• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

U.S. Jobless Rate Unexpectedly Declines to 8.6%

Why do you post LNS12000000 numbers for Obama but post CES0500000001 Numbers for Bush? In my world that's called comparing apples to oranges. :liar

He cherry-picks from the most favorable data he can find. He does that all the time. He doen't mind switching between real and nominal figures; household and payroll data; seasonally adjusted and non seasonally adjusted. Results don't matter to that one.
 
I keep on hearing more good job news, every day.

Yep, I'll bet unemployment is down to 8% by June...mayb even March.

How many people need to drop out of the labor force to achieve that number? That good news for you?
 
Help me out here, Con ... what am I missing? You claim we had 52 consecutive months of job growth but when I look at the numbers you posted, the most I see is 8 consecutive months.

You are missing the private sector job growth which isn't surprising. Why don't you just admit who you are?

Employment, Hours, and Earnings from the Current Employment Statistics survey (National)
Original Data Value

Series Id: CES0500000001
Seasonally Adjusted
Super Sector: Total private
Industry: Total private
NAICS Code: -
Data Type: ALL EMPLOYEES, THOUSANDS
Years: 2001 to 2011

Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
2001 111634 111624 111555 111227 111146 110910 110737 110544 110276 109918 109575 109368
2002 109214 109054 108989 108892 108814 108824 108732 108671 108659 108772 108758 108595
2003 108640 108484 108286 108252 108274 108233 108231 108266 108421 108570 108611 108724
2004 108882 108913 109213 109437 109747 109841 109883 109984 110135 110465 110493 110624
2005 110718 110949 111095 111441 111583 111847 112122 112311 112392 112492 112796 112934
2006 113247 113533 113795 113961 113965 114049 114200 114347 114432 114438 114628 114803
2007 114993 115051 115251 115308 115419 115469 115486
115391 115396 115470 115568 115606
2008 115610 115482 115395 115209 114969 114752 114487 114170 113736 113245 112458 111822
2009 110981 110260 109473 108700 108374 107936 107649 107434 107221 106971 106937 106835
2010 106793 106772 106916 107145 107193 107258 107351 107461 107570 107713 107841 108008
2011 108102 108363 108582 108823 108922 108997 109170 109242 109462 109579 109719
 
Last edited:
Why do you post LNS12000000 numbers for Obama but post CES0500000001 Numbers for Bush? In my world that's called comparing apples to oranges. :liar
.

Use the same chart for Obama and tell me that there has been 21 straight months of private sector job growth
 
.

Use the same chart for Obama and tell me that there has been 21 straight months of private sector job growth
I've shown this to you before, you must have ignored what I posted which was neatly formatted with a table. On report CES0500000001 start with Feb 2010 and check the subsequent 21 months and you will see numbers getting bigger. If you use the 1-Month Net Change option you can see easily see it.

As for your numbers that you highlighted in red - that's your basic housing bubble.
 
You are missing the private sector job growth which isn't surprising. Why don't you just admit who you are?

Employment, Hours, and Earnings from the Current Employment Statistics survey (National)
Original Data Value

Series Id: CES0500000001
Seasonally Adjusted
Super Sector: Total private
Industry: Total private
NAICS Code: -
Data Type: ALL EMPLOYEES, THOUSANDS
Years: 2001 to 2011

Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
2001 111634 111624 111555 111227 111146 110910 110737 110544 110276 109918 109575 109368
2002 109214 109054 108989 108892 108814 108824 108732 108671 108659 108772 108758 108595
2003 108640 108484 108286 108252 108274 108233 108231 108266 108421 108570 108611 108724
2004 108882 108913 109213 109437 109747 109841 109883 109984 110135 110465 110493 110624
2005 110718 110949 111095 111441 111583 111847 112122 112311 112392 112492 112796 112934
2006 113247 113533 113795 113961 113965 114049 114200 114347 114432 114438 114628 114803
2007 114993 115051 115251 115308 115419 115469 115486
115391 115396 115470 115568 115606
2008 115610 115482 115395 115209 114969 114752 114487 114170 113736 113245 112458 111822
2009 110981 110260 109473 108700 108374 107936 107649 107434 107221 106971 106937 106835
2010 106793 106772 106916 107145 107193 107258 107351 107461 107570 107713 107841 108008
2011 108102 108363 108582 108823 108922 108997 109170 109242 109462 109579 109719
a) the article you quoted from said nothing about it being from the private sector; and b) that's still not 52 consecutive weeks.
 
.

Use the same chart for Obama and tell me that there has been 21 straight months of private sector job growth

2009 -841 -721 -787 -773 -326 -438 -287 -215 -213 -250 -34 -102
2010 -42 -21 144 229 48 65 93 110 109 143 128 167
2011 94 261 219 241 99 75 173 72 220 117(P) 140(P)

Bureau of Labor Statistics Data
 
Not the Dems, the evangelicals. Before he can run against Obama, he has to get the nomination. Evangelicals, the Christian Right, wouldn't vote for a Democrat if he were running against Voldemort.

I would tend to disagree because the economy and the future of the country has to come first, and Obama doesn't have any real edge in the odd religions market. They may bicker and debate but in the end I think they'll realize that, for now, this is not the time for religion confrontations. And with Romney being such a family man, unscathed by any scandal whatsoever, it's hard to find fault with him personally. And would the evangelicals have enough influence to carry a State?

But I'm also on uncertain ground here. This is just my hunch.
 
I've shown this to you before, you must have ignored what I posted which was neatly formatted with a table. On report CES0500000001 start with Feb 2010 and check the subsequent 21 months and you will see numbers getting bigger. If you use the 1-Month Net Change option you can see easily see it.

As for your numbers that you highlighted in red - that's your basic housing bubble.

Need i remind you that 4.5 trillion has been added to the debt to generate those numbers and we still have a lower civilian labor force than when he took office. is the population in this country dropping?

Labor Force Statistics from the Current Population Survey
Original Data Value

Series Id: LNS13000000
Seasonally Adjusted
Series title: (Seas) Unemployment Level
Labor force status: Unemployed
Type of data: Number in thousands
Age: 16 years and over
Years: 2000 to 2010

Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
2000 5708 5858 5733 5481 5758 5651 5747 5853 5625 5534 5639 5634
2001 6023 6089 6141 6271 6226 6484 6583 7042 7142 7694 8003 8258
2002 8182 8215 8304 8599 8399 8393 8390 8304 8251 8307 8520 8640
2003 8520 8618 8588 8842 8957 9266 9011 8896 8921 8732 8576 8317
2004 8370 8167 8491 8170 8212 8286 8136 7990 7927 8061 7932 7934
2005 7784 7980 7737 7672 7651 7524 7406 7345 7553 7453 7566 7279
2006 7059 7185 7075 7122 6977 6998 7154 7097 6853 6728 6883 6784
2007 7085 6898 6725 6845 6765 6966 7113 7096 7200 7273 7284 7696
2008 7628 7435 7793 7631 8397 8560 8895 9509 9569 10172 10617 11400
2009 11919 12714 13310 13816 14518 14721 14534 14993 15159 15612 15340 15267
2010 14837 14871 15005 15260 14973 14623 14599 14860 14767 14843 15119 14485
2011 13863 13673 13542 13747 13914 14087 13931 13967 13992 13897 13303

Discouraged workers

2008 467 396 401 412 400 420 461 381 467 484 608 642
2009 734 731 685 740 792 793 796 758 706 808 861 929
2010 1065 1204 994 1197 1083 1207 1185 1110 1209 1219 1282 1318
2011 993 1020 921 989 822 982 1119 977 1037 967 1096

Unemployed + Discouraged
2008 8095 7831 8194 8043 8797 8980 9356 9890 10036 10656 11225 12042
2009 12653 13445 13995 14556 15310 15514 15330 15751 15865 16420 16201 16196
2010 15902 16075 15999 16457 16056 15830 15784 15970 15976 16062 16401 15803
2011 14856 14693 14463 14736 14736 15069 15050 14944 15029 14864 14399 0


Labor Force 2011 153186 153246 153406 153421 153693 153421 153228 153594 154017 154198 153883

UE 2011 w/o DW-U-3 9.05% 8.92% 8.83% 8.96% 9.05% 9.18% 9.09% 9.09% 9.08% 9.01% 8.64% #DIV/0!

UE 2011 with DW 9.70% 9.59% 9.43% 9.60% 9.59% 9.82% 9.82% 9.73% 9.76% 9.64% 9.36% #DIV/0!

2011 U-6 rate % 16.1 15.9 15.7 15.9 15.8 16.2 16.1 16.2 16.5 16.2 15.6
 
21 straight months of private sector growth. March 2010 - Present


Employment, Hours, and Earnings from the
Current Employment Statistics survey (National)
1-Month Net Change
Series Id:CES0500000001
Seasonally Adjusted
Super Sector:Total private
Industry:Total private
NAICS Code:-
Data Type:ALL EMPLOYEES, THOUSANDS
Years:2009 to 2011


YearJanFebMarAprMayJunJulAugSepOctNovDec
2009-841-721-787-773-326-438-287-215-213-250-34-102
2010-42-21144229486593110109143128167
201194261219241997517372220117140
 
21 straight months of private sector growth. March 2010 - Present


Employment, Hours, and Earnings from the
Current Employment Statistics survey (National)
1-Month Net Change
Series Id:CES0500000001
Seasonally Adjusted
Super Sector:Total private
Industry:Total private
NAICS Code:-
Data Type:ALL EMPLOYEES, THOUSANDS
Years:2009 to 2011


YearJanFebMarAprMayJunJulAugSepOctNovDec
2009-841-721-787-773-326-438-287-215-213-250-34-102
2010-42-21144229486593110109143128167
201194261219241997517372220117140

Apparently it doesn't bother you that the cost of generating positive private sector job growth that still has kept the number below what he "inherited" but because it is a liberal economic policy that generated these numbers, it is ok. What you fail to ignore is that 4.5 trillion has been added to the debt and a President that won the office with about 53% of the popular vote now has a JAR of 42% according to Gallup. That means he has lost 11% of his support. most apparently see what you don't see which is of course the following which includes over 24 million unemployed and under employed Americans plus a million discouraged workers leaving the work force each month and 315,000 dropping out last month. That to a liberal is a success?

Labor Force 2011 153186 153246 153406 153421 153693 153421 153228 153594 154017 154198 153883

UE 2011 w/o DW-U-3 9.05% 8.92% 8.83% 8.96% 9.05% 9.18% 9.09% 9.09% 9.08% 9.01% 8.64%

UE 2011 with DW 9.70% 9.59% 9.43% 9.60% 9.59% 9.82% 9.82% 9.73% 9.76% 9.64% 9.36%

2011 U-6 rate % 16.1 15.9 15.7 15.9 15.8 16.2 16.1 16.2 16.5 16.2 15.6
 
Last edited:
because his two most viable Republican alternatives are a wanna-be Fascist and a Mormon flip-flopper?

Vs a leftwing socialist with zero management experience? you are entitled to your opinion but the Obama results indicate that either would be better than what we have now.
 
this is 2011....not 2008.

And he has learned nothing in the past 3 years, still blaming everyone else and taking credit for that which he did not do, ending war in Iraq. his numbers speak for themselves and those will be on the ballot in 2012. He makes Jimmy Carter look good
 
Vs a leftwing socialist with zero management experience? you are entitled to your opinion but the Obama results indicate that either would be better than what we have now.

He as more experience as President than any other candidate.

So if you are going to vote on experience.......:cool:
 
He as more experience as President than any other candidate.

So if you are going to vote on experience.......:cool:

He has been in the office for 3 years now and has shown zero leadership skills. leaders don't blame others which is all he does. Being in office hasn't created any skills at all. he sill blames everyone else and takes credit for what he hasn't done. His numbers speak for themselves.
 
He has been in the office for 3 years now and has shown zero leadership skills. leaders don't blame others which is all he does. Being in office hasn't created any skills at all. he sill blames everyone else and takes credit for what he hasn't done. His numbers speak for themselves.

Then why try yo use the experience argument if that is what you think?
 
oh, he has learned quite a lot over the last three years. Mostly that the GOP cares more about getting him out of office than helping the country.

it is hard arguing with an ideologue who never pays any attention to what has happened but instead buys the rhetoric. The Obama results speak for themselves and he didn't just take office January 2011. Today his JAR is 42% according to Gallup and he won with almost 53% of the popular vote. he has lost 11% of that support and that speaks volumes.
 
Then why try yo use the experience argument if that is what you think?

Because after three years I see no evidence of leadership skills. he is a leftwing ideologue who cannot run on his record so he has to create greater dependence and hope that carries him to re-election
 
He has been in the office for 3 years now and has shown zero leadership skills....

he made the VERY risky decision to kill Bin Laden. He made the tough decision to end the war in Iraq without leaving an American military force. he made the decision to bail out GM.

he made the decision to sign a good nuclear weapons reduction treaty with Russia.

he made the decision to NOT close GITMO.

these were important policy decisions, that took courage as he knew he would take massive heat for them. he has shown leadership.
 
Back
Top Bottom