Unemployment is up...real unemployment of 10.8 %

Why would I lie when the numbers are right there in the article? If you don't want to believe them, that's your problem, not mine. So now you acknowledge that Bush left him a bag of shit. So he gets credit for all the bad things that happen and none of the good, is that right? That sounds like jesus fucking christ. Except he gets credit for all of the good and none of the bad.

http://www.addictinginfo.org/2014/09...-modern-times/


http://www.politicususa.com/2015/06/...ob-growth.html Originally Posted by WombRaider

Those numbers you so cavalierly throw out there are NOT in the article you reference. Maybe some links somewhere down the line but not in that article or in my article. So present them or retire from the field of battle. I also take acception to trying to put words into my mouth again. I DID NOT say that Bush handed over "a bag of shit" to Obama. In fact, every president hands something over to the next president. It is how that next president reacts that is important. Bush got turned over to him international terrorism on the march, a burst tech bubble that the stock market had not yet recovered from, a reduced military, a hostile congress, and a severe lack of faith in the government to solve anything. In other words, Bush did what Clinton did, what Bush did, what Reagan did, what Carter did.... It is becoming boring to hear about how put upon Obama was when he took office. Lets face facts (this is for you), when Obama took office he had control of most of the government and the good feeling of most Americans whether they voted for him or not. He could have done anything. He could have called in the experts and really fixed some long lasting problems facing this country. He could have changed history but he didn't. He went into democratic corruption on a grand scale. He took taxpayer money under false pretences, he lied to the American people repeatedly, he neglected his real duties, and he paid off his party hacks with taxpayer money. He did NOTHING for the economy, he did NOTHING for the problems overseas, he did NOTHING to restore the faith in government. He has reacted to everything in his terms. He has never been out in front on anything. He also uses the cutsey excuse that he didn't see it on TV yet.

Obama is a failure and will continue to be a failure as president. This unemployment report is just another symptom of a greater ill.

Those numbers you so cavalierly throw out there are NOT in the article you reference. Maybe some links somewhere down the line but not in that article or in my article. So present them or retire from the field of battle. I also take acception to trying to put words into my mouth again. I DID NOT say that Bush handed over "a bag of shit" to Obama. In fact, every president hands something over to the next president. It is how that next president reacts that is important. Bush got turned over to him international terrorism on the march, a burst tech bubble that the stock market had not yet recovered from, a reduced military, a hostile congress, and a severe lack of faith in the government to solve anything. In other words, Bush did what Clinton did, what Bush did, what Reagan did, what Carter did.... It is becoming boring to hear about how put upon Obama was when he took office. Lets face facts (this is for you), when Obama took office he had control of most of the government and the good feeling of most Americans whether they voted for him or not. He could have done anything. He could have called in the experts and really fixed some long lasting problems facing this country. He could have changed history but he didn't. He went into democratic corruption on a grand scale. He took taxpayer money under false pretences, he lied to the American people repeatedly, he neglected his real duties, and he paid off his party hacks with taxpayer money. He did NOTHING for the economy, he did NOTHING for the problems overseas, he did NOTHING to restore the faith in government. He has reacted to everything in his terms. He has never been out in front on anything. He also uses the cutsey excuse that he didn't see it on TV yet.

Obama is a failure and will continue to be a failure as president. This unemployment report is just another symptom of a greater ill. Originally Posted by JD Barleycorn

It's exception. Look, the numbers are easily found by googling them. You don't want to see them though. Remain ignorant. I don't care. You demand proof from me, but you go on a rampage of verbal diarrhea, laying out all these things he has done, with no proof. Prove it or retire from the field of battle, turd. He did nothing for the economy? Then how are we so much better off after what happened in 2009?

Obama can lie and you can swallow but it does not change reality.

http://www.cnbc.com/id/102734623 Originally Posted by JD Barleycorn

Interesting. No response from the leftards in the forum......they run and hide from Obama's failure...I thought one of them might try and hijack it away from Obama.

Nope. Originally Posted by Whirlaway

Here is my response.

Obama is NOT lying at all. You are simply confused.

The OFFICIAL U.S. Department of Labor UNEMPLOYMENT RATE IS the U-3 rate. For May 2015, that number IS 5.5%.

The U.S. Department of Labor actually publishes a SET of unemployment rates each month. Each has a unique definition.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unemployment

The Bureau of Labor Statistics also calculates six alternate measures of unemployment, U1 through U6, that measure different aspects of unemployment:

U1: Percentage of labor force unemployed 15 weeks or longer.
U2: Percentage of labor force who lost jobs or completed temporary work.
U3: Official unemployment rate per the ILO definition occurs when people are without jobs and they have actively looked for work within the past four weeks.
U4: U3 + "discouraged workers", or those who have stopped looking for work because current economic conditions make them believe that no work is available for them.
U5: U4 + other "marginally attached workers", or "loosely attached workers", or those who "would like" and are able to work, but have not looked for work recently.
U6: U5 + Part-time workers who want to work full-time, but cannot due to economic reasons (underemployment).

Official U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics Reference:
http://www.bls.gov/lau/stalt.htm

The article you quote references a DIFFERENT Labor Department Rate called the U-6 rate. That rate is a more expanded definition of unemployment.

The key with these sets of rates over time is consistency of usage if you are trying to understand a trend.

Meaning: pick one specific U rate and stick with it.

This is why one of these rates is deemed the OFFICIAL UNEMPLOYMENT RATE. That is the U-3, and the U-3 for May 2015 is 5.5%.

You (or in this case the author of the CNBC article you reference) can argue the U-6 unemployment rate better represents the "true picture" of unemployment, but the fact remains the U-3 is the official unemployment rate, not the U-6 rate.

I should note that the U-3 has been the official unemployment rate for many years. The Obama Administration did not change which U rate is the official one.

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR UNEMPLOYMENT RATE CHARTS

Here is a chart of the U-6 rate from 2000 - 2015 (the webpage has the information in both graph and table formats):
http://portalseven.com/employment/un...nt_rate_u6.jsp

You will note the U-6 rate hit a peak in 2010 but has now dropped down to near 2008 levels.

Here is a chart of the the U-3 rate from 2002-2015 (the OFFICIAL RATE):
http://portalseven.com/employment/unemployment_rate.jsp

You will note that rate's graph shows the same overall trend, that U.S unemployment hit a peak in 2010 but has now dropped down to near 2008 levels.

Conclusion: The Obama Administration is NOT LYING when they state the official unemployment rate for May 2015 is 5.5%.

JD spews more lies. Shocker!

JD Barleycorn and Whirlaway, are you two going to be REAL MEN and admit that you were completely wrong?

The problem is that when workers move from U3 to U4 and above, U3 goes down, but it paints an artificial and misleading appearance of growth. That is what has been happening, so the U3 rate is essentially meaningless.

The problem is that when workers move from U3 to U4 and above, U3 goes down, but it paints an artificial and misleading appearance of growth. That is what has been happening, so the U3 rate is essentially meaningless. Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

It's not meaningless, it's just a different metric. Here's a more realistic number and it's 7.2%. Far from the 10.8 that this thread was predicated on.

http://www.epi.org/publication/missing-workers/

The problem is that when workers move from U3 to U4 and above, U3 goes down, but it paints an artificial and misleading appearance of growth. That is what has been happening, so the U3 rate is essentially meaningless. Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

No.

Here is a graph that shows the U-3 (official), U-5, and U-6 rates all on the same chart:
http://www.macrotrends.net/1377/u6-unemployment-rate


ALL these rates peak in early 2010, and ALL have dropped down to near where they were at the beginning of the Great Recession.


IF YOUR ASSERTION WERE CORRECT, you would expect to see the U-6 rate get larger in comparison to the U-3 rate. It hasn't.

In fact, the spread between the U-6 and the U-3 has DECREASED. This shows that underemployment (the movement you discuss) HAS ACTUALLY DECREASED in comparison to the U-3 rate.



Sorry, but as this chart shows, you are 100% incorrect.

It's exception. Look, the numbers are easily found by googling them. You don't want to see them though. Remain ignorant. I don't care. You demand proof from me, but you go on a rampage of verbal diarrhea, laying out all these things he has done, with no proof. Prove it or retire from the field of battle, turd. He did nothing for the economy? Then how are we so much better off after what happened in 2009? Originally Posted by WombRaider

Funny, how you never posted them isn't it? You're a liar and Penis Lover is your master.

It's not meaningless, it's just a different metric. Here's a more realistic number and it's 7.2%. Far from the 10.8 that this thread was predicated on.

http://www.epi.org/publication/missing-workers/ Originally Posted by WombRaider

If I believed this then your new number is almost as far from the White House "truth" as mine is. Sad that you're so dumb you don't see that. You can take it up with the WSJ, NYT, Bloomberg, CNN, and Fox who all agree with me.

You have to ask yourself. If the economy is so good, why aren't more people feeling it and why are wages and GDP stagnant?

Because nearly all jobs created have gone to the low(er) wage immigrant worker. The Obama recovery has almost entirely benefited foreign-born workers, to the tune of 3 to 1 relative to native-born Americans!

You have to ask yourself. If the economy is so good, why aren't more people feeling it and why are wages and GDP stagnant?

Because nearly all jobs created have gone to the low(er) wage immigrant worker. The Obama recovery has almost entirely benefited foreign-born workers, to the tune of 3 to 1 relative to native-born Americans! Originally Posted by Whirlaway

Earlier you said ALL the jobs went to foreigners. Now it's only 3 to 1. Which is it, liar?

Funny, how you never posted them isn't it? You're a liar and Penis Lover is your master. Originally Posted by JD Barleycorn

Your ignorance isn't my responsibility to fix.