Obama fights for credit as unemployment rate hits new low

They pay taxes too, more than their fair share. Democrats use taxing as a policy because god forbid they think of any other measures to stimulate the economy. The Republicans might be stuck, but the Democrats would sooner die on an ideological sword than change anything.

 

I know!!!
I myself, after 10 years of stagnant income, suddenly just got a 300% raise in salary! I couldn't believe it... my boss just heard the wonderful numbers put out by the Obama people and he was so elated he opened the purse strings. It was just like winning a lottery!

How many people do you know who are deliriously happy about their personal economic upswing?

 

You are not eligible for food stamps if you work full time at minimum wage unless you have many kids to support.

 

I would dearly love to know what kind of business you and your boss are in. You can't prove your miraculous story, any more than I can disprove it, but it is a very rare thing indeed for someone to get a 300% raise at any time. .... And you credit Barack Obama with your good fortune...?

But, congratulations! That would have been a very rare feat even back during truly great economic recoveries, like during Ronald Reagan's presidency! Uh, you aren't the boss' son or daughter are you...?!

 

I didn't say that either.

Actually respond to me and I'll respond to you.

And it was crystal clear you completely missed what I said, stop trying to cover. When I said 'should be working' I do not need to clarify that I'm not referring to children (one of the groups you inquired about) or the other groups you mentioned (children was just the worst one in your list)....you missed what I said, it's obvious you missed what I said, deal with it and move on.

 

[/QUOTE]

We're in agreement on Trump. If one checks out his stances on the issues, prior to him running for president as a Republican, his stances were left of center if not down right moderate Democrat. But all of that is forgotten once he said build the wall. Romney was the same, throwing a lifetimes of belief out the window to run for president. It is hard for me to see how the far right has fell in love with a guy with no core values.

 

In other words, you cannot find any video or transcript of Obama calling Republican's idiots in his first term. Thanks for playing.

 

How can you give the "Reagan Revolution" credit for increasing the labor force participation rate when it had already risen from 59% to 64% before he even took office?

 

You might want to check your math again. A family of 4 qualifies for food stamps if they earn less than $2,628 gross monthly income, while someone working full time at minimum wage only makes $1,256 a month gross. Even with both parents working full time at minimum wage, they would qualify.

 

In the first post that I replied to, you said that the 4.9% unemployment figure was not legitimate and that "those 100 million (not actually that many, but that's what straight ahead threw out) don't matter at all." You didn't bother to define who those 100 million were, just that they were not employed, so I am merely trying to ascertain who you think these people are. If they are not any of the groups that I listed, then please tell us who exactly are they?

 

.....

And the high end of that range is Walmart......

 

Truly.

About your signature line. Karellen meant the stars were too finite to hold us.

 

I didn't throw out the 100 million number, someone else did and I even said that they did.

But, the people who should be working are, IMO, those who are over 18 who are able to work and aren't retired or receiving some kind of job training.

What's it matter anyways? This was not the point of my argument. It seems you're going off on this tangent to prove some kind of a point but you've yet to make one.

 

The "hopey-changey" dynamic of the liberal mindset is always easy to see. Ensconced in these human meat-bag bodies, we have a lifespan that someday may be extended an average of 50 years to maybe something like 130 (?). Even at the speed of light, how far into the entire known universe could a human go if he were "launched" on the first day of his life...? Hint: 130 light years' travel in the known universe is probably less than the equivalent of walking out to your mail box.... But tell us, if in your interpretation "the stars were too finite to hold us", what do you think extends beyond them...?

Back on topic and the mundane issue of unemployment, do you also subscribe to the authenticity of the government's U3 report as it applies to the REALITY of today? I say that, based on its criteria, the U6 report is much more relevant: http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.t15.htm . Thus, the REAL unemployment rate is ~9.9%, and holding steady at that rate since the end of last October, the "Christmas rush" notwithstanding.

 

I believe that he was being facetious; go back and re-read his last sentence.

 

We had 52 months of full employment with average labor participation rates during the recovery and growth under Bush. We had rising middle class incomes. We had solid GDP growth.

Yes thar's the economy we need again.

 

Remarkable only in the fact this has been the worst recovery in our history so what victory lap? He has maintained a horrible economy and horrible employment situtation for 7 years.

 

The labor force participation rate stank in the 70's and now, after everything that hyperliberal Obama and the Federal Reserve (who pull his puppet strings) could do, the labor participation rate stinks as badly now as it did in the 70's: http://qz.com/286213/the-chart-obama-haters-love-most-and-the-truth-behind-it/ . Nevertheless, Obama-lovers will strain to the point of popping out a hemorrhoid to prove that the real unemployment rate is the U3 figure of 4.9% instead of the 9.9% shown in the much more relevant U6 report: http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.t15.htm .

To people who are so intent on deluding themselves I would suggest reading the DESCRIPTIONS of each report criterion and THEN continue your Obamanite pep-rally if you still really believe in it....

. Happy days are here again!

 

Whatever policies Bush had to create jobs, which were very little, left with him when his term was up, because the little positive job growth he produced before, was flushed down the toilet with the economic crash. Those jobs were all lost by the shedding of 800,000 jobs a month after he was gone for which he was directly responsible. Nice try, but in the end, Bush didn't create any jobs because of Reaganomics and loose banking practices.

 

It was called tax rate cuts, keep the increase in regulations to a minimum, and GET OUT OF THE WAY. Unemployment during the dot.com bust, the recession and then 9/11 hit a one month peak of 6.5% and then fell rapidly and we had 52 months of full employment at average labor participation rates. Obama and the Democrat never came close.

Yes after the 52 month period we were due for a recession, your point being what? How did the Democrats and Obama handle it.......horribly.

EVERYONE WAS WORKING............we didn't need a lot of job growth there were no workers left to fill new jobs, that is why incomes increased. Why does is everyone out of work and looking for jobs that aren't there better?

Yes the Democrats refused to take the proper actions in 2007 but then that rate bottomed out the month Obama moved to the White House and had rapidly receded before his failed stimulus even went into effect.

Again why do assert it is better to have tens of millions out of work looking for jobs that aren't there desperately needing to create new jobs and failing to do so better than having full employment and rising incomes?

 

When is Obama going to fight for credit for this?

Q4 GDP Advance Estimate at 0.7%, Down from Q3 Third Estimate

 

We've already done this rodeo many many times before and you've been schooled. Not going to go over it again.You have your hatred and you have your imaginary facts about what happened, and that's it. It's the same with the e-mail nonsense. You've hounded that for three years and what have you got to show for it; your own set of facts that don't exist.

And when we work through the weeds, which many of us have, you simply bring up the same old dried up stories over and over again that have nothing to do with the reality of what happened, and it's been proven.

 

In both 2014 and 2015, GDP finished out at 2.4%. Taking into consideration we crashed the economy in 08, it's looking pretty good. Investments are down, spending is down, people are cautious. Also, you have a Republican lead Congress that does nothing on purpose to keep confidence levels down, and that plays a huge role in GDP growth.

 

I know what the point of your argument is, that there are more unemployed people than the government is counting. I'm just trying to find out who you think these uncounted people are. Since BLS unemployment numbers include everyone who is over 16, what makes you think that those who are over 18 not being counted correctly? If you think this is a tangent to your point, then please explain.

 

Except the labor force participation rate increased from 60% to 64% during the 70's. If you think this stinks, then how did we ever survive the 50's and 60's when it was consistently below 60%? By the way, you might want to read the last paragraph in the article you linked to.

What was the U6 unemployment rate when Obama took office in 2009? What do you think is an acceptable U6 unemployment rate?