• 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%

@OP - I didn't read through this whole thread so I don't know if it's been mentioned already, but the White House has changed its census approach to not include people who are not actively seeking employment. A lot of people who have been job searching have given up the search because there is no hope.

Our officials are deceiving us yet again with incomplete information. I think we can get closer to the truth if we compare the welfare and EI rates to the unemployment rate.
 
AdamT said:
You lied when you claimed that there was nothing misleading about quoting a sub-6% unemployment rate for '08 when in fact the unemployment rate was around 8% at the time of Obama's inauguration. No apology offered.
Click to expand...

I stated the average unemployment rate in 2008 was 5.7%, which it was.

If you have data that disproves my post, kindly post it or apologize for calling me a liar.
 
Gill said:
I stated the average unemployment rate in 2008 was 5.7%, which it was.

If you have data that disproves my post, kindly post it or apologize for calling me a liar.
Click to expand...

I didn't dispute the average figure. What I said is that it's extremely misleading given the fact that unemployment was skyrocketing and stood at close to 8% when Obama was inaugurated. You claimed that it wasn't misleading in the context of what Bush left on Obama's doorstep and THAT'S what I called you on. Because of course Obama didn't inherit the average unemployment rate for January 2008. He inherited an unemployment rate around 8% and rising.
 
Last edited:
AdamT said:
Why don't you stick to the facts and stop worrying about my leanings?
Click to expand...

That exactly what I have been doing and you ignored the data and facts. It is the Obama record that is the issue three years after taking office, not Bush's.
 
AdamT said:
Perhaps you can explain why you give the Republican President, Republican House, and Republican Senate a complete pass for the six years they ran things unopposed leading up to the worst recession since WWII?
Click to expand...

because the Republican House and Senate generated 9 million jobs, trillions added to GDP, and won the war in Iraq. You make wild accusations that you cannot support. The GOP controlled the Congress 4 1/2 years not 6 and it was the last two that contributed most of the debt and led to the recession. You can continue to blame the past but all that does is make you feel better about the present which ignores the Obama record.
 
AdamT said:
I didn't dispute the average figure. What I said is that it's extremely misleading given the fact that unemployment was skyrocketing and stood at close to 8% when Obama was inaugurated. You claimed that it wasn't misleading in the context of what Bush left on Obama's doorstep and THAT'S what I called you on. Because of course Obama didn't inherit the average unemployment rate for January 2008. He inherited an unemployment rate around 8% and rising.
Click to expand...

Then you admit that you were lying.

I gave Bush's average numbers and Obama's average numbers, the only fair way to compare.
 
Gill said:
Then you admit that you were lying.

I gave Bush's average numbers and Obama's average numbers, the only fair way to compare.
Click to expand...

No, it not a fair way to compare when you ignore the actual beginning/ending point and the huge negative momentum that was taking place. It is, in fact, UNfair. My point.
 
Conservative said:
That exactly what I have been doing and you ignored the data and facts. It is the Obama record that is the issue three years after taking office, not Bush's.
Click to expand...

Actually you were JUST talking about me and not the numbers in the post to which I responded. Obviously Obama's record is what it is, but it can't be understood without considering the context of situation that he inherited. It's just inasnity to suggest otherwise.
 
AdamT said:
No, it not a fair way to compare when you ignore the actual beginning/ending point and the huge negative momentum that was taking place. It is, in fact, UNfair. My point.
Click to expand...

It's fair to compare averages since Obama has done zilch, zero, nada to improve the economy in three years. In contrast, Reagan had the economy turned around before this time of his first term.

The difference is Reagan was a leader, while Obama is a follower.
 
AdamT said:
Actually you were JUST talking about me and not the numbers in the post to which I responded. Obviously Obama's record is what it is, but it can't be understood without considering the context of situation that he inherited. It's just inasnity to suggest otherwise.
Click to expand...

What you cannot seem to understand is you cannot inherit what you helped create and that is the context you want to ignore.
 
Gill said:
Average unemployment rate during Bush's term was 5.2%.

Just a wee bit better than Obama's.
Click to expand...

So you are saying that under Bush we should use the flawed unemployment rate that under Obama is flawed too but here we are to use the underemployment rate instead because it is so much higher number?
 
Samhain said:
And they outnumber those retiring.
Click to expand...

So you claim that the number of 15 year olds entering the work force exceed the number of retired persons? And you can of course prove this right?
 
Gill said:
It's fair to compare averages since Obama has done zilch, zero, nada to improve the economy in three years. In contrast, Reagan had the economy turned around before this time of his first term.

The difference is Reagan was a leader, while Obama is a follower.
Click to expand...

Yeah? So it would be fair if I looked at Reagan's first three years and concluded that he was a horrible president, because interest rates averaged around 15% while unemployment averaged around 8.5%, with inflation at about 10% per year? I mean, that would make Reagan about the worst president ever, right?
 
AdamT said:
Yeah? So it would be fair if I looked at Reagan's first three years and concluded that he was a horrible president, because interest rates averaged around 15% while unemployment averaged around 8.5%, with inflation at about 10% per year? I mean, that would make Reagan about the worst president ever, right?
Click to expand...

If the economy hadn't been improving, then yes.

Obviously, that was not the case though was it ??
 
PeteEU said:
So you are saying that under Bush we should use the flawed unemployment rate that under Obama is flawed too but here we are to use the underemployment rate instead because it is so much higher number?
Click to expand...

Please repost in English.
 
AdamT said:
Yeah? So it would be fair if I looked at Reagan's first three years and concluded that he was a horrible president, because interest rates averaged around 15% while unemployment averaged around 8.5%, with inflation at about 10% per year? I mean, that would make Reagan about the worst president ever, right?
Click to expand...

Don't think you want to go there but please be my guest, Reagan took over with a misery index at 19.33 and declining employment. By the end of his third year there was a net job gain and the misery index was declining significantly unlike it is today which is rising.
 
The bottom lone is BO's record sucks. He hasn't done anything to make matters better and we are as bad or in worse conditions than when the idiot was elected. Econtards can blather on about percentages like that makes a friggin difference. We have a growing population that can't find decent jobs. We have a barely breathing economy that is one crisis away from collapsing. Our banks are larger and more risky. Our trading partners are swirling around the drain. An ever expanding portion of our population is becoming 100% dependent on the government to feed and house their sorry asses. Our President's only solution to our problems is to gouge the successful people out of $60 billion in new taxes while doing nothing else to reduce the $1.4 trillion dollar annual deficits. Our national debt has freakin exploded and is set to steal the economic prosperity of future generations.

I would go on but thinking about how screwed we are is depressing. Go ahead all you lib's and moderates and vote for four more years of BOnomics. I am confident his policies will more than likely screw you fools right into the dirt.
 
Foodstamps Sept.jpgUS Labor Force Participation Rate Plunged to 26-Year Low.jpgUS-unemployment-duration-27-weeks-number-Feb11.jpg
 
Conservative said:
What you cannot seem to understand is you cannot inherit what you helped create and that is the context you want to ignore.
Click to expand...

Amazing!! I coulda sworn in another thread you stated that reagan inherited carters economy.:shock:
 
Conservative said:
What you cannot seem to understand is you cannot inherit what you helped create and that is the context you want to ignore.
Click to expand...

What I understand is that Obama had little or nothing to do with the creation of the Great Recession. Nor, for that matter, did the Congress of '07-'08. The recession was a result of absurd housing contracts that were largely formed between 2002 and 2006.
 
Last edited:
Gill said:
If the economy hadn't been improving, then yes.

Obviously, that was not the case though was it ??
Click to expand...

The economy was improving, and it's also improving now.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom