Obama's Approval Rating Drops to Lowest Ever, According to Gallup

pbrauer · Aug 29, 2011

Conservative said:
I believe I answered your question, yes, obama is responsible for many of those lost jobs during 2009 because of the failed stimulus program that didn't cap unemployment at 8%

What the hell does "many" mean? Notice how many jobs were lost before the end of the recession officially ended in June 2009. Obama became President on Jan 20 and you are going to blame him for the whole month? Pure ODS. Please show month by month how the $800 stimulus was distributed.

Sheik Yerbuti · Aug 29, 2011

Conservative said:
Oh, Good Lord, fact, millions and millions of working Americans aren't paying any FIT and millions and millions of unemployed aren't paying full income taxes and millions and millions of under employed Americans aren't paying full income taxes. You add them up and tell me what affect they are having on govt. revenue that you are so concerned about.

You are thoroughly confused and due to no one's fault but your own. I have always maintained that all of the Bush tax cuts should be expired, which would raise the taxes on most of those you complain about not paying any tax.

Conservative · Aug 29, 2011

BWG said:
Almost 90% of the Americans who pay no federal income tax are:

Incomes that fall below the standard deduction and personal exemptions - the poorest among us

The exemption for most Social Security benefits - the poorer seniors who worked all their lives (while paying taxes) to make this a better country

Tax benefits aimed at low-income families and children — the working poor with children struggling to make do from paycheck to paycheck

These are the people the Bachman's and Perry's are crying that they want to share the burden, rather than ask for a couple of extra bucks from those who's wealth increased the most over the last decade.

No, these are the people not paying any FIT and if you believe revenue is a problem, shouldn't they pay something? Your post is typical liberalism, distortion of what Perry and Bachmann are saying, not surprising, anything to make the empty suit look good and to divert from his record.

Conservative · Aug 29, 2011

Sheik Yerbuti said:
You are thoroughly confused and due to no one's fault but your own. I have always maintained that all of the Bush tax cuts should be expired, which would raise the taxes on most of those you complain about not paying any tax.

You are in the minority and that is the fact. If you want to eliminate all the Bush tax cuts then tell me how raising taxes puts 25 million unemployed and under employed back to work or into full time jobs?

Conservative · Aug 29, 2011

Sheik Yerbuti said:
There you go, lying again.

Notive the part of my post I highlighted?

Payroll data.

So why do you dishonestly post household survey data?

Once again, you are caught red-handed, cherry-picking data.

Here we go again, give me your numbers of unemployed, the household survey comes from actual phone calls made to households. the Establishment Survey uses statistics. Which one is more accurate?

pbrauer · Aug 29, 2011

Conservative said:
Unemployment by month, notice unemployment May 2010 vs 2009. 14973 vs 14518. Doesn't look like an improvement to me. Then don't get too excited bout the reduction in 2011 because most of that reduction was due to people dropping out of the labor force(discouraged workers) which are still higher than when he took office and his first 4 months in office. Where was the affect of that stimulus program?

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

Employment:

Year	Jan	Feb	Mar	Apr	May	Jun	Jul	Aug	Sep	Oct	Nov	Dec	Losses
2010	129281	129246	129438	129715	130173	129981	129932	129873	129844	130015	130108	130260
Job losses/gains	-39	-35	192	277	458	-192	-49	-59	-29	171	93	152	940
2011	130328	130563	130757	130974	131027	131073	131190
Job losses/gains	68	235	194	217	53	46	117						930

Conservative · Aug 29, 2011

pbrauer said:
Employment:

Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Losses
2010 129281 129246 129438 129715 130173 129981 129932 129873 129844 130015 130108 130260
Job losses/gains -39 -35 192 277 458 -192 -49 -59 -29 171 93 152 940
2011 130328 130563 130757 130974 131027 131073 131190
Job losses/gains 68 235 194 217 53 46 117 930

I posted the unemployment numbers, now here are the employment numbers. Why is the labor force dropping?

You really think that with a labor force of 153 million that the employment number is 131.2?

Employment, seasonally adjusted

2009 142221 141687 140854 140902 140438 140038 139817 139433 138768 138242 138381 137792
2010 138333 138641 138905 139455 139420 139119 138960 139250 139391 139061 138888 139206
2011 139323 139573 139864 139674 139779 139334 139296

Labor force

2009 154185 154424 154100 154453 154805 154754 154457 154362 153940 154022 153795 153172
2010 153353 153558 153895 154520 154237 153684 153628 154117 154124 153960 153950 153690
2011 153186 153246 153406 153421 153693 153421 153228

Conservative · Aug 29, 2011

Sheik Yerbuti said:
You're lying again. First, you have to prove the money wasn't applied to the budget. The onus to prove you are right isd on you. It's not my job to prove you right.

Which is about the same as Bush, who also added $3 trillion in two years, only Bush can't blame it on another president who gave him a recession; Bush can only blame his own recession.

If it was applied then that would reduce the Bush deficit since Bush spent 350 billion dollars of TARP leaving 350 billion for Obama. You are making it worse for Obama, thanks

Conservative · Aug 29, 2011

pbrauer said:
What the hell does "many" mean? Notice how many jobs were lost before the end of the recession officially ended in June 2009. Obama became President on Jan 20 and you are going to blame him for the whole month? Pure ODS. Please show month by month how the $800 stimulus was distributed.

Again, waiting for an explanation as to where those shovel ready jobs were and why the unemployment rate wasn't capped at 8%. Don't worry, Obama will find a way to cut the labor force enough to make that 8% rate. I am still waiting for an explanation as well as to why the unemployment number today is still higher than when he took office. That would be 2011, Pb, how do you blame that on Bush?

pbrauer · Aug 29, 2011

Conservative said:
I posted the unemployment numbers, now here are the employment numbers. Why is the labor force dropping?

You really think that with a labor force of 153 million that the employment number is 131.2?

Employment, seasonally adjusted

2009 142221 141687 140854 140902 140438 140038 139817 139433 138768 138242 138381 137792
2010 138333 138641 138905 139455 139420 139119 138960 139250 139391 139061 138888 139206
2011 139323 139573 139864 139674 139779 139334 139296

Labor force

2009 154185 154424 154100 154453 154805 154754 154457 154362 153940 154022 153795 153172
2010 153353 153558 153895 154520 154237 153684 153628 154117 154124 153960 153950 153690
2011 153186 153246 153406 153421 153693 153421 153228

What is the title no of those reports?

Sheik Yerbuti · Aug 29, 2011

Conservative said:
but I do care about him putting Bush spending on steroids....

How many times must a rightwing talking point be shot in the head until it dies for good? They're like ****in' zombies.

Spending by fiscal year (billions):

FY2001: 1863 (Clinton)
FY2002: 2011 (Bush)
FY2003: 2160 (Bush)
FY2004: 2293 (Bush)
FY2005: 2472 (Bush)
FY2006: 2655 (Bush)
FY2007: 2729 (Bush)
FY2008: 2983 (Bush)
FY2009: 3518 (Bush)
FY2010: 3456 (Obama)

You'll notice (I hope) spending increased nearly every year under Bush's budget, nearly doubling after 8 years.

The only time spending dropped was after Obama's first budget.

Spending drops ... rightwing ideologues call that "Bush spending on steroids." :roll:

Conservative · Aug 29, 2011

pbrauer said:
What is the title no of those reports?

Labor Force Statistics from the Current Population Survey
Original Data Value

Series Id: LNS11000000
Seasonally Adjusted
Series title: (Seas) Civilian Labor Force Level
Labor force status: Civilian labor force
Type of data: Number in thousands
Age: 16 years and over
Years: 2001 to 2011

Labor Force Statistics from the Current Population Survey
Original Data Value

Series Id: LNS12000000
Seasonally Adjusted
Series title: (Seas) Employment Level
Labor force status: Employed
Type of data: Number in thousands
Age: 16 years and over
Years: 1980 to 2010

Conservative · Aug 29, 2011

Sheik Yerbuti said:
How many times must a rightwing talking point be shot in the head until it dies for good? They're like ****in' zombies.

Spending by fiscal year (billions):

FY2001: 1863 (Clinton)
FY2002: 2011 (Bush)
FY2003: 2160 (Bush)
FY2004: 2293 (Bush)
FY2005: 2472 (Bush)
FY2006: 2655 (Bush)
FY2007: 2729 (Bush)
FY2008: 2983 (Bush)
FY2009: 3518 (Bush)
FY2010: 3456 (Obama)

You'll notice (I hope) spending increased nearly every year under Bush's budget, nearly doubling after 8 years.

The only time spending dropped was after Obama's first budget.

Spending drops ... rightwing ideologues call that "Bush spending on steroids." :roll:

LOL, nice distortion, Most of TARP was in fiscal year 2009. FACT, Obama Budget in 2010-2011 was 3.7 trillion. Last Bush budget without TARP was 3.0 trillion

Sheik Yerbuti · Aug 29, 2011

Conservative said:
You are in the minority and that is the fact. If you want to eliminate all the Bush tax cuts then tell me how raising taxes puts 25 million unemployed and under employed back to work or into full time jobs?

Now you are conflating issues. Who said raising taxes was about adding jobs? It's about balancing the budget. Although when Washington is fiscally responsible, the private sector does seem more confident in hiring.

pbrauer · Aug 29, 2011

Conservative said:
Labor Force Statistics from the Current Population Survey
Original Data Value

Series Id: LNS11000000
Seasonally Adjusted
Series title: (Seas) Civilian Labor Force Level
Labor force status: Civilian labor force
Type of data: Number in thousands
Age: 16 years and over
Years: 2001 to 2011

Labor Force Statistics from the Current Population Survey
Original Data Value

Series Id: LNS12000000
Seasonally Adjusted
Series title: (Seas) Employment Level
Labor force status: Employed
Type of data: Number in thousands
Age: 16 years and over
Years: 1980 to 2010

Mine:

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

Series Id: CES0000000001
Seasonally Adjusted
Super Sector: Total nonfarm
Industry: Total nonfarm
NAICS Code: -
Data Type: ALL EMPLOYEES, THOUSANDS

Conservative · Aug 29, 2011

Sheik Yerbuti said:
Now you are conflating issues. Who said raising taxes was about adding jobs? It's about balancing the budget. Although when Washington is fiscally responsible, the private sector does seem more confident in hiring.

Getting more taxpayers will generate more revenue to the govt so you don't need to raise taxes, just increase jobs.

Sheik Yerbuti · Aug 29, 2011

Conservative said:
Here we go again, give me your numbers of unemployed, the household survey comes from actual phone calls made to households.

You've been given the numbers.

Conservative said:
the Establishment Survey uses statistics.

And payroll data counts those actually on a payroll.

Conservative said:
Which one is more accurate?

As I've said in the past, I don't know which is more accurate. That doesn't mean you get to throw away payroll data because you like household survey data better.

Conservative · Aug 29, 2011

pbrauer said:
Mine:

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

Series Id: CES0000000001
Seasonally Adjusted
Super Sector: Total nonfarm
Industry: Total nonfarm
NAICS Code: -
Data Type: ALL EMPLOYEES, THOUSANDS

TOTAL NON FARM leaves out a lot of employees and that my point. Civilian labor force is 153 million so using your numbers there would be a total of 22 million officially unemployed putting unemployment at 14%

Conservative · Aug 29, 2011

Sheik Yerbuti said:
You've been given the numbers.

And payroll data counts those actually on a payroll.

As I've said in the past, I don't know which is more accurate. That doesn't mean you get to throw away payroll data because you like household survey data better.

So tell me what the unemployment rate is today in your world?

Sheik Yerbuti · Aug 29, 2011

Conservative said:
If it was applied then that would reduce the Bush deficit since Bush spent 350 billion dollars of TARP leaving 350 billion for Obama. You are making it worse for Obama, thanks

How do you know it didn't reduce Bush's FY2009 budget? You haven't posted any proof of any of the nonsense you are spouting.

Prove it already, Conservative.

Show how much of TARP was spent in FY2009, show how much of TARP was paid back in FY2009, show how much of TARP was applied to the FY2009 budget.

You haven't shown any of that. You're just spouting off more rigwing zombie talking points.

Conservative · Aug 29, 2011

Sheik Yerbuti said:
How do you know it didn't reduce Bush's FY2009 budget? You haven't posted any proof of any of the nonsense you are spouting.

Prove it already, Conservative.

Show how much of TARP was spent in FY2009, show how much of TARP was paid back in FY2009, show how much of TARP was applied to the FY2009 budget.

You haven't shown any of that. You're just spouting off more rigwing zombie talking points.

Go to TARP website and see how much was distributed and to whom. You will find that Bush spent 350 billion dollars from October to December and left 350 billion for Obama. The repayment of TARP began in 2009 and continued into 2010. Shouldn't that be credited to Bush? How much of TARP has been repaid and how much did TARP add to the 2009 deficit?

pbrauer · Aug 29, 2011

Conservative said:
TOTAL NON FARM leaves out a lot of employees and that my point. Civilian labor force is 153 million so using your numbers there would be a total of 22 million officially unemployed putting unemployment at 14%

CES0000000001 Shows actual employment numbers, I used MS Excel to show the gains and losses.

Conservative · Aug 29, 2011

pbrauer said:
CES0000000001 Shows actual employment numbers, I used MS Excel to show the gains and losses.

Unemployment percentage is calculated by taking the total number of unemployed divided by the total labor force. If your total employment is 131 and the labor force is 153 that percentage is 14%. Could it be possible that you have the wrong number of total employed?

pbrauer · Aug 29, 2011

Conservative said:
Go to TARP website and see how much was distributed and to whom. You will find that Bush spent 350 billion dollars from October to December and left 350 billion for Obama. The repayment of TARP began in 2009 and continued into 2010. Shouldn't that be credited to Bush? How much of TARP has been repaid and how much did TARP add to the 2009 deficit?

Are you saying Obama should have ignored the legislation? You would be right in there bashing him for not doing so. You know you would.

pbrauer · Aug 29, 2011

Conservative said:
Unemployment percentage is calculated by taking the total number of unemployed divided by the total labor force. If your total employment is 131 and the labor force is 153 that percentage is 14%. Could it be possible that you have the wrong number of total employed?

My numbers come straight from bls.gov, the same place you always cite. Note: I made no attempt to come up with a percentage because that's another ball of wax.