Unemployment rates were made worse by Bush, not Obama!

[ninja007]

Ninja, you do realize I just called Obama racist, right?

he is.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Ninja, you do realize I just called Obama racist, right?

he is.

*GASP*

Don't let them hear you saying that!

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Shut the fuck up dumb ass Do you see the bold those are your words.

It wasn't changed under Obama as you claimed.
We weren't talking about ever.

You have already lost any credibility that you may have had shut the fuck up liar.

And those changes under Obama that you claimed?
Oh you couldn't' find any

You are done you were wrong as usual you are now irrelevant.

Then tell the class what changes were made in 2010 as you claimed

It's not my fault you were caught ill informed. and wrong. Now you're pissed. oh well you will learn to stay quite until you know what you are talking about.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

It's a fact you dont know what the hell you're talking about.

Wishes the forum jester

Sadly for you, the BLS defines who is not in the labor force...

Not in the labor force

Persons who are neither employed nor unemployed are not in the labor force. This category includes retired persons, students, those taking care of children or other family members, and others who are neither working nor seeking work. Information is collected on their desire for and availability for work, job search activity in the prior year, and reasons for not currently searching. See also Labor force and Discouraged workers.​

That's pretty much what I said. As usual, you lose because you're a loser and losing is what losers do best. And you're among the best of them.

It's because they made recent changes what is defined as out of the work force. I think it was in 2010

It was
Current Population Survey Frequently Asked Questions

Have there been any changes in the definition of unemployment?


The concepts and definitions underlying the labor force data have been modified but not substantially altered, even though they have been under almost continuous review by interagency governmental groups, congressional committees, and private groups since the inception of the Current Population Survey.

In a typical dishonest CON$ervoFascist manner, you left out from your own link what shoots down your lie that the definitions were changed in 2010 to benefit Obama! Here is what you left out: "In January 1994," so the definitions were the same for Obama as they were for Bush and have been the same since 1994..

Dumb ass changes were made shut the fuck up
It meant it was changed in 94 and changed now. two different times.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

It's a fact you dont know what the hell you're talking about.

Wishes the forum jester

Sadly for you, the BLS defines who is not in the labor force...

Not in the labor force

Persons who are neither employed nor unemployed are not in the labor force. This category includes retired persons, students, those taking care of children or other family members, and others who are neither working nor seeking work. Information is collected on their desire for and availability for work, job search activity in the prior year, and reasons for not currently searching. See also Labor force and Discouraged workers.​

That's pretty much what I said. As usual, you lose because you're a loser and losing is what losers do best. And you're among the best of them.

It's because they made recent changes what is defined as out of the work force. I think it was in 2010

It has always been defined as those neither employed nor unemployed.

Yes it was changed to benifit obama how else can you hide 92 million unemployed Americans? DUMB ASS BITCH

Funny you never bitched about Bush's 92 million unemployed Americans when he left office!!!!!!

Bush didn't have 92 million Americans out of the work force.sorry try again

 

[edthecynic]

Wishes the forum jester

Sadly for you, the BLS defines who is not in the labor force...

Not in the labor force

Persons who are neither employed nor unemployed are not in the labor force. This category includes retired persons, students, those taking care of children or other family members, and others who are neither working nor seeking work. Information is collected on their desire for and availability for work, job search activity in the prior year, and reasons for not currently searching. See also Labor force and Discouraged workers.​

That's pretty much what I said. As usual, you lose because you're a loser and losing is what losers do best. And you're among the best of them.

It's because they made recent changes what is defined as out of the work force. I think it was in 2010

It was
Current Population Survey Frequently Asked Questions

Have there been any changes in the definition of unemployment?


The concepts and definitions underlying the labor force data have been modified but not substantially altered, even though they have been under almost continuous review by interagency governmental groups, congressional committees, and private groups since the inception of the Current Population Survey.

In a typical dishonest CON$ervoFascist manner, you left out from your own link what shoots down your lie that the definitions were changed in 2010 to benefit Obama! Here is what you left out: "In January 1994," so the definitions were the same for Obama as they were for Bush and have been the same since 1994..

Dumb ass changes were made shut the fuck up
It meant it was changed in 94 and changed now. two different times.

Then you will have no trouble linking to where the BLS lists the NOW changes, or yet again expose yourself as the worthless lying scum you are.

 

[edthecynic]

Wishes the forum jester

Sadly for you, the BLS defines who is not in the labor force...

Not in the labor force

Persons who are neither employed nor unemployed are not in the labor force. This category includes retired persons, students, those taking care of children or other family members, and others who are neither working nor seeking work. Information is collected on their desire for and availability for work, job search activity in the prior year, and reasons for not currently searching. See also Labor force and Discouraged workers.​

That's pretty much what I said. As usual, you lose because you're a loser and losing is what losers do best. And you're among the best of them.

It's because they made recent changes what is defined as out of the work force. I think it was in 2010

It has always been defined as those neither employed nor unemployed.

Yes it was changed to benifit obama how else can you hide 92 million unemployed Americans? DUMB ASS BITCH

Funny you never bitched about Bush's 92 million unemployed Americans when he left office!!!!!!

Bush didn't have 92 million Americans out of the work force.sorry try again

He had 92 million UNEMPLOYED as the Right defines unemployed.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

There are not 10,000 baby boomers retiring every day. There are about 10,000 baby boomers hitting retirement age every day. There are about 8,000 baby boomers retiring every day.

10000 - 80000 depending on your source. Both numbers are in the same ball park; but, in actuality, the true figure is elusive.

Actually the true figure of WORKERS retiring from full time work is not as elusive as you think, the SSA publishes the yearly total. In Obama's first 5 full years 13,522,923 workers retired from full time work. That comes to 2,704,585 per year and 7,410 per day.

View attachment 32847

Why does obama continue to support wealth inequality between men and women? Why are men continuing to get more money than women. Even though obama said he would make changes?

 

[bigrebnc1775]

It's because they made recent changes what is defined as out of the work force. I think it was in 2010

It was
Current Population Survey Frequently Asked Questions

Have there been any changes in the definition of unemployment?


The concepts and definitions underlying the labor force data have been modified but not substantially altered, even though they have been under almost continuous review by interagency governmental groups, congressional committees, and private groups since the inception of the Current Population Survey.

In a typical dishonest CON$ervoFascist manner, you left out from your own link what shoots down your lie that the definitions were changed in 2010 to benefit Obama! Here is what you left out: "In January 1994," so the definitions were the same for Obama as they were for Bush and have been the same since 1994..

Dumb ass changes were made shut the fuck up
It meant it was changed in 94 and changed now. two different times.

Then you will have no trouble linking to where the BLS lists the NOW changes, or yet again expose yourself as the worthless lying scum you are.

I have linked all I will link You have been prove wrong all you'll do is move the goal post again like you always do. So sport you want fish for supper go fishing.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

It's because they made recent changes what is defined as out of the work force. I think it was in 2010

It has always been defined as those neither employed nor unemployed.

Yes it was changed to benifit obama how else can you hide 92 million unemployed Americans? DUMB ASS BITCH

Funny you never bitched about Bush's 92 million unemployed Americans when he left office!!!!!!

Bush didn't have 92 million Americans out of the work force.sorry try again

He had 92 million UNEMPLOYED as the Right defines unemployed.

Nope Bush never had 92 million out of the work fore.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

obama's war on women continues
Benefit inequality

 

[mudwhistle]

in this they show FACTS about Obama's failures like highest unemployment, highest food stamp use, etc. etc.. These are ALL BLACK CONSERVATIVES talking about Obama and the DNC.

Democrats have control of the media, so they're intentionally causing problems so they can blame them all on the GOP. They figure that anyone who watches their propaganda will believe them.

 

[LeftofLeft]

Starting in Jan. 20, 2001, at the beginning of George W. Bush’s administration, the rate was 2.4 percent, but by the time he left in January 2009 it had reached 7 percent. The rate now is 5.9% and is on track to get even lower.

The same Department of Labor that puts out the Unemployment stats are also reporting that Labor Participation Rate with 93 Million Americans out of the pool is at a 36 year low. Couple that with Americans on Food a Stamps at an all time high and rising, you really don't have much to celebrate. Stop blaming Bush. Democrats have owned this since they took Congress in 2007 and the White House in 2009.

 

[pinqy]

Don't think it is a 'lie of the left', in the sense that administrations always fudge figures to make things look better than they really are, like was pointed out in 2013: The Official Unemployment Rate Is Wrong Says Guy Who Used To Calculate It

What he is saying is that the unemployment rate doesn't capture all of the people sitting on the sidelines in despair of finding a job. The employment-population ratio, the percentage of the working-age population actually working, sits at 58.7 percent, Hall notes, well below a peak of 63 percent before the recession and the lowest rate since the early 1980s. This suggests to Hall that there are a lot of people not showing up in the official unemployment rate.

I'd personally focus on the labor-force participation rate, which includes people working and looking for work. This has been at about 63 percent in recent years, well below the 66 percent that prevailed before the recession. That may not sound like a big difference, but that extra 3 percent would take the number of officially unemployed people up to about 18 million from 12 million.

And that would jack the unemployment rate up to about 11 percent. Which, yikes.

You're being dishonest. Your link shows that Dr. Hall does say that the UE rate does not tell the whole story, but he does NOT say the numbers are fudged. In fact, he has said the opposite:
Unemployment manipulation impossible says former Labor official - Los Angeles Times

"I think it would be impossible to really manipulate the numbers," said Keith Hall, who served from 2008 to 2012 as commissioner of the independent statistical agency, which produces the report. "Certainly, it would be impossible to manipulate the numbers and not be found out."[/qutoe]

 

[Faun]

It wasn't changed under Obama as you claimed.
We weren't talking about ever.

You have already lost any credibility that you may have had shut the fuck up liar.

And those changes under Obama that you claimed?
Oh you couldn't' find any

You are done you were wrong as usual you are now irrelevant.

Then tell the class what changes were made in 2010 as you claimed

It's not my fault you were caught ill informed. and wrong. Now you're pissed. oh well you will learn to stay quite until you know what you are talking about.

Brain-dead Bush voter, there were no changes in 2010 which affected the labor force.

 

[Faun]

Starting in Jan. 20, 2001, at the beginning of George W. Bush’s administration, the rate was 2.4 percent, but by the time he left in January 2009 it had reached 7 percent. The rate now is 5.9% and is on track to get even lower.

The same Department of Labor that puts out the Unemployment stats are also reporting that Labor Participation Rate with 93 Million Americans out of the pool is at a 36 year low. Couple that with Americans on Food a Stamps at an all time high and rising, you really don't have much to celebrate. Stop blaming Bush. Democrats have owned this since they took Congress in 2007 and the White House in 2009.

Wait, what?? Republican policies from before 2007 which contributed to the financial collapse bear no responsibility??

 

[Faun]

obama's war on women continues
Benefit inequality

Let me correct that for you -- your insanity continues.

 

[hipeter924]

There are not 10,000 baby boomers retiring every day. There are about 10,000 baby boomers hitting retirement age every day. There are about 8,000 baby boomers retiring every day.

10000 - 80000 depending on your source. Both numbers are in the same ball park; but, in actuality, the true figure is elusive.

Actually the true figure of WORKERS retiring from full time work is not as elusive as you think, the SSA publishes the yearly total. In Obama's first 5 full years 13,522,923 workers retired from full time work. That comes to 2,704,585 per year and 7,410 per day.

View attachment 32847

Thanks for finding that. However, I disagree with you about the data being elusive. Who would have thought that the Social Security Administration would be the place to look? Never the less, the figure you posted for the daily retirement number is not a constant. The number is going to be different every day; so, in effect, one day it could be 10000, the day after that 8000, and the day after that as low as 5 thousand or less. Agree?

Don't think it is a 'lie of the left', in the sense that administrations always fudge figures to make things look better than they really are, like was pointed out in 2013: The Official Unemployment Rate Is Wrong Says Guy Who Used To Calculate It

What he is saying is that the unemployment rate doesn't capture all of the people sitting on the sidelines in despair of finding a job. The employment-population ratio, the percentage of the working-age population actually working, sits at 58.7 percent, Hall notes, well below a peak of 63 percent before the recession and the lowest rate since the early 1980s. This suggests to Hall that there are a lot of people not showing up in the official unemployment rate.

I'd personally focus on the labor-force participation rate, which includes people working and looking for work. This has been at about 63 percent in recent years, well below the 66 percent that prevailed before the recession. That may not sound like a big difference, but that extra 3 percent would take the number of officially unemployed people up to about 18 million from 12 million.

And that would jack the unemployment rate up to about 11 percent. Which, yikes.

You're being dishonest. Your link shows that Dr. Hall does say that the UE rate does not tell the whole story, but he does NOT say the numbers are fudged. In fact, he has said the opposite:
Unemployment manipulation impossible says former Labor official - Los Angeles Times

"I think it would be impossible to really manipulate the numbers," said Keith Hall, who served from 2008 to 2012 as commissioner of the independent statistical agency, which produces the report. "Certainly, it would be impossible to manipulate the numbers and not be found out."[/qutoe]

No I am not being dishonest, also I would find yourself a dictionary because fudge doesn't mean 'manipulate': fudge - definition of fudge by The Free Dictionary
vb
6. (tr) to make or adjust in a false or clumsy way
7. (tr) to misrepresent; falsify
8. to evade (a problem, issue, etc); dodge; avoid
If you read the article, the point was if you omit or add measures the actual data is quite different. But guess that went over your head.

 

[pinqy]

There are not 10,000 baby boomers retiring every day. There are about 10,000 baby boomers hitting retirement age every day. There are about 8,000 baby boomers retiring every day.

10000 - 80000 depending on your source. Both numbers are in the same ball park; but, in actuality, the true figure is elusive.

Actually the true figure of WORKERS retiring from full time work is not as elusive as you think, the SSA publishes the yearly total. In Obama's first 5 full years 13,522,923 workers retired from full time work. That comes to 2,704,585 per year and 7,410 per day.

View attachment 32847

Thanks for finding that. However, I disagree with you about the data being elusive. Who would have thought that the Social Security Administration would be the place to look? Never the less, the figure you posted for the daily retirement number is not a constant. The number is going to be different every day; so, in effect, one day it could be 10000, the day after that 8000, and the day after that as low as 5 thousand or less. Agree?

Don't think it is a 'lie of the left', in the sense that administrations always fudge figures to make things look better than they really are, like was pointed out in 2013: The Official Unemployment Rate Is Wrong Says Guy Who Used To Calculate It

What he is saying is that the unemployment rate doesn't capture all of the people sitting on the sidelines in despair of finding a job. The employment-population ratio, the percentage of the working-age population actually working, sits at 58.7 percent, Hall notes, well below a peak of 63 percent before the recession and the lowest rate since the early 1980s. This suggests to Hall that there are a lot of people not showing up in the official unemployment rate.

I'd personally focus on the labor-force participation rate, which includes people working and looking for work. This has been at about 63 percent in recent years, well below the 66 percent that prevailed before the recession. That may not sound like a big difference, but that extra 3 percent would take the number of officially unemployed people up to about 18 million from 12 million.

And that would jack the unemployment rate up to about 11 percent. Which, yikes.

You're being dishonest. Your link shows that Dr. Hall does say that the UE rate does not tell the whole story, but he does NOT say the numbers are fudged. In fact, he has said the opposite:
Unemployment manipulation impossible says former Labor official - Los Angeles Times

"I think it would be impossible to really manipulate the numbers," said Keith Hall, who served from 2008 to 2012 as commissioner of the independent statistical agency, which produces the report. "Certainly, it would be impossible to manipulate the numbers and not be found out."[/qutoe]

No I am not being dishonest, also I would find yourself a dictionary because fudge doesn't mean 'manipulate': fudge - definition of fudge by The Free Dictionary
vb
6. (tr) to make or adjust in a false or clumsy way

Does not apply to anything Dr. Hall said.

7. (tr) to misrepresent; falsify

Does not apply to anything Dr. Hall said.

8. to evade (a problem, issue, etc); dodge; avoid

Does not apply to anything Dr. Hall said.

If you read the article, the point was if you omit or add measures the actual data is quite different. But guess that went over your head.

I read the article. It's all "actual data." His point was that the UE rate by itself does not tell the whole story and that other measures can give a better picture especially in the context of the recession. He in no way implied that the UE rate was made or adjusted in a false or clumsy way or was intended to misrepresent or falsify (because yes, the implication from that definition is intentional act) or that it evades, dodges or avoids anything.

The UE rate measures the percent of the labor force that is not employed. That's it. That's all it's meant to. Of course that doesn't always tell the whole picture. It doesn't claim to. So no fudging.

 

[tuhaybey]

This isn't a new pattern that unemployment gets worse under Republicans and better under Democrats. Here is the last 30 years for each party:

Change in unemployment rate by party of president