Page 163 of 163 FirstFirst ... 63113153161162163
Results 1,621 to 1,628 of 1628

Thread: U.S. Adds Only 88,000 Jobs; Jobless Rate Falls to 7.6%[W: 831]

  1. #1621
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Last Seen
    08-25-16 @ 08:31 PM
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    11,265

    Re: U.S. Adds Only 88,000 Jobs; Jobless Rate Falls to 7.6%

    Quote Originally Posted by DA60 View Post
    So, the answer is no - once again another statement made by you that you cannot back up with links to unbiased, official stats/facts.

    Instead of just admitting that you meant 'almost' double (because that is all the official government records will show) OR you thought it was double, but it turns out it is not quite - you just have to go on and on with your trolling, emoticons and spinning...anything to admit that you made a small mistake.

    I could care less whether the unemployment rate under Bush was doubled or not - he was a horrible POTUS (just as - in a somewhat different way - Obama is).

    But I just knew you would not admit your mistake....which explains volumes about you and the lack of clarity of your perspective and opinions on this subject.

    That was my point.


    I am done for now.


    Have a nice day.
    Ummm, if you look at my post, there are links to my sources in it.

  2. #1622
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Last Seen
    08-25-16 @ 08:31 PM
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    11,265

    Re: U.S. Adds Only 88,000 Jobs; Jobless Rate Falls to 7.6%

    Quote Originally Posted by DA60 View Post

    So the answer is apparently 'no' - you cannot produce links to unbiased, factual statistics (either official gov't stats OR extrapolated stats and the exact equations you used to arrive at your final figures) that prove that the unemployment rate doubled during GW Bush's term in office.
    Umm, by the way, I have yet to see you post evidence of any of the following:

    a) There were no people during Obama's presidency who went on disability rather than work.

    b) Thre were no people who chose to go to school rather than work.

    c) That the official rate kept by the BLS factors in the LFPR.

    Let's see you answer any one of those.

  3. #1623
    Tavern Bartender
    Constitutionalist
    American's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Virginia
    Last Seen
    12-15-17 @ 10:49 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    76,323

    Re: U.S. Adds Only 88,000 Jobs; Jobless Rate Falls to 7.6%

    Quote Originally Posted by Sheik Yerbuti View Post
    According to you, the unemployment rate went from 3.9% to 9.3% under Bush. A 138% increase.

    Ain'tcha proud?
    Keep polishing this turd if you like, but this president's performance is anemic and feeble.
    "He who does not think himself worth saving from poverty and ignorance by his own efforts, will hardly be thought worth the efforts of anybody else." -- Frederick Douglass, Self-Made Men (1872)
    "Fly-over" country voted, and The Donald is now POTUS.

  4. #1624
    Guru
    pinqy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Location
    Northern Virginia
    Last Seen
    Today @ 03:22 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    4,374

    Re: U.S. Adds Only 88,000 Jobs; Jobless Rate Falls to 7.6%

    Quote Originally Posted by DA60 View Post
    One - I can say it was 7.3% anytime I wish. Or 2.1% or 18.9%.

    It's called free speech.
    Forgive me, I should have included an adjective such as "reasonably," or "accurately."



    Two - I said 'official' on that day.

    I did not say 'actual' - I freely acknowledge it may have actually been 7.8% on that day.

    But, on the day he was inaugurated, if someone reported on the unemployment, they would have said that it was 7.2% - not 7.8%.
    Correct, but you said it was 7.3%, which is the revised number. So if you had said that at the time Obama took office, the official UE rate was at 7.2%, that would be fine. But you used the revised number (from Jan 2011 or later) and it makes no sense to use that number instead of the 7.8% which was the rate being collected that week.

    And three - not that I doubt you, but where is a link to your source of the 'reference week'?
    Employment Situation for January 2009What's important is what is NOT there: an announcement of a different reference week. The reference week is only changed when the usual week is under unusual conditions and an announcement is made in the release. For example, in the Employment Situation for November 2006 and for November 2012 the reference weeks were the weeks that contained the 5th because otherwise the collection week (the week after the reference week) would have been the same week as Thanksgiving when it's practically impossible to do an accurate household survey.

    Since the default is the week that contains the 12th, and an announcement is made if otherwise, then we can conclude that it was the week of the 12th in Jan 2009.
    Therefore, since the world has still/Much good, but much less good than ill,
    And while the sun and moon endure/Luck's a chance, but trouble's sure,
    I'd face it as a wise man would,/And train for ill and not for good.

  5. #1625
    Sage
    j-mac's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    South Carolina
    Last Seen
    Today @ 10:23 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    30,323

    Re: U.S. Adds Only 88,000 Jobs; Jobless Rate Falls to 7.6%

    Oh, for goodness sake....Does anyone really believe that our economic situation today is truly as good as it could/should be? I don't.
    Americans are so enamored of equality that they would rather be equal in slavery than unequal in freedom.

    Alexis de Tocqueville

  6. #1626
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Where I am now
    Last Seen
    09-11-17 @ 03:00 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    16,386

    Re: U.S. Adds Only 88,000 Jobs; Jobless Rate Falls to 7.6%

    Quote Originally Posted by pinqy View Post
    Forgive me, I should have included an adjective such as "reasonably," or "accurately."
    No biggie...I was just sayin'.

    Correct, but you said it was 7.3%, which is the revised number. So if you had said that at the time Obama took office, the official UE rate was at 7.2%, that would be fine. But you used the revised number (from Jan 2011 or later) and it makes no sense to use that number instead of the 7.8% which was the rate being collected that week.

    Employment Situation for January 2009What's important is what is NOT there: an announcement of a different reference week. The reference week is only changed when the usual week is under unusual conditions and an announcement is made in the release. For example, in the Employment Situation for November 2006 and for November 2012 the reference weeks were the weeks that contained the 5th because otherwise the collection week (the week after the reference week) would have been the same week as Thanksgiving when it's practically impossible to do an accurate household survey.

    Since the default is the week that contains the 12th, and an announcement is made if otherwise, then we can conclude that it was the week of the 12th in Jan 2009.
    Thanks for the links and the information...I always like to find new information...especially on macroeconomics.

  7. #1627
    Sage
    Taylor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    US
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 11:31 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    6,170

    Re: U.S. Adds Only 88,000 Jobs; Jobless Rate Falls to 7.6%

    Quote Originally Posted by j-mac View Post
    Oh, for goodness sake....Does anyone really believe that our economic situation today is truly as good as it could/should be? I don't.
    I'm sure those people exist, you just h---- wait! here comes one now!

    kool-aid-man.jpg

  8. #1628
    Traveler

    Jack Hays's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Williamsburg, Virginia
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:19 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    54,920
    Blog Entries
    2

    Re: U.S. Adds Only 88,000 Jobs; Jobless Rate Falls to 7.6%

    Quote Originally Posted by Sheik Yerbuti View Post
    umm, according to you, his performance in terms of unemployment was even superior to that of Reagan's.

    Reagan: DOWN 1,389,000
    Jan/1981: 8,071,000
    Jan/1989: 6,682,000

    Bush: UP 6,056,000
    Jan/2001: 6,023,000
    Jan/2009: 12,079,000

    Obama: DOWN 337,000
    Jan/2009: 12,079,000
    Mar/2013: 11,742,000

    BLS: Unemployment Level
    Certainly GWB's last months were negative. Nonetheless, average unemployment under GWB was 5.3%. Under BHO (thus far) the average is 8.9%. GWB did better. QED.
    "It's always reassuring to find you've made the right enemies." -- William J. Donovan

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •