• 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!

Donald Trump's approval ratings hit new lows in August – least popular president

NIMBY said:
Such as the Obama hatred threads for 8 years ...
Click to expand...

Yep, but the problem is twofold, you cannot distinguish between hatred for Obama policies and hatred for Obama. Hatred for Obama doesn't justify hatred for Trump as two wrongs don't make a right. It is the Obama record that is the problem. People here don't seem to have a problem with millions of part time employees FOR ECONOMIC reasons inflating the low unemployment number and giving credit for Obama. The electorate got it, some never will
 
Hawkeye10 said:
Obama Sucked....and Trump had nothing to do with it....but he sucked so badly that Trump is here.
Click to expand...

Obama policy decisions were about as bad as anyone could make. What, progressives, liberals, socialist or
whatever they choose tp call themselves today, forget is that these dopey polls
by mostly MSM organizations hide & therefore minimize Trump support. The real story is that Trump's approval beats
the approval ratings of the MSM & Congress combined.
 
slick said:
Obama policy decisions were about as bad as anyone could make. What, progressives, liberals, socialist or
whatever they choose tp call themselves today, forget is that these dopey polls
by mostly MSM organizations hide & therefore minimize Trump support. The real story is that Trump's approval beats
the approval ratings of the MSM & Congress combined.
Click to expand...

I could quibble a bit, and for sure I would want to talk about how Obama is considered AOK only because of irrational bias driven by racism, but ya.
 
Conservative said:
Yep, but the problem is twofold, you cannot distinguish between hatred for Obama policies and hatred for Obama. Hatred for Obama doesn't justify hatred for Trump as two wrongs don't make a right. It is the Obama record that is the problem. People here don't seem to have a problem with millions of part time employees FOR ECONOMIC reasons inflating the low unemployment number and giving credit for Obama. The electorate got it, some never will
Click to expand...

The electorate largely voted for someone other than Trump. Remember? :lol:
 
Hatuey said:
The electorate largely voted for someone other than Trump. Remember? :lol:
Click to expand...

Yes, I do remember and also remember that the electoral college elects the President and were it not for California Trump would have won the popular vote but that is all irrelevant and isn't a response to my post. I didn't hate Obama, I hated his policies and have been proven right.
 
"Trump is suffering the worst ratings in modern history for any president at this stage of their first term in the Oval Office."

Take a look at Ronald Reagan's poll number 01-08-83 it sat at 35% approval.
We all remember the election of 1984... Reagan carried 49 of the 50 states and received 525 Electoral votes.
Poll numbers make news for a day!
 
Conservative said:
People here don't seem to have a problem with millions of part time employees FOR ECONOMIC reasons inflating the low unemployment number and giving credit for Obama.
Click to expand...
Mostly because part time for economic reasons does not inflate the unemployment number. I've asked you multiple times to show your math and your reasoning, but you never do. You just reassert your claim and then switch the subject. It's not even clear what you mean....are you claiming that those working part time for economic reasons should be classified as unemployed? And you continue to ignore that as the unemployment rate went down, so did the number of people working part time for economic reasons.

Note: The math is the math regardless of president or policies or voters or anything else. Either support your claim that the number of people working part time for economic reasons has an effect on the unemployment rate, or stop making the claim.
 
pinqy said:
Mostly because part time for economic reasons does not inflate the unemployment number. I've asked you multiple times to show your math and your reasoning, but you never do. You just reassert your claim and then switch the subject. It's not even clear what you mean....are you claiming that those working part time for economic reasons should be classified as unemployed? And you continue to ignore that as the unemployment rate went down, so did the number of people working part time for economic reasons.

Note: The math is the math regardless of president or policies or voters or anything else. Either support your claim that the number of people working part time for economic reasons has an effect on the unemployment rate, or stop making the claim.
Click to expand...

No, it makes the unemployment number look better than it is. A part time for economic reasons is part of the employment number and thus the OFFICIAL rate is lower than actual, that number is captured in the U-6 rate which is a better indicator. You think part time for economic reasons which were higher than at any time in modern history are good jobs and prove that the Obama policies are working?

Labor Force Statistics from the Current Population Survey
Original Data Value

Series Id: LNS12032194
Seasonally Adjusted
Series title: (Seas) Employment Level - Part-Time for Economic Reasons, All Industries
Labor force status: Employed
Type of data: Number in thousands
Age: 16 years and over
Hours at work: 1 to 34 hours
Reasons work not as scheduled: Economic reasons
Worker status/schedules: At work part time
Years: 2007 to 2017

Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
2007 4279 4220 4253 4313 4473 4342 4410 4576 4521 4325 4494 4618
2008 4846 4902 4904 5220 5286 5540 5930 5851 6148 6690 7311 8029
2009 8046 8796 9145 8908 9113 9024 8891 9029 8847 8979 9114 9098
2010 8530 8936 9233 9178 8845 8577 8500 8800 9246 8837 8873 8935
2011 8470 8464 8645 8652 8576 8427 8281 8788 9166 8657 8447 8171
2012 8305 8238 7775 7913 8101 8072 8082 7974 8671 8203 8166 7943
2013 8074 8119 7658 7936 7864 8096 8083 7804 8011 7995 7730 7792
2014 7298 7262 7403 7466 7170 7469 7430 7173 7123 7033 6870 6819
2015 6836 6664 6646 6563 6544 6463 6292 6438 6031 5734 6113 6057
2016 6035 6019 6120 5970 6409 5820 5936 6027 5874 5850 5659 5598
2017 5840 5704 5553 5272 5219 5326 5282
Click to expand...

Notice anything interesting in these numbers other than the decline? When did the Part time for economic reasons get back to pre recession levels or even close to what we have today? Seems like adding 9.3 trillion to the debt to get these numbers makes my case that the Obama policies were not successful. The electorate got it, when will you?

By the way it is 5.26 today or down another 800,000 from August last year
 
Conservative said:
No, it makes the unemployment number look better than it is.
Click to expand...
that's an assertion. And flawed logic. How can something look better than itself? Basic law of identity...A=A


A part time for economic reasons is part of the employment number and thus the OFFICIAL rate is lower than actual,
Click to expand...
What do you mean by "actual" in this case? All measures of unemployment are based on the definitions. There's no such thing as "actual unemployment rate."


that number is captured in the U-6 rate which is a better indicator.
Click to expand...
Better indicator of what? The two measure completely different things and each is better at what it is supposed to measure.
And the U-6 adds marginally attached workers as well as part time for economic reasons, and you're not isolating any changes caused by PTER.

Let's make this ridiculously simple: Is it your claim that those working Part Time for Economic Reasons should be classified as Unemployed rather than Employed? That's a simple Yes, or No.
 
pinqy said:
that's an assertion. And flawed logic. How can something look better than itself? Basic law of identity...A=A



What do you mean by "actual" in this case? All measures of unemployment are based on the definitions. There's no such thing as "actual unemployment rate."


Better indicator of what? The two measure completely different things and each is better at what it is supposed to measure.
And the U-6 adds marginally attached workers as well as part time for economic reasons, and you're not isolating any changes caused by PTER.

Let's make this ridiculously simple: Is it your claim that those working Part Time for Economic Reasons should be classified as Unemployed rather than Employed? That's a simple Yes, or No.
Click to expand...

Wow, poor logic, common sense and facts. Part time for economic reasons are people actually working and counted as employed for the official numbers. they are also in the U-6 which again is more meaningful. Those touting the Obama employment numbers ignore that reality. Of course they are employed but record numbers increased the number of employed and that makes the unemployment rate better than it actually is in judging the economic performance.
 
Conservative said:
Wow, poor logic, common sense and facts. Part time for economic reasons are people actually working and counted as employed for the official numbers.
Click to expand...
In all 6 measures of underutilization, including the U-6, actually. They're never classified as anything but employed.

they are also in the U-6 which again is more meaningful.
Click to expand...
Meaningful as far as what? The U-3 tells us what percent of available labor is not being used. The U-6 tells us what percent of available and potentially available labor is not being used to its fullest. Which one is more "meaningful" depends on what aspect of the economy you're looking at.

Of course they are employed but record numbers increased the number of employed
Click to expand...
Do you think it should not have?


and that makes the unemployment rate better than it actually is in judging the economic performance.
Click to expand...
Not if the economic performance you're looking at is use of available labor.

All it seems you're saying is that you prefer to look at the U-6. Fine, that's what it's there for....people who want to look at that aspect of the labor market. But unless you're saying that PTER should not be classified as Employed, then you can't say that PTER makes the U-3 look better than it should.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom