Obama fights for credit as unemployment rate hits new low

Three years after unemployment peaked at 6.3% in June 2003, it was down 1.7 points to 4.6%. Three years ago unemployment was at 8.0%, giving Obama a 3.1 point drop in the same three year time frame. You're right, it doesn't even come close.

 

Sorry, relative to the increase in population since the 1950's and 1960's, the labor force participation during the Stagflation-plagued 70's was a really bad symptom of a sick economy. Hint: In 1955 the population of the U. S. was 166 million. In 1975 the population of the U. S. was 216 million. Ya with me so far;..? That's a 25% increase in population! Now, in 2016, after over seven years of "Obama-nomics" we've got the worst labor force participation rate since -- guess when -- 1975!

In January 2009 the U6 unemployment rate was 14.2%. What do I think it should be? Well... a HELL of a lot better than 9.9% today.... And what's scary is that it was 9.9% last November and December and January... even though that should have reflected a big improvement due to holiday season hiring. But, now that the air is starting to gush out of the enormous "fraud balloon" the Federal Reserve started inflating with imaginary money and other "stimulus", the U6 will probably stabilize near that 10% level. Welcome to "The New Reality", courtesy of Barack "useful idiot" Obama.

 

When labor force participation is measured as "a percent of the civilian noninstitutional population", it already takes the increase in population into account. The stagflation-plagued 70's is likely what caused this rate to increase, not an effect from it. as more families needed a second income just to break even. The fact that participation is declining while consumer confidence is increasing should tell you that our world is not about to end any time soon.

When the U6 unemployment rate has been dropping a full point every year for the last three years, don't expect it to suddenly stabilize any time soon.

 

Yes and when unable to refute the facts you make your fallacious proclamations of victory. The first sign someone has lost the argument...........again.

So try again and explain why it is better to have millions out of work and a need to create lots of new jobs than everyone working and making rising incomes...................

And do try to grow up and cease with the juvenile "your just mad nah nah nah" comments as if that discredits the facts.

 

When Obama moved to the White House, after being one of the Democrats in Congress who took over in 2007 and did little if anything to try and mitigate the slowdown that turned into that recession, the unemployment rate was 7.5%. He said his stimulus would keep unemployment to 8.0% and then quickly bring it down to 5.5%. Unemployment shot up to 10% and then stayed over 9% for FOUR YEARS and even as Sanders said the other day it is still really 8.5%, SEVEN YEARS LATER, because of the horrible labor participation rate.

So yeah doesn't even come close to 52 months of FULL EMPLOYMENT...............just amazing you would try to twist the stats to claim employment under Obama and the Democrat than Bush and the Republicans.

 

Which explains the demand for an unrealistic minimum wage.

 

Wait...so you're blaming the 2007 Recession (hint it began in 2007) on Dems who took their seats in 2007?

What legislation do you think they enacted or failed to enact that went into effect YEAR?

Hint #2. It doesn't work that way. Legislation passed in one year is enacted in the following year./

Sorry but that Disaster was the result of the Bush GOP Administration.

Own it...it's yours.

Oh and by the way...conservatives have repeatedly claimed that 5% is "full employment" as preposterous as that sounds...and we are below that now

 

Karellen was being fatalistic about his own race. We humans were destined to evolve beyond mere star travel. It's the point of the whole book. "Childhoods End" meant we were moving beyond being just human. As for what lies beyond, a new dimension was the idea.

The reality is U6. 9.9%

 

During Dubya's two terms in office he created 1.3 million new jobs. That is a dismal statistic for eight years in office as opposed to the number Obama has created in the face of a financial collapse that he inherited. And that is why your arguing points are ridiculous. And no, I stand by what I say. Your arguments bear no resemblance to logic or the real facts, because you are motivated by an obsession. And your apples to apples arguments have are laughable. I just happened to read post # 151 for example. It totally dismisses any real logical argument you can present as a defense for those stats. So no, blow all the victory horns you want to. The jury knows better. You were dismissed from this class a long time ago.

 

This is prime example of the obsession I was talking about. This post for all intensive purposes, doesn't even make sense. And look at the manner in which your dishonesty reveals itself. Post #145 I believe you said when 9/11 hit we went to 6.5% unemployment and then 52 months of straight job growth. You forgot to mention two things. First, Bush only created 1.3 million jobs in eight years, which was horrible, and now with this post, you complain that when the unemployment rate shot to 7.5% it was Obama's fault when the Democrats didn't even take over the house until 07. So, everything was great with 52 months of job growth but now we balloon to 7.5% when you said from post 145 it steadily went down after 9/11 from the big high of 6.5%. Lol! What happened after the 52 months? The Democrats didn't have the house then. And they can't be held responsible for the 7.5% because you said it just shot up at that point. But ha, according to you Bush had great job growth, lol, and the 6.5% of 9/11 steadily went down. And now you talk about a slow down which you failed to mention before. Again, what a laughable argument you've made, and the dishonesty with the inconsistencies in your stories are easy to pick out. That's why your arguments on this aren't worth the time.

 

What did I say that made you think I'm claiming those over 18 are not being counted correctly? I threw out 18 because I don't think a 16 yr old who doesn't have a job should be counted against the nation's employment numbers. However, I do think someone who quits looking for a job shouldn't cease to be counted in them either.

My argument is simply that we need to look at the actual unemployment numbers and not the useless ones the gov't uses.

 

No I blame them for the lack of recovery due to their failed policies. Learn the difference.

Nope but due tell me what legislation he he passed in 2007 that you claim caused it?

The Democrats took majority control in 2007, they own the results of their policies.........the worst recovery in our history. And the own that recession went as deep as it for the failure of their policies to mitigate it.

No economist do and thanks to the Republicans taking majority control last year we have finally gotten there but even that number is misleading due to the historically low labor participation rate. So for once Obama finally needs to do the right thing and get out of the way just as Clinton did and let the Republican pass economic recovery legislation that will work.

All Obama is offering is more of his failed policies, let's send more kids to college, lets have some more Solyndra's. We need jobs NOW, it's been 7 years and we are STILL behind. All Clinton is offering is more regulations, more employment cost, more tax plans to drive more capital out of the country, and we won't even go to the disaster Sanders would be.

 

WE HAD FULL EMPLOYMENT, what don't you understand. We didn't need to create millions of new jobs because everyone was working. That's why incomes rose, everyone was working and employers had to compete for employees. I tried to hire back then and you couldn't even get people to apply that were worth employing. With Obama because of his failed stimulus and allowing unemployment to hit 10% and stay over 9% for 4 years we DESPERATELY need new jobs and he hasn't come close to the numbers we need.

Why do you asset that desperating needing millions of new jobs and falling incomes is better than full employment and rising incomes and no great need to great more jobs, you can create better paying jobs.

They are back by the facts which you can't refute and total misunderstanding of what is and what isn't a strong growing economy.

OK give me your logical explaination of why desperating needing millions of new jobs and falling incomes is better than full employment and rising incomes and no great need to great more jobs, you can create better paying jobs.

Let's hear your "logic"

Stop posting like a child.

Read #155 and get a better understanding of unemployment and the numbers.

Let's see you think it illogical to believe having everyone working, no need to create new jobs you can concentrated on creating better paying jobs to replace them rather than millions out of work, the jobs that are available are lower paying part time jobs and desperately needing to create more new jobs, any jobs while having to support all those people of government subsistence rather than they being taxpayers.

Yes my logic is just totally flawed isn't it.

you can present as a defense for those stats. So no, blow all the victory horns you want to. The jury knows better. You were dismissed from this class a long time ago.[/QUOTE]

 

No I blame them for the lack of recovery due to their failed policies. Learn the difference.

Wait...you want a recovery from a Recession caused by the previous Administration and Congress to occur in the same year that the new Congress took it's seat? How does legislation that passes in 2007 and doesn't take effect until 2008 do that...and what legislation would that even be and would Bush have vetoed it?

None of that makes sense.

and Nope but due tell me what legislation he he passed in 2007 that you claim caused it?

You think that Recessions happen immediately upon the enaction of legislation? That Recession was a decade in the making and Graham-Bleech Liley was the legislation that spawned it...

 

This discussion started when you questioned the legitimacy of the 4.9% unemployment figure, and when I ask who is not being counted you say that "those who are over 18 who are able to work and aren't retired or receiving some kind of job training". What conclusion should I draw from those two statements?

16 year olds are not being counted if they are in school or not actively looking for work. But it is a fact that many 16 year olds quit school and join the labor market, so they should be counted along with adults when they cannot get a job.

Shouldn't that depend on why they quit looking? We've already agreed to exclude retirees, the disabled, and stay-home parents. How many people do you think left the labor force because they simply gave up?

And I'm simply asking you what these numbers are. Who produces unemployment numbers other than the Bureau of Labor Statistics?

 

No since the previous administration did not "cause" a recession. What I want are policies to mitigate the effects of a recession which we were due for after that LONG stretch of solid growth and full employment and then get us into a recovery, The Democrats with Obama failed on all accounts.

What doesn't make sense about the party in power passing legislation that actually helps the economy and the working people?

ROFL how do you make that leap in logic. When the Democrats took control we were NOT in a recession.

No it was not and in fact we had gone through a recession and recovery 5 years earlier.

What you are telling me is that it was just too hard for the Democrats and since it was all Bush's fault they were not obligated to do anything about it...........what utter folly.

 

Obama definitely deserves credit for presiding over the lowest labor participation rate since the Carter Administration.

Thank you Mr. President for ignoring the priorities of the American people and concentrating on your nihilistic project to fundamentally transform the United States of America.

 

Bush produced 1.3 million jobs in eight years, and that figure evaporated when unemployment hit 7.5% in 07, virtually putting his job creation tally almost back to zero. And seeing that Obama has produced in excess of 9 million jobs in the face of the Greatest recession in our lifetime, doesn't lend much credibility to your argument that somehow Obama is responsible for these folks dropping out. Unless of course.....

 

You can't make this any easier. So, with Bush, according to your own account unemployment went steadily down from 6.5% for 52 months only to go up to 7.5% at the beginning of April 2007 that you didn't bother telling about in your original argument. How convenient! . And according to you, during those years, if we averaged that out from lets say 5.5 % to 7.5 % that would average it out to 6.5 during his term, which according to you would be full employment for Bush. And yet 4.9% unemployment for Obama we are desperately needing more jobs, and that is somehow not full employment. Man please, give me a break. Here again,this is why your arguments are such a joke.You make this game so easy. Give it a rest.

 

And if we're lucky, he might even catch up with Ford, Nixon, Johnson, Kennedy, Eisenhower and Truman.

 

We can start with where you're getting your numbers from. The St. Louis Fed puts the natural rate of unemployment at 5% for most of Bush's time in office. So we only had full employment for the first 9 months he was in office and another 29 months between Jun-2005 and Nov-2007. Where did you ever get the idea that we had 52 months of full employment?

 

It's called sarcasm.

 

Yes when you have everyone working and the wages and salaries increasing you don't have to create a lot of new jobs. Why is it better, as under Obama, to have HUGE numbers out of work or underemployed and having a DESPERATE need to create new jobs?

And the Democrats took control of the government in 2007, the unemployment rate was 5.0.

 

bls.gov

Economist give a range or 6.5 - 5.5 as full employment. Although here they say somewhere between 2% - 7%, but's pretty broad. The number is higher now that in the past because we grow more mobile and job shifting becomes more the norm these days. If you split the difference to 6.0 then 52 months, if you drop it to 5.5 then 43 months. By which ever measure a very successful period of low unemployment with average labor participation rate. I couldn't hire people back then because everyone as already working, you could even get applications in even using agencies. So to compare the Bush "job creation" with Obama's is a strawman. Obama DESPERATELY needs new jobs while under Bush productivity was increased and wages and salaries grew.

 

so liberals say that we have full employment yet in the same breath say that immigration is a net zero to mexico (not south and central america). Meaning that jobs have become so scarce that mexicans have more faith in their economy to provide jobs than the US. makes sense given all the factories moving there.