearly two-thirds of working age Americans were working or looking for work.

When the recession supposedly officially ended in June, 2009, the labor force participation rate was still 65.7%.

In the latest, much celebrated, unemployment report, the labor force participation rate had plummeted to 63.7%, the most rapid decline in U.S. history. That means that under President Obama nearly 5 million Americans have fled the workforce in hopeless despair.

The trick is that when those 5 million are not counted as in the work force, they are not counted as unemployed either. They may desperately need and want jobs. They may be in poverty, as many undoubtedly are, with America suffering today more people in poverty than in the entire half century the Census Bureau has been counting poverty. But they are not even counted in that 8.3% unemployment rate that Obama and his media cheerleaders were so tirelessly celebrating last week.





If they were counted, the unemployment rate today would be a far more realistic 11%, better reflecting the suffering in the real economy under Obamanomics.

Just last month, while the Bureau of Labor Statistics reported finding 243,000 new jobs, they also reported in the same release that an additional 1.2 million workers had dropped out of the work force altogether, giving up hope under Obama. If labor force participation had remained the same in January, 2012 just as it was the month before in December, 2011, the unemployment rate would have risen to 8.7% in January rather than supposedly declining to 8.3% as reported.

Some additional facts highlight how misleading the reported unemployment rate, and the political rhetoric around it, can be. One year ago, 99 million Americans were unemployed or otherwise not working, and the unemployment rate was 9.1%. Today, while the reported unemployment rate is 8.3%, over 100 million Americans are unemployed or otherwise not working.


In January, 2009, 11.6 million Americans were unemployed, with 23% of those unemployed for more than 6 months. By January, 2012, 12.8 million were unemployed, with 43% of those out of work more than 6 months.

At the official end of the recession in June, 2009, America was 12.6 million jobs short of full employment. By January, 2012, we were 15.2 million jobs short, falling behind by another 244,000 in that month alone.

The time has come to begin to raise questions about the precipitous decline in the labor force assumed by BLS. Are the career bureaucrats there partial to President Obama, and favorable towards promoting his political chances for reelection? Or has the Obama Administration placed someone in a leadership slot over at the BLS or the unemployment statistics branch that is imposing this assumed sharp decline? Because of the oddness of this record setting decline, coinciding with President Obama’s ascension to office, these questions bear further investigation.

But even with the steep decline in labor force participation, the BLS report for January still shows some horrific numbers more than 4 years after the start of the recession. Besides the 12.8 million unemployed, another 8.2 million were “employed part time for economic reasons.” The BLS explains that “These individuals were working part-time because their hours had been cut back or because they were unable to find a full-time job.”

Another 2.8 million “wanted and were available for work, and had looked for a job sometime in the prior 12 months,” but “were not counted as unemployed because they had not searched for work in the four weeks preceding the survey.”

That makes nearly 24 million Americans unemployed or underemployed. The unemployment rate in January counting them is not 11%, but 15.1% as reported by the BLS, a depression era level of unemployment.

For blacks, the unemployment rate was still 13.6%, even assuming another 350,000 African Americans dropping out of the labor force in January alone. For Hispanics, 650,000 were assumed to drop out of the work force in January alone, but the Hispanic unemployment rate was still in double digits at 10.5%.

For teenagers, the unemployment rate was still 23.2%, even though an additional 400,000 were assumed to have dropped out of the work force in January alone. For black teenagers, the unemployment rate was still nearly 40%.

 

[AntonToo]

Lowest unemployment in decades
The biggest wage increases we’ve seen in decades
The highest GDP we’ve seen in decades
etc... etc... etc...

Only the ignorant and clueless could see those accomplishments as being bad.

Oh the rich irony of making ignorant ass statements while complaining about some one else’s ignorance.

We have been growing jobs at ~200k/mo for 8 years now, yet somehow Republicans only in 2017 started calling that a sign of a great economy. Strange right?

Wage increases have been remarkably slow for a full employment economy 2017-now

GDP growth in 2017 (2.2%) and 2018 (2.9%) has been about the same we had 2014 (2.4) and 2015 (2.9%) - again Republicans claimed economy was shit in 2015, but somehow think same growth in 2018 is AMAZEBALLS.

 

[Faun]

Well, shit ... he was handed the lowest unemployment rate in nearly sixteen years ... along with a growing economy ... so of course unemployment is even lower.

Bull crap. Obama's unemployment statistics were concocted using Chinese arithmetic, i.e. - a person who lost his job and later gave up looking for work was not considered unemployed. How is that possible? The guy doesn't have a fecking job so his ass is unemployed.

Are children, retirees, stay home moms, ttust-fund kids, disabled, etc unemployed because they don’t have jobs?

The U.S. has always defined unemployed as not working AND trying to get a job.

People not trying to work have never been considered unemployed...not since the Census first started to define it under President Harding.

Since Johnson, the specific requirements for classification as unemployed has been, did not work previous week, could have started work previous week, tried to work last four weeks.

Nothing in the definition or any calculation of unemployed changed under G.W. Bush, Obama or Trump.

Unemployed simply means people who were working and are no longer working. If they gave up looking for work then they are still unemployed but Obama didn't count them as unemployed. His economics critters had a code from everyone who scratched their ass with their left hand on alternating days to people who just drove by a job site and were counted as not unemployed. I wish people would get all their shit in one pile and only consider that people are either working or not working. Simple deduction. Not that E-5, F-12 and Q-69 BS.

"If they gave up looking for work then they are still unemployed but Obama didn't count them as unemployed"

You are the dumbest shit on the forum. No matter what reality you are shown, you still cling to your hallucinations.

People who aren't looking for a job are not considered "unemployed" by the BLS for the purposes of measuring the unemployment rate. This was as true under Obama as it was before Obama and as it is now under Trump.

Who is counted as unemployed?

People 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.​

emphasis added to highlight the ignorance of a rightard.

Don't Be Fooled, The Obama Unemployment Rate Is 11%


167,780 viewsFeb 9, 2012, 11:33am
Don't Be Fooled, The Obama Unemployment Rate Is 11%



Barack Obama entered office in January, 2009, the labor force participation rate was 65.7%, meaning nearly two-thirds of working age Americans were working or looking for work.

When the recession supposedly officially ended in June, 2009, the labor force participation rate was still 65.7%.

In the latest, much celebrated, unemployment report, the labor force participation rate had plummeted to 63.7%, the most rapid decline in U.S. history. That means that under President Obama nearly 5 million Americans have fled the workforce in hopeless despair.

The trick is that when those 5 million are not counted as in the work force, they are not counted as unemployed either. They may desperately need and want jobs. They may be in poverty, as many undoubtedly are, with America suffering today more people in poverty than in the entire half century the Census Bureau has been counting poverty. But they are not even counted in that 8.3% unemployment rate that Obama and his media cheerleaders were so tirelessly celebrating last week.





If they were counted, the unemployment rate today would be a far more realistic 11%, better reflecting the suffering in the real economy under Obamanomics.

Just last month, while the Bureau of Labor Statistics reported finding 243,000 new jobs, they also reported in the same release that an additional 1.2 million workers had dropped out of the work force altogether, giving up hope under Obama. If labor force participation had remained the same in January, 2012 just as it was the month before in December, 2011, the unemployment rate would have risen to 8.7% in January rather than supposedly declining to 8.3% as reported.

Some additional facts highlight how misleading the reported unemployment rate, and the political rhetoric around it, can be. One year ago, 99 million Americans were unemployed or otherwise not working, and the unemployment rate was 9.1%. Today, while the reported unemployment rate is 8.3%, over 100 million Americans are unemployed or otherwise not working.


In January, 2009, 11.6 million Americans were unemployed, with 23% of those unemployed for more than 6 months. By January, 2012, 12.8 million were unemployed, with 43% of those out of work more than 6 months.

At the official end of the recession in June, 2009, America was 12.6 million jobs short of full employment. By January, 2012, we were 15.2 million jobs short, falling behind by another 244,000 in that month alone.

The time has come to begin to raise questions about the precipitous decline in the labor force assumed by BLS. Are the career bureaucrats there partial to President Obama, and favorable towards promoting his political chances for reelection? Or has the Obama Administration placed someone in a leadership slot over at the BLS or the unemployment statistics branch that is imposing this assumed sharp decline? Because of the oddness of this record setting decline, coinciding with President Obama’s ascension to office, these questions bear further investigation.

But even with the steep decline in labor force participation, the BLS report for January still shows some horrific numbers more than 4 years after the start of the recession. Besides the 12.8 million unemployed, another 8.2 million were “employed part time for economic reasons.” The BLS explains that “These individuals were working part-time because their hours had been cut back or because they were unable to find a full-time job.”

Another 2.8 million “wanted and were available for work, and had looked for a job sometime in the prior 12 months,” but “were not counted as unemployed because they had not searched for work in the four weeks preceding the survey.”

That makes nearly 24 million Americans unemployed or underemployed. The unemployment rate in January counting them is not 11%, but 15.1% as reported by the BLS, a depression era level of unemployment.

For blacks, the unemployment rate was still 13.6%, even assuming another 350,000 African Americans dropping out of the labor force in January alone. For Hispanics, 650,000 were assumed to drop out of the work force in January alone, but the Hispanic unemployment rate was still in double digits at 10.5%.

For teenagers, the unemployment rate was still 23.2%, even though an additional 400,000 were assumed to have dropped out of the work force in January alone. For black teenagers, the unemployment rate was still nearly 40%.

Nothing in there says the unemployment rate is calculated any different than before or after Obama; nor does it state that the BLS definition of "unemployed" is any different than what I posted.

But thanks for trying.

 

[leftwinger]

Every economic measure shows massive improvement under DJT polocies. To deny it is political choice. We are now where we could have been early under stinky BO, but his polocies bogged down the country thru regulatations, taxation and big GOVT waste.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

Every economic measure shows massive improvement under DJT polocies. To deny it is political choice. We are now where we could have been early under stinky BO, but his polocies bogged down the country thru regulatations, taxation and big GOVT waste.

Nothing has shown massive improvement under and not a single economic measure changed direction after Trump won.

 

[pinqy]

Well, shit ... he was handed the lowest unemployment rate in nearly sixteen years ... along with a growing economy ... so of course unemployment is even lower.

Bull crap. Obama's unemployment statistics were concocted using Chinese arithmetic, i.e. - a person who lost his job and later gave up looking for work was not considered unemployed. How is that possible? The guy doesn't have a fecking job so his ass is unemployed.

Are children, retirees, stay home moms, ttust-fund kids, disabled, etc unemployed because they don’t have jobs?

The U.S. has always defined unemployed as not working AND trying to get a job.

People not trying to work have never been considered unemployed...not since the Census first started to define it under President Harding.

Since Johnson, the specific requirements for classification as unemployed has been, did not work previous week, could have started work previous week, tried to work last four weeks.

Nothing in the definition or any calculation of unemployed changed under G.W. Bush, Obama or Trump.

Unemployed simply means people who were working and are no longer working. If they gave up looking for work then they are still unemployed but Obama didn't count them as unemployed. His economics critters had a code from everyone who scratched their ass with their left hand on alternating days to people who just drove by a job site and were counted as not unemployed. I wish people would get all their shit in one pile and only consider that people are either working or not working. Simple deduction. Not that E-5, F-12 and Q-69 BS.

"If they gave up looking for work then they are still unemployed but Obama didn't count them as unemployed"

You are the dumbest shit on the forum. No matter what reality you are shown, you still cling to your hallucinations.

People who aren't looking for a job are not considered "unemployed" by the BLS for the purposes of measuring the unemployment rate. This was as true under Obama as it was before Obama and as it is now under Trump.

Who is counted as unemployed?

People 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.​

emphasis added to highlight the ignorance of a rightard.

Don't Be Fooled, The Obama Unemployment Rate Is 11%


167,780 viewsFeb 9, 2012, 11:33am
Don't Be Fooled, The Obama Unemployment Rate Is 11%



Barack Obama entered office in January, 2009, the labor force participation rate was 65.7%, meaning nearly two-thirds of working age Americans were working or looking for work.

When the recession supposedly officially ended in June, 2009, the labor force participation rate was still 65.7%.

In the latest, much celebrated, unemployment report, the labor force participation rate had plummeted to 63.7%, the most rapid decline in U.S. history. That means that under President Obama nearly 5 million Americans have fled the workforce in hopeless despair.

The trick is that when those 5 million are not counted as in the work force, they are not counted as unemployed either. They may desperately need and want jobs. They may be in poverty, as many undoubtedly are, with America suffering today more people in poverty than in the entire half century the Census Bureau has been counting poverty. But they are not even counted in that 8.3% unemployment rate that Obama and his media cheerleaders were so tirelessly celebrating last week.





If they were counted, the unemployment rate today would be a far more realistic 11%, better reflecting the suffering in the real economy under Obamanomics.

Just last month, while the Bureau of Labor Statistics reported finding 243,000 new jobs, they also reported in the same release that an additional 1.2 million workers had dropped out of the work force altogether, giving up hope under Obama. If labor force participation had remained the same in January, 2012 just as it was the month before in December, 2011, the unemployment rate would have risen to 8.7% in January rather than supposedly declining to 8.3% as reported.

Some additional facts highlight how misleading the reported unemployment rate, and the political rhetoric around it, can be. One year ago, 99 million Americans were unemployed or otherwise not working, and the unemployment rate was 9.1%. Today, while the reported unemployment rate is 8.3%, over 100 million Americans are unemployed or otherwise not working.


In January, 2009, 11.6 million Americans were unemployed, with 23% of those unemployed for more than 6 months. By January, 2012, 12.8 million were unemployed, with 43% of those out of work more than 6 months.

At the official end of the recession in June, 2009, America was 12.6 million jobs short of full employment. By January, 2012, we were 15.2 million jobs short, falling behind by another 244,000 in that month alone.

The time has come to begin to raise questions about the precipitous decline in the labor force assumed by BLS. Are the career bureaucrats there partial to President Obama, and favorable towards promoting his political chances for reelection? Or has the Obama Administration placed someone in a leadership slot over at the BLS or the unemployment statistics branch that is imposing this assumed sharp decline? Because of the oddness of this record setting decline, coinciding with President Obama’s ascension to office, these questions bear further investigation.

But even with the steep decline in labor force participation, the BLS report for January still shows some horrific numbers more than 4 years after the start of the recession. Besides the 12.8 million unemployed, another 8.2 million were “employed part time for economic reasons.” The BLS explains that “These individuals were working part-time because their hours had been cut back or because they were unable to find a full-time job.”

Another 2.8 million “wanted and were available for work, and had looked for a job sometime in the prior 12 months,” but “were not counted as unemployed because they had not searched for work in the four weeks preceding the survey.”

That makes nearly 24 million Americans unemployed or underemployed. The unemployment rate in January counting them is not 11%, but 15.1% as reported by the BLS, a depression era level of unemployment.

For blacks, the unemployment rate was still 13.6%, even assuming another 350,000 African Americans dropping out of the labor force in January alone. For Hispanics, 650,000 were assumed to drop out of the work force in January alone, but the Hispanic unemployment rate was still in double digits at 10.5%.

For teenagers, the unemployment rate was still 23.2%, even though an additional 400,000 were assumed to have dropped out of the work force in January alone. For black teenagers, the unemployment rate was still nearly 40%.

By the claims of that article, then, the current unemployment rate should really be 7.8% (using the participation rate from June 2009)
But then again, if we used the participation rate from June 1963, the current unemployment rate would be -3.6%
So I think we can dismiss the idea of basing current unemployment rate on past participation rates.

 

[sparky]

Faster than a media bulletin More powerful than a congressional laxative! Able to leap to tall conclusions with a single noun! Look! Up in the sky! It’s a bird! It’s a plane! It’s Trump! Yes, it’s Trump! Strange visitor from wall street, who came to earth with powers and abilities far beyond those of mortal men. Trump! Who can change the course of mighty reviews, bend liberals with his bare hands, and who — disguised as POTUS, mild-mannered republican thwarting every newspaper — fights a never ending battle for truth, justice and the American way!

S~

 

[playtime]

I agree that people were getting jobs in the latter part of Obama's Presidency. Now people are getting high paying jobs, not call center operators and burger flippers. Employment is more than just quantity, it's quality.

them thar 'high paying' jobs are gonna be needed to pay for the fucking price increases for everything from food to appliances to cars thanx to trump's tariffs.

Trump’s trade approach under attack as China retaliates on tariffs; markets open with big sell-off

Beijing announces steep tariffs on $60 billion in U.S. goods in response to White House action

By Taylor Telford ,
Damian Paletta and
Gerry Shih
May 13 at 2:58 PM

• Beijing announces retaliatory tariffs on $60 billion in U.S. goods: “China will never succumb to foreign pressure,” says Foreign Ministry spokesman.
• Dow plunges more than 600 points at one point Monday as investors price fallout of trade tensions.
• In tweets Monday morning, President Trump insists his tariffs on $200 billion in Chinese imports won’t hurt American consumers, contradicting recent comments from National Economic Council Director Larry Kudlow.

President Trump’s efforts to calm investors while he launches a full-scale trade war with China showed signs of cracking Monday, as one of his top advisers admitted the approach could damage the U.S. economy, a Goldman Sachs report predicted it might lead to higher interest rates, and China vowed to impose tariffs on $60 billion in U.S. goods on June 1.
[...]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/busi...ts-they-wont-hurt-us-consumers/?noredirect=on