• 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!

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

Status
Not open for further replies.
AdamT said:
No it isn't -- you don't get to change the metric every time it's convenient for your failed argument.
Click to expand...

Tell that to the 25 million unemployed and under employed Americans? Tell that to the millions that have dropped out of the labor force. Seems you have a very selective view of the Obama Administration. U-6 is indeed 16.1%
 
winston53660 said:
Oh god can you be any more disingenuous?

The other poster wasn't talking about U6

sheeeesh
Click to expand...

The poster was doing what most liberals do, distort the record for what they perceive is personal gain when the reality is the Obama record is a disaster. 9.1%, net job losses, declining labor force says it all
 
Conservative said:
The poster was doing what most liberals do, distort the record for what they perceive is personal gain when the reality is the Obama record is a disaster. 9.1%, net job losses, declining labor force says it all
Click to expand...

Pffftt your accusing some one of distorting the record:lamo:lamo:lamo
 
Unemployment is far higher than the official number. It's been manipulate for political gain for years. Just because you've gave up trying to find a job doesn't mean you aren't unemployed.
 
1Perry said:
Unemployment is far higher than the official number. It's been manipulate for political gain for years. Just because you've gave up trying to find a job doesn't mean you aren't unemployed.
Click to expand...

Discouraged workers is a title created in 1994 and removes discouraged workers from both the labor force and the roles of the unemployed. they are no longer counted so your statement is right on. That makes the unemployment rate a lot better than it is and benefits the party in charge. Here are the discouraged workers since 2001

Note 1.1 million in July 2011 and it has been over a million for much of the Obama term. How is that hope working out for Americans?

2001 301 287 349 349 328 294 310 337 285 331 328 348 321
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
 
Sheik Yerbuti said:
Is that what you said about Bush as he took unemployment from 7.3% to 14%?
Click to expand...

If Bush were on the ballot in 2012 yes, I would say that was too high, but Bush isn't on the ballot, Obama and his 16.1% Unemployment is
 
Conservative said:
Seems that Obama stimulus program designed to keep unemployment at 8% would have done the job if it was successful.
Click to expand...
Stop lying. Obama's stimulus plan was desgined to save and create 3 million jobs, which you admitted was successful. Based on the unemployment data at that time, doing so was estimated to keep unemployment under 8%. But that 8% figure was always presented as nothing but an estimate.


It should be understood that all of the estimates presented in this memo are subject to significant margins of error. There is the obvious uncertainty that comes from modeling a hypothetical package rather than the final legislation passed by the Congress. But, there is the more fundamental uncertainty that comes with any estimate of the effects of a program. Our estimates of economic relationships and rules of thumb are derived from historical experience and so will not apply exactly in any given episode. Furthermore, the uncertainty is surely higher than normal now because the current recession is unusual both in its fundamental causes and its severity.
​
 
Conservative said:
Tell that to the 25 million unemployed and under employed Americans? Tell that to the millions that have dropped out of the labor force. Seems you have a very selective view of the Obama Administration. U-6 is indeed 16.1%
Click to expand...
You used to call them "unemployed." It wasn't until I taught you that the U6 rate is underemployment and what "underemployment" means that you began to correctly call them "underemployed."

I get no thanks from you for educating you. :2wave:
 
Sheik Yerbuti said:
Stop lying. Obama's stimulus plan was desgined to save and create 3 million jobs, which you admitted was successful. Based on the unemployment data at that time, doing so was estimated to keep unemployment under 8%. But that 8% figure was always presented as nothing but an estimate.


It should be understood that all of the estimates presented in this memo are subject to significant margins of error. There is the obvious uncertainty that comes from modeling a hypothetical package rather than the final legislation passed by the Congress. But, there is the more fundamental uncertainty that comes with any estimate of the effects of a program. Our estimates of economic relationships and rules of thumb are derived from historical experience and so will not apply exactly in any given episode. Furthermore, the uncertainty is surely higher than normal now because the current recession is unusual both in its fundamental causes and its severity.
​
Click to expand...

I am sure the 25 million unemployed and under employed are ecstatic about the Obama results, probably as excited as youa re
 
Conservative said:
The poster was doing what most liberals do, distort the record for what they perceive is personal gain when the reality is the Obama record is a disaster. 9.1%, net job losses, declining labor force says it all
Click to expand...
If taking unemployment from 7.8% to 9.1% is "a disaster," what do you call taking unemployment from 4.2% to 7.8%?
 
Sheik Yerbuti said:
You used to call them "unemployed." It wasn't until I taught you that the U6 rate is underemployment and what "underemployment" means that you began to correctly call them "underemployed."

I get no thanks from you for educating you. :2wave:
Click to expand...

You are indeed a legend in your own mind

Obama economic results in 2011, .4% GDP and 1% GDP growth in 2011, 25+ million unemployed or under employed Americans in 2011, 4 trillion added to the debt in less than 3 years, and a downgrade of the U.S. credit rating. Rising Misery index 7.83 to 12.67. First President in U.S. History to have our credit downgraded on his watch! 38-41% JAR and well over 55% disapproval ratings.
 
Conservative said:
If Bush were on the ballot in 2012 yes, I would say that was too high, but Bush isn't on the ballot, Obama and his 16.1% Unemployment is
Click to expand...
And if Bush could run and was on the ballot, you would for ... ?
 
Sheik Yerbuti said:
If taking unemployment from 7.8% to 9.1% is "a disaster," what do you call taking unemployment from 4.2% to 7.8%?
Click to expand...

I would call that an out of context number since there was a net job gain with that increase vs a net job loss with the lower percentage change. From 2001 to 2009 there was a net job gain and a growth in labor force. since Obama took office there has been a net job loss and a declining labor force. That to a liberal is called a success?
 
Conservative said:
I am sure the 25 million unemployed and under employed are ecstatic about the Obama results, probably as excited as youa re
Click to expand...
Why not since Obama is doing a better job than every single Republican since Calvin Coolidge during their first 30 months of service?

The amount of increase, or decrease, of the U3 unemployment rate after 30 months in office...



Nixon+76%
Bush+48%
Eisenhower+38%
Ford*+36%
GHW Bush+26%
Reagan+25%
Obama+17%
Kennedy-15%
Clinton-22%
Carter-24%
Johnson-33%

* = Ford was in office 29 months

Bureau of Labor Statistics Data​
 
A net job gain is meaningless if it doesn't keep pace with job demand. Under bush unemployment rose 3.6%. Under Obama it has risen 1.3%. You do the math.
 
Sheik Yerbuti said:
Why not since Obama is doing a better job than every single Republican since Calvin Coolidge during their first 30 months of service?

The amount of increase, or decrease, of the U3 unemployment rate after 30 months in office...



Nixon+76%
Bush+48%
Eisenhower+38%
Ford*+36%
GHW Bush+26%
Reagan+25%
Obama+17%
Kennedy-15%
Clinton-22%
Carter-24%
Johnson-33%

* = Ford was in office 29 months

Bureau of Labor Statistics Data​
Click to expand...

Yep, those percentage change sure look good, don't they, too bad Obama has a net job loss and no other President on that list had a job loss. Keep distorting the data and watch Obama's approval ratings continue to drop as more and more people see data like that for what it is worth.
 
AdamT said:
A net job gain is meaningless if it doesn't keep pace with job demand. Under bush unemployment rose 3.6%. Under Obama it has risen 1.3%. You do the math.
Click to expand...

that being the case then what are the Obama job losses keeping pace with?
 
Conservative said:
I would call that an out of context number since there was a net job gain with that increase vs a net job loss with the lower percentage change. From 2001 to 2009 there was a net job gain and a growth in labor force. since Obama took office there has been a net job loss and a declining labor force. That to a liberal is called a success?
Click to expand...
You would have a point if Bush's term expired in 2007.

How about we just look at his first 30 months?

Bush: 4.2% to 6.2% ... a 2 point increase, an increse of 42%

Obama: 7.8% to 9.1% ... a 1.3 point increase, an increse of 17%

You called Obama's 2 point, 17% increase "a disaster." I'm just wondering what you called Bush's 2 point, 48% increase?
 
BUT BUSH!!

But Bush won't be on the ballot.
 
Conservative said:
Yep, those percentage change sure look good, don't they, too bad Obama has a net job loss and no other President on that list had a job loss. Keep distorting the data and watch Obama's approval ratings continue to drop as more and more people see data like that for what it is worth.
Click to expand...
I know how much this disturbs you, but there's a reason the unemployment rate is based on a percentage. The only Presidents to leave office with an unemployment rate higher than when they started since Hoover are:

Hoover (R)
Eisenhower (R)
Nixon (R)
Ford (R)
GHW Bush (R)
Bush (R)

Notice a trend?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom