• 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. unemployment falls to 7.5% in April [W: 348, 360]

I don't disagree, but found it interesting you singled out democrats.
Not really, I just said Democrats would do the same thing Republicans are currently doing if the shoe was on the other foot. I was a little careless with my pronouns when I should have said, "Democrats would be making the exact same arguments Republicans are now making."

The problem as I see it giving presidents blame and credit when they have only limit ability to effect the economy. We ask them to lie.
And that's the whole truth. All the talk about "Obama's economy" is simply nonsense. I play the game because I get sick of Republicans constantly blaming Obama for something he really has little to do with, especially when they are blaming him for good things that are happening and try to make it sound bad.

The President economically, in a split Congress, has very little he can actually do. I would argue the action taken by Congress and signed by Obama right after he was elected (the stimulus) played a big part in stopping our slide into depression. But once the tide gets rolling, there's really little the President has to do with it. Congress has far more to do with the economy than the President, especially in the split Congress we now have.
 
The best economic news the American economy could get would be a major address by Obama stating that he is resigning for the good of the country
That you think Biden could do a better job with the economy only serves to highlight the severity of your ODS.
 
Obama has 101,000 more discouraged workers than when he started. Bush had 433,000 more than when he started. Yay, Bush!! :lamo

Jan/2001: 301,000
Jan/2009: 734,000
Apr/2013: 835,000


Bureau of Labor Statistics Data

Hmmm, when did Bush ever have 835,000 discouraged workers and by the way discouraged workers are monthly not cumulative. This is especially a very pretty picture

You will note that 2010 after all those shovels were shipped out the discouraged numbers increased to well over a million a month, a true liberal success story

2010 1065 1204 994 1197 1083 1207 1185 1110 1209 1219 1282 1318
2011 993 1020 921 989 822 982 1119 977 1037 967 1096 945
 
Wrong, the official rate during Reagan included discouraged workers, that was changed in 1994 by the Democrat controlled Congress. That is why you cannot find discouraged workers anywhere in BLS during the Reagan term
So? After 51 months in office, Obama lowered the U6 rate more than Reagan lowered the U3 rate.
 
That you think Biden could do a better job with the economy only serves to highlight the severity of your ODS.

I cannot imagine anyone doing a worse job with the economy than Obama so yes, I would take dumbass Biden over the incompetent Obama
 
Hmmm, when did Bush ever have 835,000 discouraged workers and by the way discouraged workers are monthly not cumulative. This is especially a very pretty picture
Using that logic, one could ask you, when did Clinton ever have 734,000?

Still, Bush ended with 433,000 more than when he started. If you're calling Obama a failure for adding 101,000, you must think Bush is the all-time worst president for adding 433,000.

Of the 835,000 we're currently at, Bush is contributed 52% compared to 12% contributed to by Obama. Yay, Bush!!
:lamo
 
So? After 51 months in office, Obama lowered the U6 rate more than Reagan lowered the U3 rate.

Only a true Obama supporter would claim that lower the U-6 rate to 13.9 is better than lowering the unemployment rate from 7.5% to 5.3%. That really is sick and shows how intellectually challenged you are
 
Using that logic, one could ask you, when did Clinton ever have 734,000?

Still, Bush ended with 433,000 more than when he started. If you're calling Obama a failure for adding 101,000, you must think Bush is the all-time worst president for adding 433,000.

Of the 835,000 we're currently at, Bush is contributed 52% compared to 12% contributed to by Obama. Yay, Bush!!
:lamo

Yes he did and still after adding over 6 trillion to the debt, shipping out all those shovels he still never had a discouraged number lower than Bush
 
Right, Reagan created how many millions of jobs? You really are a piece of work

By this point in Reagan's presidency, the unemployment rate was 7.3%. Down just 2/10ths of one percent from the 7.5% when he started. Under Obama, the U3 rate has dropped 3/10ths of one percent from 7.8% to 7.5%; and the U6 rate has also dropped 3/10ths of one percent from 14.2% to 13.9%.

So by this point in their respective presidencies, Obama is doing better than Reagan. As far as Reagan adding many more jobs by the time he left office -- Obama still has close to 4 years to go, and the trend over the last 3 years is adding jobs. Including close to 7 million in the private sector alone which has now grown for the 38th consecutive month.
 
Yes he did and still after adding over 6 trillion to the debt, shipping out all those shovels he still never had a discouraged number lower than Bush

You should use directional signals for when you decide to change course like that. :roll:
 
Only a true Obama supporter would claim that lower the U-6 rate to 13.9 is better than lowering the unemployment rate from 7.5% to 5.3%. That really is sick and shows how intellectually challenged you are
In my world, 0.3 is bigger than 0.2.
 
Then you won't have any problem posting the bls chart that shows Discouraged workers prior to 1994. Thanks in advance

You have a lot of nerve asking others to post figures when you've been asked repeatedly to show the numbers which indicate that 9 million jobs have been lost under Obama.

:coffeepap
 
Not really, I just said Democrats would do the same thing Republicans are currently doing if the shoe was on the other foot. I was a little careless with my pronouns when I should have said, "Democrats would be making the exact same arguments Republicans are now making."

And that's the whole truth. All the talk about "Obama's economy" is simply nonsense. I play the game because I get sick of Republicans constantly blaming Obama for something he really has little to do with, especially when they are blaming him for good things that are happening and try to make it sound bad.

The President economically, in a split Congress, has very little he can actually do. I would argue the action taken by Congress and signed by Obama right after he was elected (the stimulus) played a big part in stopping our slide into depression. But once the tide gets rolling, there's really little the President has to do with it. Congress has far more to do with the economy than the President, especially in the split Congress we now have.

I largely agree. Stopping such a slide is expensive, but he overall health of the economy will come from outside government, and is not dependent on any action or non action by the government.
 
Then you won't have any problem posting the bls chart that shows Discouraged workers prior to 1994. Thanks in advance
As I already said, the definition of discourage changed in 1994 so the database only goes back that far because the numbers aren't comparable.

And if discouraged were considered unemployed as you claim, then why are they listed separately in the U7?
 
Why? Because a discouraged worker is a drain on society and were once unemployed but lost their unemployment benefits due to them running out.

Huh? Discouraged workers have nothing to do with benefits running out. There aren't't even any questions about benefits in the survey
 
By this point in Reagan's presidency, the unemployment rate was 7.3%. Down just 2/10ths of one percent from the 7.5% when he started. Under Obama, the U3 rate has dropped 3/10ths of one percent from 7.8% to 7.5%; and the U6 rate has also dropped 3/10ths of one percent from 14.2% to 13.9%.

So by this point in their respective presidencies, Obama is doing better than Reagan. As far as Reagan adding many more jobs by the time he left office -- Obama still has close to 4 years to go, and the trend over the last 3 years is adding jobs. Including close to 7 million in the private sector alone which has now grown for the 38th consecutive month.

LOL, so you really want to compare Reagan's numbers to Obama's? Better do some research and stop making a fool of yourself. Only a true Obama supporter would make the claim that taking the unemployment rate down to 7.3 is worse than taking the U-6 rate to 13.9. You are unbelievable.

The recession Reagan inherited went until November 1982 and the recession that Obama inherited ended in June 2009.
 
Huh? Discouraged workers have nothing to do with benefits running out. There aren't't even any questions about benefits in the survey

Really? where do you think discouraged workers come from?
 
Yes he did and still after adding over 6 trillion to the debt, shipping out all those shovels he still never had a discouraged number lower than Bush
Oh come now, con, you really aren't concerned with discouraged workers are you? You should be grateful for all those private sector jobs created. I bet you would be, if Obama had an R next to his name, am I right?
 
The recession Reagan inherited went until November 1982 and the recession that Obama inherited ended in June 2009.
Ahh, so it took Reagan nearly two years to do what it only took Obama half a year to do.

Obama > Reagan.
 
Moderator's Warning:
The topic is US unemployment, not each other. Next poster who fails to debate the topic and instead continues to talk about another poster will get the banhammer.
 
Really? where do you think discouraged workers come from?

Maybe from your piece of shi. And i quote:

Conservative
Sage


Join Date
Dec 2009
Location
Houston, TX
Last Seen
Today @ 09:04 PM
Gender

Lean
Conservative
Posts
39,251
Likes Received
2677 times
Likes Given
1945

Originally Posted by Gimmesometruth
Remind me again....if a guy has been out of work for a while.....you won't hire him.

Conservative :


For a while? Two years? Yes I won't hire someone who has been out of work for 2 years, no initiative, no drive, and someone who has lived off the taxpayers for too long

http://www.debatepolitics.com/2012-...urday-9-et-w-134-926-a-84.html#post1060788868
 
Oh come now, con, you really aren't concerned with discouraged workers are you? You should be grateful for all those private sector jobs created. I bet you would be, if Obama had an R next to his name, am I right?

I am going to take a break from this forum as we have a few here that cannot take being challenged and report my posts to moderators. Enjoy talking to yourselves.
 
Back
Top Bottom