• 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%

Conservative said:
What we have here is the inability to defend or even discuss the Obama record so supporters have to come back and continue to demonize Bush. That speaks volume about the upcoming 2012 campaign and how nasty it is going to be. It will be the Obama record on the ballot in 2012 not the CRA or Bush. Obama has had three years to generate results and has, mostly negative. There is a reason his poll numbers are so low and it has nothing to do with Bush.
Click to expand...

And the thread topic is.....<U.S. Jobless Rate Unexpectedly Declines to 8.6%>Go back and get another cup of coffee ole man, might help wake you up this morning.:mrgreen:
 
treedancer said:
And the thread topic is.....<U.S. Jobless Rate Unexpectedly Declines to 8.6%>Go back and get another cup of coffee ole man, might help wake you up this morning.:mrgreen:
Click to expand...

What does the CRA and Bush have do to with these phony numbers? Did Bush cause 315,000 to drop out of the labor force? Did Bush cause 1.1 million people to become discouraged in November 2011? Did Bush cause a record number below poverty in 2012? Did Bush cause the increase in people on food stamps this year to another record?
 
Rhapsody1447 said:

U.S. Jobless Rate Unexpectedly Declines to 8.6% - Bloomberg

Good news for everybody except Gingrich/Romney. These economists are becoming laughable with their predictions as it seems almost every job report misses expectations and is later revised by 2 standard deviations. This one they were "right on" as payrolls came in as expected at 120k but the unemployment rate unexpectedly decline. Some pessimists are attributing this to a decline in the labor force. Either way, unemployment rate is now below 9%, the lowest it's been since it peaked at 10.1% back in March 2009.
Click to expand...

300,000 quit looking and the "jobs" are retail loser types and they will all be gone in a month so this number is meaningless just like Obla-ma
 
Conservative said:
What does the CRA and Bush have do to with these phony numbers? Did Bush cause 315,000 to drop out of the labor force? Did Bush cause 1.1 million people to become discouraged in November 2011? Did Bush cause a record number below poverty in 2012? Did Bush cause the increase in people on food stamps this year to another record?
Click to expand...


Are you one of the redstate troll described in this post?

<The third step is to move the conversation in the direction you desire. By doing this, you can then form the debate in terms you can win.By doing this, you can then form the debate in terms you can win. >

If so, when you derail the topic you usely end up derailing it yet again because of your penchant for having your ass handed to you on a platter.

Better go back to redstate and admit that your a Fairlie on DP and tell them that t they have people at DP that are not completely brainwashed and can identify bull**** when they smell it.

<First, infiltratethe site. For this, you will have to avoid creating screen names like “GoPalinGo” or “Heartlandredstater.” Also, some websites may actually have you wait a week before you are allowed to comment or blog. Perhaps, they are investigating the e-mail address you give them against whether it is used for a conservative website. Be sure to avoid that tendency; if you use, for example, aol.com screen name for RedState, make sure you use a yahoo e-mail address for Dailykos, or whatever. Once you are there, the second part of the strategy is to gain their trust. >


Weakening the Democratic Base, Part 5: Liberal Netroots | RedState
 
treedancer said:
Are you one of the redstate troll described in this post?

<The third step is to move the conversation in the direction you desire. By doing this, you can then form the debate in terms you can win.By doing this, you can then form the debate in terms you can win. >

If so, when you derail the topic you usely end up derailing it yet again because of your penchant for having your ass handed to you on a platter.

Better go back to redstate and admit that your a Fairlie on DP and tell them that t they have people at DP that are not completely brainwashed and can identify bull**** when they smell it.

<First, infiltratethe site. For this, you will have to avoid creating screen names like “GoPalinGo” or “Heartlandredstater.” Also, some websites may actually have you wait a week before you are allowed to comment or blog. Perhaps, they are investigating the e-mail address you give them against whether it is used for a conservative website. Be sure to avoid that tendency; if you use, for example, aol.com screen name for RedState, make sure you use a yahoo e-mail address for Dailykos, or whatever. Once you are there, the second part of the strategy is to gain their trust. >


Weakening the Democratic Base, Part 5: Liberal Netroots | RedState
Click to expand...

You got it, how did you figure out that raising the issue of the people dropping out of the labor force, the discouraged workers, and the declining in labor force had nothing to do with the thread topic or the unemployment numbers? Thanks for showing exactly who you are
 
Still debating about which POTUS is to blame for the current mess? Why? I already told you that Congress had a lot more to do with it than any president, but I guess you've ignored me, or didn't believe me. We expect the president to have dictatorial powers, and, indeed, we're busy giving them to him. Take a look at this thread as a glaring example.

But, anyway, it was Bush, Cheney, and McCain who got a freshman senator still wet behind the ears elected. If he gets reelected, it will be the good work of Perry, or perhaps Gingrich. We'll see just how this rather interesting election plays out.
 
Dittohead not! said:
Still debating about which POTUS is to blame for the current mess? Why? I already told you that Congress had a lot more to do with it than any president, but I guess you've ignored me, or didn't believe me. We expect the president to have dictatorial powers, and, indeed, we're busy giving them to him. Take a look at this thread as a glaring example.

But, anyway, it was Bush, Cheney, and McCain who got a freshman senator still wet behind the ears elected. If he gets reelected, it will be the good work of Perry, or perhaps Gingrich. We'll see just how this rather interesting election plays out.
Click to expand...

That is the liberal easy way to divert from the Obama record and prevent from discussing it for that is all Obama wants to do. This is going to be one of the nastiest if not the nastiest election of all times.
 
Dittohead not! said:
Still debating about which POTUS is to blame for the current mess? Why? I already told you that Congress had a lot more to do with it than any president, but I guess you've ignored me, or didn't believe me. We expect the president to have dictatorial powers, and, indeed, we're busy giving them to him. Take a look at this thread as a glaring example.

But, anyway, it was Bush, Cheney, and McCain who got a freshman senator still wet behind the ears elected. If he gets reelected, it will be the good work of Perry, or perhaps Gingrich. We'll see just how this rather interesting election plays out.
Click to expand...

You were expecting something different? :coffeepap
 
Conservative said:
That is the liberal easy way to divert from the Obama record and prevent from discussing it for that is all Obama wants to do. This is going to be one of the nastiest if not the nastiest election of all times.
Click to expand...

The last statement is correct.

It is not a problem with "liberals", however you define it. We have a failure of government to govern.
 
Boo Radley said:
You were expecting something different? :coffeepap
Click to expand...

Actually, no.

But, the upcoming election could have some surprises. Who knows what the advertising moguls will be able to make a gullible public believe?
 
Dittohead not! said:
The last statement is correct.

It is not a problem with "liberals", however you define it. We have a failure of government to govern.
Click to expand...

Politicians on both sides continue to find ways to keep their jobs mostly by buying votes with spending. I happen to be more in line with the Republicans today who are at least trying to promote the private sector spending the money vs. the govt. sector spending it
 
Conservative said:
Politicians on both sides continue to find ways to keep their jobs mostly by buying votes with spending.
Click to expand...

Yes, and by passing legislation favorable to their donors.

Conservative said:
I happen to be more in line with the Republicans today who are at least trying to promote the private sector spending the money vs. the govt. sector spending it
Click to expand...

and I think both sides are to blame. The public sector spending you decry has grown exponentially under both. Now, the main goal of both parties seems to be to gain and keep power, to make the other side look as bad as possible, but not to work together to solve the monumental problems we face as a nation.

Government is dysfunctional. We've already changed parties a couple of times, and nothing changes.
 
EarlzP said:
You are right I get p-ssed every time I see this buck passing going on, the man at the helm when all of this sh-t was taking place was none other then ex president GW Bush, not President B Obama.
Click to expand...
Hmmm, let's see, many Congresses and administrations had a role to play then and continue to do so today. Does that mean all (except Bush) are absolved of their responsibility?
 
Dittohead not! said:
Yes, and by passing legislation favorable to their donors.



and I think both sides are to blame. The public sector spending you decry has grown exponentially under both. Now, the main goal of both parties seems to be to gain and keep power, to make the other side look as bad as possible, but not to work together to solve the monumental problems we face as a nation.

Government is dysfunctional. We've already changed parties a couple of times, and nothing changes.
Click to expand...

This is very true. We need to think in terms different than party, or even liberla versus conservative, but in pragmatic problem solving and cooperation. Utopia if you will.
 
Boo Radley said:
This is very true. We need to think in terms different than party, or even liberla versus conservative, but in pragmatic problem solving and cooperation. Utopia if you will.
Click to expand...

Pragmatic problem solving might not bring us utopia, but it will at least give us a chance to meet the challenges we face as a nation. Shooting darts at "liberals" or at "conservatives" isn't going to get us anywhere. Who knows just what is meant by those labels anyway? It usually just means "people who don't agree with my point of view." or perhaps, "the political bad guys."
 
Dittohead not! said:
Pragmatic problem solving might not bring us utopia, but it will at least give us a chance to meet the challenges we face as a nation. Shooting darts at "liberals" or at "conservatives" isn't going to get us anywhere. Who knows just what is meant by those labels anyway? It usually just means "people who don't agree with my point of view." or perhaps, "the political bad guys."
Click to expand...
I quite agree. Well said.
 
Boo Radley said:
This is very true. We need to think in terms different than party, or even liberla versus conservative, but in pragmatic problem solving and cooperation. Utopia if you will.
Click to expand...

So, how many Conservative policies would you include in this, "pramatic problem solving"? I'm thinking, none.
 
apdst said:
So, how many Conservative policies would you include in this, "pramatic problem solving"? I'm thinking, none.
Click to expand...


I don't know. Present some. But what I would include doesn't mean others shouldn't do as I suggest. Do you or don't you agree?
 
Has has been pointed out on this thread but ignored by those that want to divert from the Obama record the labor force saw 315,000 drop out of the labor force which doesn't seem to bother the Obama supporters because they can hang on to the claim that the rate dropped to 8.6%. What these people want to ignore is that those people are no longer counted as unemployed thus reduces the rate. Great news for Obama? Hardly and here is another example why.

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.)

Notice the discourated workers who aren't counted either. Obama has adveraged over a million a month that stopped looking for jobs, are discouraged and not counted. The real rate is 9.3%
Years: 2001 to 2011

Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Annual
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 977 1037 967 1096


Unemployed plus discouraged workers

Unemployed + Discouraged
2008 8095 7831 8194 8043 8797 8980 9356 9890 10036 10656 11225 12042
2009 12653 13445 13995 14556 15310 15514 15330 15751 15865 16420 16201 16196
2010 15902 16075 15999 16457 16056 15830 15784 15970 15976 16062 16401 15803
2011 14856 14693 14463 14736 14736 15069 15050 14944 15029 14864 14399 0


Labor Force 2011 153186 153246 153406 153421 153693 153421 153228 153594 154017 154198 153883

UE Rate w/o DW 9.05% 8.92% 8.83% 8.96% 9.05% 9.18% 9.09% 9.09% 9.08% 9.01% 8.64% #DIV/0!

UE Rate with DW 9.70% 9.59% 9.43% 9.60% 9.59% 9.82% 9.82% 9.73% 9.76% 9.64% 9.36% #DIV/0!
 
Conservative said:
Has has been pointed out on this thread but ignored by those that want to divert from the Obama record the labor force saw 315,000 drop out of the labor force which doesn't seem to bother the Obama supporters because they can hang on to the claim that the rate dropped to 8.6%. What these people want to ignore is that those people are no longer counted as unemployed thus reduces the rate. Great news for Obama? Hardly and here is another example why.

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.)

Notice the discourated workers who aren't counted either. Obama has adveraged over a million a month that stopped looking for jobs, are discouraged and not counted. The real rate is 9.3%
Years: 2001 to 2011

Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Annual
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 977 1037 967 1096


Unemployed plus discouraged workers

Unemployed + Discouraged
2008 8095 7831 8194 8043 8797 8980 9356 9890 10036 10656 11225 12042
2009 12653 13445 13995 14556 15310 15514 15330 15751 15865 16420 16201 16196
2010 15902 16075 15999 16457 16056 15830 15784 15970 15976 16062 16401 15803
2011 14856 14693 14463 14736 14736 15069 15050 14944 15029 14864 14399 0


Labor Force 2011 153186 153246 153406 153421 153693 153421 153228 153594 154017 154198 153883

UE Rate w/o DW 9.05% 8.92% 8.83% 8.96% 9.05% 9.18% 9.09% 9.09% 9.08% 9.01% 8.64% #DIV/0!

UE Rate with DW 9.70% 9.59% 9.43% 9.60% 9.59% 9.82% 9.82% 9.73% 9.76% 9.64% 9.36% #DIV/0!
Click to expand...
Discouraged workers are typically out of work for more than a year, after their unemployment benefits run out. Notice how that number spiked to over a million in January, 2010 ... those would be the people who lost their job while Bush was president. You know, the loser you'd vote for again if he could run.
 
Last edited:
Sheik Yerbuti said:
Discouraged workers are typically out of work for more than a year, after their unemployment benefits run out. Notice how that number spiked to over a million in January, 2010 ... those would be the people who lost their job while Bush was president. You know, the loser you'd vote for again if he could run.
Click to expand...

Since Discouraged workers is a monthly number I find it quite amazing that November 2011 was Bush's fault. You really need to get over your BDS. It does seem that you don't understand the concept of leadership and accepting personal responsibility. that makes you comparable to Obama
 
Conservative said:
Has has been pointed out on this thread but ignored by those that want to divert from the Obama record the labor force saw 315,000 drop out of the labor force which doesn't seem to bother the Obama supporters because they can hang on to the claim that the rate dropped to 8.6%. What these people want to ignore is that those people are no longer counted as unemployed thus reduces the rate. Great news for Obama? Hardly and here is another example why.

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.)

Notice the discourated workers who aren't counted either. Obama has adveraged over a million a month that stopped looking for jobs, are discouraged and not counted. The real rate is 9.3%
Years: 2001 to 2011

Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Annual
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 977 1037 967 1096


Unemployed plus discouraged workers

Unemployed + Discouraged
2008 8095 7831 8194 8043 8797 8980 9356 9890 10036 10656 11225 12042
2009 12653 13445 13995 14556 15310 15514 15330 15751 15865 16420 16201 16196
2010 15902 16075 15999 16457 16056 15830 15784 15970 15976 16062 16401 15803
2011 14856 14693 14463 14736 14736 15069 15050 14944 15029 14864 14399 0


Labor Force 2011 153186 153246 153406 153421 153693 153421 153228 153594 154017 154198 153883

UE Rate w/o DW 9.05% 8.92% 8.83% 8.96% 9.05% 9.18% 9.09% 9.09% 9.08% 9.01% 8.64% #DIV/0!

UE Rate with DW 9.70% 9.59% 9.43% 9.60% 9.59% 9.82% 9.82% 9.73% 9.76% 9.64% 9.36% #DIV/0!
Click to expand...

SO MANY random numbers, so little time.:shock:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom