• 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!

Jobless rate rises to 8.3 percent, hiring picks up but still falling short

Born Free said:
Of course it has, but it needs repeating as those on the left wish it never existed.
Click to expand...
Doesn't everyone wish the recession had not happened?

Was that supposed to be some weird attempt to make a .....point?


To your point employment is a lagging indicator, with a current 1.5% GDP that would suggest the unemployment rate is going up not down.
Click to expand...
See now, you told me you understood what GDP means, now you are back misunderstanding it.



I look at the facts as history will show, which is what happens on a president's watch is his/hers. Period. I look at all presidents in that way as statistics will show. Such things like Obama was the first president to have our credit downgraded, Obama was the first president to increase the national debt over 1 Trillion in each yr of his first and only term. Obama is the first president to have unemployment over 8% for over 41 months and counting. You know stuff like that.
Click to expand...
You are contradicting yourself, just a moment ago you understood that unemployment is lagging, so it is not a "period".

But I get it, you are a negative, half-empty kind of guy.
 
Born Free said:
Of course it has, but it needs repeating as those on the left wish it never existed. To your point employment is a lagging indicator, with a current 1.5% GDP that would suggest the unemployment rate is going up not down. I look at the facts as history will show, which is what happens on a president's watch is his/hers. Period. I look at all presidents in that way as statistics will show. Such things like Obama was the first president to have our credit downgraded, Obama was the first president to increase the national debt over 1 Trillion in each yr of his first and only term. Obama is the first president to have unemployment over 8% for over 41 months and counting. You know stuff like that.
Click to expand...

He is also the 1st President to inherit a economy that was shedding jobs at a rate of 700,000 a month. Making up losses like that takes time. Obama has created 4.5 million jobs in the last 29 months and 1.5 million this year alone. You know stuff like that.
 
iguanaman said:
He is also the 1st President to inherit a economy that was shedding jobs at a rate of 700,000 a month. Making up losses like that takes time. Obama has created 4.5 million jobs in the last 29 months and 1.5 million this year alone. You know stuff like that.
Click to expand...

Last month there were 850,000 discouraged workers, are those workers unemployed? The difference between what he inherited and what is now is terminology. Bush never had 850,000 discouraged workers, ever. Obama has averaged double Bush in discouraged workers so adding discouraged workers to the unemployment numbers make the results the same. You continue to buy the rhetoric and ignore the reality.
 
Conservative said:
Last month there were 850,000 discouraged workers, are those workers unemployed? The difference between what he inherited and what is now is terminology. Bush never had 850,000 discouraged workers, ever. Obama has averaged double Bush in discouraged workers so adding discouraged workers to the unemployment numbers make the results the same. You continue to buy the rhetoric and ignore the reality.
Click to expand...
It is interesting that you are concerned about them now, since previously you said you would not hire a long-term unemployed discouraged worker. Now....you want to count them. Wonders never cease.
 
Conservative said:
Last month there were 850,000 discouraged workers, are those workers unemployed? The difference between what he inherited and what is now is terminology. Bush never had 850,000 discouraged workers, ever. Obama has averaged double Bush in discouraged workers so adding discouraged workers to the unemployment numbers make the results the same. You continue to buy the rhetoric and ignore the reality.
Click to expand...

The job loss is coming from the public sector. Something you want, smaller government. The job growth is in the private sector, also something you want. So under Obama. you're getting what you thinkis best. Right?
 
iguanaman said:
He is also the 1st President to inherit a economy that was shedding jobs at a rate of 700,000 a month. Making up losses like that takes time. Obama has created 4.5 million jobs in the last 29 months and 1.5 million this year alone. You know stuff like that.
Click to expand...

I am trying to understand people like you but you make it difficult. What is it about Obama that creates this kind of loyalty? The results just don't warrant it no matter how much you try to blame Bush almost four years later. If Bush had results like Obama you would be outraged as would I. The difference is you ignore the results and still blame Bush. Why since I know you are smarter than this?
 
iguanaman said:
He is also the 1st President to inherit a economy that was shedding jobs at a rate of 700,000 a month. Making up losses like that takes time. Obama has created 4.5 million jobs in the last 29 months and 1.5 million this year alone. You know stuff like that.
Click to expand...

He didn't do that, somebody else did.
 
Boo Radley said:
The job loss is coming from the public sector. Something you want, smaller government. The job growth is in the private sector, also something you want. So under Obama. you're getting what you thinkis best. Right?
Click to expand...

9000 jobs were lost in the public sector last month. Doesn't change the 23 million unemployed/under employed or the 850,000 discouraged workers.
 
Gimmesometruth said:
It is interesting that you are concerned about them now, since previously you said you would not hire a long-term unemployed discouraged worker. Now....you want to count them. Wonders never cease.
Click to expand...

That is why I posted the discouraged workers as well as the U-6 numbers for years. Keep showing your own biases and ignorance.
 
Conservative said:
9000 jobs were lost in the public sector last month. Doesn't change the 23 million unemployed/under employed or the 850,000 discouraged workers.
Click to expand...

Don't leap all around. The growth is in the private sector and the losses in the public sector. Isn't this what you want? Recoveries take time, and when you shrink government, adding to the unemployed numbers, it takes more time. But, it is what you want, correct?
 
Gimmesometruth said:
It is interesting that you are concerned about them now, since previously you said you would not hire a long-term unemployed discouraged worker. Now....you want to count them. Wonders never cease.
Click to expand...

Discouraged workers by month

Labor Force Statistics from the Current Population Survey
Original Data Value

Series Id: LNU05026645
Not Seasonally Adjusted
Series title: (Unadj) Not in Labor Force, Searched For Work and Available, Discouraged Reasons For Not Currently Looking
Labor force status: Not in labor force
Type of data: Number in thousands
Age: 16 years and over
Job desires/not in labor force: Want a job now
Reasons not in labor force: Discouragement over job prospects (Persons who believe no job is available.)
Years: 2002 to 2012

Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Annual
2002 328 375 330 320 414 342 405 378 392 359 385 403 369
2003 449 450 474 437 482 478 470 503 388 462 457 433 457
2004 432 484 514 492 476 478 504 534 412 429 392 442 466
2005 515 485 480 393 392 476 499 384 362 392 404 451 436
2006 396 386 451 381 323 481 428 448 325 331 349 274 381
2007 442 375 381 399 368 401 367 392 276 320 349 363 369
2008 467 396 401 412 400 420 461 381 467 484 608 642 462
2009 734 731 685 740 792 793 796 758 706 808 861 929 778
2010 1065 1204 994 1197 1083 1207 1185 1110 1209 1219 1282 1318 1173
2011 993 1020 921 989 822 982 1119 977 1037 967 1096 945 989
2012 1059 1006 865 968 830 821 852
 
Boo Radley said:
Don't leap all around. The growth is in the private sector and the losses in the public sector. Isn't this what you want? Recoveries take time, and when you shrink government, adding to the unemployed numbers, it takes more time. But, it is what you want, correct?
Click to expand...

What is it about Obama and his policis that create the kind of loyalty you have? If any Republican had these numbers you would be outraged. It is over 3 years since the end of the recession but apparently that isn't enough time for you. Wonder why?
 
Conservative said:
What is it about Obama and his policis that create the kind of loyalty you have? If any Republican had these numbers you would be outraged. It is over 3 years since the end of the recession but apparently that isn't enough time for you. Wonder why?
Click to expand...

This thread isn't about Obama. It's about the unemployment rate. I asked you a very simple question. I think you're scared to answer it. So, let's try again: The job loss is coming from the public sector. Something you want, smaller government. The job growth is in the private sector, also something you want. So under Obama. you're getting what you thinkis best. Right?
 
Conservative said:
9000 jobs were lost in the public sector last month. Doesn't change the 23 million unemployed/under employed or the 850,000 discouraged workers.
Click to expand...
But it does "change" it, and where are you getting "23 million"?
 
Romulus said:
You think the rich are intentionally keeping unemployment rates and gas prices high in order to throw the election to Romney? Huh.
Click to expand...

There is no doubt
 
Gimmesometruth said:
You posted them .....because you don't care about them.....not enough to hire one....huh?
Click to expand...

Let's try to stay on topic, You have no concept of what I did or didn't do when I ran my business. Just another attempt on your part to divert from the Obama record.
 
Boo Radley said:
This thread isn't about Obama. It's about the unemployment rate. I asked you a very simple question. I think you're scared to answer it. So, let's try again: The job loss is coming from the public sector. Something you want, smaller government. The job growth is in the private sector, also something you want. So under Obama. you're getting what you thinkis best. Right?
Click to expand...

The private sector isn't creating the jobs necessary to keep up with population growth and won't until Obama is fired. cutting the public sector is the right thing to do, states are doing it because they have to balance their budget, Obama isn't doing much of that at the Federal Level and you should know that
 
Conservative said:
The private sector isn't creating the jobs necessary to keep up with population growth and won't until Obama is fired. cutting the public sector is the right thing to do, states are doing it because they have to balance their budget, Obama isn't doing much of that at the Federal Level and you should know that
Click to expand...

They have a huge task. But that dodges my question. Again: The job loss is coming from the public sector. Something you want, smaller government. The job growth is in the private sector, also something you want. So under Obama. you're getting what you thinkis best. Right?
 
Boo Radley said:
They have a huge task. But that dodges my question. Again: The job loss is coming from the public sector. Something you want, smaller government. The job growth is in the private sector, also something you want. So under Obama. you're getting what you thinkis best. Right?
Click to expand...

Are there more Federal govt. employees today than when Obama took office, simple question?
 
Conservative said:
Let's try to stay on topic, You have no concept of what I did or didn't do when I ran my business. Just another attempt on your part to divert from the Obama record.
Click to expand...
You are right...I can only go by what you told me.
 
Conservative said:
What is it about Obama and his policis that create the kind of loyalty you have? If any Republican had these numbers you would be outraged. It is over 3 years since the end of the recession but apparently that isn't enough time for you. Wonder why?
Click to expand...

what about bush and romney makes you a mindless republican puppet incapable of independent thought?
 
muciti said:
what about bush and romney makes you a mindless republican puppet incapable of independent thought?
Click to expand...

Bush was held accountable for results and thus McCain lost in 2008, the same should be true of Obama
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom