• 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 Lowest Level Since May 2008[W:489, 497]

Status
Not open for further replies.
What is it about Obama supporters that create such a very selective memory and such loyal support?

As pinqy has pointed out, it's not a question of supporting Obama. The issue is that you have a distorted perception of the data. You and others in this forum refuse to acknowledge something that has been explained to you repeatedly: the economy was in worse than terrible shape when Obama inherited it — it was on the verge of going under. Since then it has steadily improved. If the trends continue, the numbers by the end of his second term will be significantly better than they are now. What will you say then? Took too long, too much deficit spending. It's a broken record.

Another important factor to take into account is that the figures from, say, 2005 and 2006, were the result of an economy that was in a housing bubble, one that was getting ready to burst. That created the mess that Obama has been cleaning up. There is nothing objective about yer analysis; it's baseless, unqualified, partisan rhetoric. And so predictably you portray those who take an unbiased view as falling into that category.

pinqy mentioned trends. Here's U-4 over the past twenty years:

U4_1994_2015.jpg

It moved between 4% and 6% until the Great Recession hit. It's about to re-enter that range. That's why we say Obama has led the employment market back to recovery.

Here's discouraged as a percentage of the civilian population aged 25 to 64 from 2000 until last fall:

disc_as_perc_of_25_to_64_pop.jpg

Same trend — getting back to the normal range. Ideally, you'd look at the civilian labor force over the age of sixteen. If you weren't such a pathetic hack, I might work up a graph of those numbers, but there's no point in it.
 
Last edited:
Nothing is good or bad without something to compare it to. I otherwords, nothing is absolute. Presidential performance is just the same.

Like if I told you that I am 6 kritans tall and weigh 200 zigars, that would mean nothing in itself. It's only when you understand the units of measurement, and have some sort of baseline concept that my height of 6 kritans and weight of 200 zigars means anything.

Most conservatives seem to be OK with the performance of our country under Bush, thus they set an exceptionally low baseline. Compared to that baseline, Obummer is a wonderful POTUS. Now if you compared Obummer to a different president, like Reagan, then depending on the metric, Obummer could still be wonderful, or he could be terrible.

In my opinion, Obummer is the worst Dem president during my lifetime, and Reagan was the best republican president. I find it hillarious when people compare Obummer to Reagan (the worst of one set to the best of a different set), a better comparison would be Obummer to W Bush (the worst of each set).

As I stated, the actual official numbers and basic civics tells us a different story. You buy what you are told but post no numbers to prove your point. Much effort has been put into destroying GW Bush and it has worked especially with people like you. The facts however tell a different story but then when did facts ever make a difference to you?

There is a reason for the 2007-09 recession but to may it is all Bush and not reality. There is a reason for the 4.9 trillion Bush debt but then again that reason is ignored by Democrat supporters/ There is a reason for all the effort to destroy Bush and that reason is to divert from Obama. Obama is incompetent. Obama lacks leadership skills. Obama's resume wouldn't put him in middle management of any business. Facts make all the difference in the world to me. When are you going to post some that are relevant?
 
As pinqy has pointed out, it's not a question of supporting Obama. The issue is that you have a distorted perception of the data. You and others in this forum refuse to acknowledge something that has been explained to you repeatedly: the economy was in worse than terrible shape when Obama inherited it — it was on the verge of going under. Since then it has steadily improved. If the trends continue, the numbers by the end of his term will be significantly better than they are now. What will you say then? Took too long, too much deficit spending. It's a broken record.

Another important factor to take into account is that the figures from, say, 2005 and 2006 were the result of an economy that was in a housing bubble, one that getting ready to burst. That created the mess that Obama has been cleaning up. There is nothing objective about yer analysis; it's baseless, unqualified, partisan rhetoric. And so predictably you portray those who take an unbiased view as falling into that category.

pinqy mentioned trends. Here's U-4 over the past twenty years:

View attachment 67184365

It moved between 4% and 6% until the Great Recession hit. It's about to re-enter that range. That's why we say Obama has led the employment market back to recovery.

Here's discouraged as a percentage of the civilian population aged 25 to 64 from 2000 until last fall:

View attachment 67184366

Same trend — getting back to the normal range. Ideally, you'd look at the civilian labor force over the age of sixteen. If you weren't such a pathetic hack, I might work up a graph of those numbers, but there's no point in it.

Interesting, and yet after 8.2 trillion dollars added to the debt and an 842 billion dollar stimulus the number of discouraged workers is higher than when Obama took office. You use the discouraged workers as a percentage of a certain age group and yet by your own chart they still exceed anything Bush ever had.

Seems interesting to me that will all the debt that number is still high regardless of the population growth. Since there is such an emphasis on population growth please explain to me why there hasn't been a similar growth in the labor force as there was during the entire Bush term? Guess population growth only matters when it supports your claim.

By the way, amazing that when Bush took office there was a labor force of 144 million and when he left it was 154 million or a 10 million increase. Today that number is 157 million or a 3 million increase. Did the population just stop growing?
 
Last edited:
There seems to be a pattern forming here. But of course, the naysayers are going to deride this good news as well.

U.S. Unemployment Falls to Lowest Level Since May 2008 - Bloomberg Business

[/FONT][/COLOR]
Can someone in the right please concede that Obama is, and has been, GOOD for the economy?

Actually, no. We haven't seen employment-to-population ratios this low since the 70s. Obama's terms have been characterized by consistently low numbers.

Employment-to-population ratio - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 
explain to me why there hasn't been a similar growth in the labor force

Retiring baby boomers, more young people staying in school, more parents staying at home to raise young children. Sound familiar? Or do those facts get drowned out by yer incessant partisan rants?
 
We haven't seen employment-to-population ratios this low since the 70s. Obama's terms have been characterized by consistently low numbers.

How would account for that?
 
Don't you think when Obama signed and passed a stimulus program at a cost of 842 billion that the U-6 rate ought to drop?
It has dropped. A lot. It's been going down consistantly for 5 years.
When do actual costs play into your analysis of the results?
I have no idea how to estimate what kind of results we should get per dollar, so, lacking any idea of what costs "should be" I can't include the costs as part of my analyis.

How low do the numbers need to go, back to pre recession levels.
Probably won't happen this year. Probably will next year. What would the proper rate of decline been for the amount of money spent? What formula are you using?
 
Last edited:
How would account for that?

Dunno for sure, I'm not the one insisting that Obama has been good for the economy and employment. However, the dip in the numbers is exclusively within Obama's terms of office.
 
Dunno for sure, I'm not the one insisting that Obama has been good for the economy and employment. However, the dip in the numbers is exclusively within Obama's terms of office.
Obama has been President since 2000?

fredgraph.png
 
Under George W. Bush the average level was lower.
 
As I stated, the actual official numbers and basic civics tells us a different story. You buy what you are told but post no numbers to prove your point. Much effort has been put into destroying GW Bush and it has worked especially with people like you. The facts however tell a different story but then when did facts ever make a difference to you?

There is a reason for the 2007-09 recession but to may it is all Bush and not reality. There is a reason for the 4.9 trillion Bush debt but then again that reason is ignored by Democrat supporters/ There is a reason for all the effort to destroy Bush and that reason is to divert from Obama. Obama is incompetent. Obama lacks leadership skills. Obama's resume wouldn't put him in middle management of any business. Facts make all the difference in the world to me. When are you going to post some that are relevant?

Would you agree that W Bush was the worst republican potus in recent times? Do you not agree that Obummer is the worst democrat president in recent times?

After 7 years of W Bush leadership, how was our economy?

After 7 years of Obummer leadership, how is our economy?

Which economy is doing better? Be honest.
 
Retiring baby boomers, more young people staying in school, more parents staying at home to raise young children. Sound familiar? Or do those facts get drowned out by yer incessant partisan rants?

Partisan rants? What I see is acceptance of the mediocrity and poor economic performance on your part. Of course there weren't any retirees during the Bush term, retirees are not included in discouraged workers, parents staying home to raise their kids never happened prior to Obama. What is it about liberalism that creates people like you who always make excuses for poor performance?

It would be much more mature just to admit that you are wrong and made a mistake in supporting Obama. The electorate got it finally in 2014. When will you?
 
pinqy;1064626107]It has dropped. A lot. It's been going down consistantly for 5 years.


Yes, it has dropped but not in ratio to the dollars spent and economic activity from that spending. When exactly are you going to hold Obama accountable for the same things you blamed Bush for?

I have no idea how to estimate what kind of results we should get per dollar, so, lacking any idea of what costs "should be" I can't include the costs as part of my analyis.
.

of course, costs don't matter nor do the 1.2 million discouraged workers in 2010-2012 after that spending. All that seems to matter is diverting from the Obama performance by distorting that record.

Probably won't happen this year. Probably will next year. What would the proper rate of decline been for the amount of money spent? What formula are you using?

IMO, the proper number would be pre recession numbers and better. Why else spend the money? Why would anyone give credit for the current numbers with the debt created?
 
Under George W. Bush the average level was lower.

Because Bush inherited a fairly stable economy with a balanced budget and positive economic growth. The Bush economy had no where to go but up, yet somehow he ran it down, ending up with not one, but TWO recessions, both which started on his watch. Obummer inherited a huge deficit, and the largest retraction in the size of our economy since the Great Depression, cut the deficit in half, cut the unemployment rate in half, and led us to positive GDP growth, for what is now looking to be the second longest economic expansion in history.

The success of a president probably shouldn't be measured by how the economy was doing early in his presidency. If we did that, then Reagan was a terrible president who's policies caused a double dip recession and double digit inflation.

Presidential success should be measured by the state of the economy when the potus leaves office, because without a doubt or dispute, that's HIS economy.
 
Obama has been President since 2000?

fredgraph.png

Look at the actual numbers (they are listed by country in the link I gave), the radical dip begins in 2008.
 
I just go by "Where was it when he got there? And how did he leave it?".
 
Because Bush inherited a fairly stable economy with a balanced budget and positive economic growth.

No, he didn't. There was no balanced budget, the so-called positive economy was based upon a Ponzi scheme of overvaluation that Clinton SEC ignored, and any gains were PROJECTED gains, based upon the figures coming from the Ponzi scheme.
 
imagep;1064626170]Would you agree that W Bush was the worst republican potus in recent times? Do you not agree that Obummer is the worst democrat president in recent times?

Worst is a relative term. Bush was handed a recession, events leading up to 9/11, a media bent on his destruction, and a very poor public relations group who allowed the media and the left to dictate the message. Results aren't as bad as you and others want to believe but they were worse significantly than Reagan's. The alternative to Bush however, Gore and Kerry would have been worse IMO. I believe Obama is living up to his resume

After 7 years of W Bush leadership, how was our economy?

After 7 years of Bush there were 146 million working Americans, less than 4.5 trillion added to the debt, 4.5 trillion added to GDP, less than 500k discouraged workers, 4.6% unemployment rate so you tell me?

After 7 years of Obummer leadership, how is our economy?

Much worse than Bush's, high debt, stagnant GDP, and poor employment/unemployment numbers

Which economy is doing better? Be honest.

Bush's without a doubt and we are talking the first 7 years
 
Under George W. Bush the average level was lower.

Bush's average level didn't include the 2.2 million jobs lost during Obama's first three months.
Since you're solely focused on Presidents, where do those numbers go.

As well, Obama's highest numbers, due to the recession he inherited, topped out at 10.4%.
Is it honest to include these high numbers for Obama in comparison with Bush before these last 60+ months of positive private sector job growth ?
 
imagep;1064626190]Because Bush inherited a fairly stable economy with a balanced budget and positive economic growth. The Bush economy had no where to go but up, yet somehow he ran it down, ending up with not one, but TWO recessions, both which started on his watch. Obummer inherited a huge deficit, and the largest retraction in the size of our economy since the Great Depression, cut the deficit in half, cut the unemployment rate in half, and led us to positive GDP growth, for what is now looking to be the second longest economic expansion in history
.

that is your opinion, a recession began in March 2001 long before Bush economic policies were implemented and then we had 9/11. Clinton never had a balanced budget and added 1.4 trillion to the debt so one would think with a balanced budget that debt wouldn't have increased. How many times do I have to post the Treasury links to prove that?

The success of a president probably shouldn't be measured by how the economy was doing early in his presidency. If we did that, then Reagan was a terrible president who's policies caused a double dip recession and double digit inflation.

Really? when did the recession of 1981 begin and when were Reagan's economic policies implemented? You seem to have a very distorted and inaccurate view of the first year of the Reagan Administration

Presidential success should be measured by the state of the economy when the potus leaves office, because without a doubt or dispute, that's HIS economy.

Basic civics will tell you why the economy tanked in 2008 but liberals want to ignore that. Democrats were more concerned about regaining the WH than doing the work of the American people. It is amazing to me how a recession ended in June 2009 before Obama's economic policies went into effect and yet he is given credit for it. Doesn't make any sense to anyone who actually thinks
 
I just go by "Where was it when he got there? And how did he leave it?".

It was 62.2 when he got there and 58.6 (the third lowest in 50 years, the other two all within his terms) as of 2013.
 
Bush's average level didn't include the 2.2 million jobs lost during Obama's first three months.
Since you're solely focused on Presidents, where do those numbers go.

As well, Obama's highest numbers, due to the recession he inherited, topped out at 10.4%.
Is it honest to include these high numbers for Obama in comparison with Bush before these last 60+ months of positive private sector job growth ?

Again, what do you think the million discouraged workers not counted as Unemployed would have done to the unemployment numbers? Keep buying the rhetoric and making Gruber look brilliant. What I find interesting about people like you is how you cherry pick numbers and have no clue what they even mean.
 
The success of a president probably shouldn't be measured by how the economy was doing early in his presidency. If we did that, then Reagan was a terrible president who's policies caused a double dip recession and double digit inflation.

But that was Carter's fault from his short four years.

Presidential success should be measured by the state of the economy when the potus leaves office,

because without a doubt or dispute, that's HIS economy.

Oh contraire--that would be on the DEM Congress that came in to start 2007, don'tchaknow ?
 
It's good to see you and Gruber again, Conservative .

Again, what do you think the million discouraged workers not counted as Unemployed would have done to the unemployment numbers? Keep buying the rhetoric and making Gruber look brilliant. What I find interesting about people like you is how you cherry pick numbers and have no clue what they even mean.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom