Gallup: Unemployment drops down to 8.1%, lowest level yet.

Real easy to see why there is no link in the OP.

 

e) This analogy is stupid.

 

thats only because you didnt have a jimmy carter bubble as the lead in....but the numbers dont lie

 

Yes, those are the U1 statistics that you chose simply because they were the most flattering numbers on the page. Not that useful when looking at the whole picture, though, especially since the number of people unemployed for 15 weeks or longer is going to be the most skewed, since so many are no longer being counted.

I'm sure if we limited the data to just doctors with 20 years of experience, we'd have a very low unemployment rate to report.

 

Explain how real Unemployment can be under 10% if the *Total Work Force
is not taken into account.Using* U3 data to establish** U5 reality is cheating.It's
what literally marks this Administration.Just a bunch of croocks,Cronies and
Cheats.

** between around 2 million former employed and now out of work employees
are no longer counted because they no longer qualify for the 99 weeks unemployment.
If they don't go out looking for work then employers can't count them.
And if they DO go to employers looking for jobs and fill out job applications
and report it as data then the Government can manipulate that.

* U3 or underemployed who may work as little as a single hour per week.

 

The unemployment rate was already declining when Clinton assumed the Presidency, and he also cut taxes in his 1993 proposal. Either way, Obama is no Clinton. Obama rejected the Simpson-Bowls Commission recommendation, which was his best chance to actually accomplish something.

 

sort of the way is was rising when Obama took office?

 

LMAO!

Yes, those numbers you posted are U5 statistics that you chose simply because they were the more unflattering. Not that useful when looking at the whole picture, though, especially since the number of people "marginally attached" are not out looking for a job and because when unemployment is referenced, U-3 is what is commonly meant.

 

Too bad there is no evidence at all to suggest that raising capital gains taxes will actually increase revenues. And if you think the paltry sum it is estimated to yield will actually help us pay down the debt, you are dreaming.

 

Theses discussions were very revealing.

If the size of the U.S. labor force as a share of the total population was the same as it was when Barack Obama took office—65.7 percent then vs. 63.7 percent today—the U-3 unemployment rate would be 11.0 percent.

"Then there’s the broader, U-6 measure of unemployment which includes the discouraged plus part-timers who wish they had full time work. That unemployment rate is still a sky-high 15.1 percent."

"The January jobs report is out and it seems pretty strong, at least superficially. The unemployment rate fell to 8.3 percent from 8.5 percent, the lowest rate since February 2009. And the economy added 243,000 jobs, the most since April 2011.

But does anyone believe an “official” unemployment rate of 8.3 percent really gives an accurate picture of the U.S. labor market? Even though the unemployment rate fell, so did the labor force participation rate (as more Americans became discouraged and gave up looking for work). Here’s what that means:

1. If the size of the U.S. labor force as a share of the total population was the same as it was when Barack Obama took office—65.7 percent then vs. 63.7 percent today—the U-3 unemployment rate would be 11.0 percent.

2. But let’s not go all the way back to January 2009. In January 2011, the unemployment rate was 9.1 percent with a participation rate of 64.2 percent. If that were the participation rate today, the unemployment rate would be 8.9 percent, instead of 8.3 percent. As an analysis from Hamilton Place Strategies concludes, “Most of the shift of the past year is due not to the improvement in the labor market, but the continued drop in participation in the labor force.”

3. Now, to be fair, some of the decline in the participation rate is aging Baby Boomers dropping out of the labor force. But taking that into account still doesn’t get us very far, as HPS notes:

Demographic projections expect that participation rate to be at 65.3 percent. If that full participation rate is the goal, our economy is “missing” 3.8 million workers, up from the 3.4 million we noted in the white paper. The unemployment rate in that context has not budged at 10.4 percent.

4. Then there’s the broader, U-6 measure of unemployment which includes the discouraged plus part-timers who wish they had full time work. That unemployment rate is still a sky-high 15.1 percent.

5. If the participation rate does level off at its current rate, according to HPS, the economy would need to generate 231,000 jobs per month to get below 8 percent unemployment by Election Day. If the participation rate continues its downward slide, however, that number would be much lower—perhaps as low as 131,000 jobs a month (see below chart). But such a decline wouldn’t necessarily be good news.

http://blog.american.com/2012/02/wh...mber-and-what-it-means-for-obamas-reelection/

 

Deficit Reduction Act of 1993 was a huge tax increase by any measure, and flooded the Treasury with revenues that grew far faster than the economy and was the principal reason we got to a surplus budget in 2000.

Republicans of the day weren't claiming it would kill jobs and destory the economy because it was a tax cut.

Nice attempted usurpation.

 

It will have dropped even further by the time of the election and Obama will win again.

 

That will remain to be seen. But if the rate drops below 8.0% I'd give Obama the edge.

 

Let us know when you get a time machine so you can switch Obama and Clinton.

 

It will increase tax revenues on realized capital gains. That is a mathematical certainty.

I've seen the estimate, but no one has been able to explain how a significant tax increase on folks who take about 15% of the $13 trillion in gross income in the country could be that low.

 

Whihc was the height of irresponsibility.Obama ran around touting the great
Simpson-Bowles Commission and then when they came back after months
of due dilligence with heavy suggestions on entitelment reform Obama
gave them the under-the-Bus treatment.Refused to even mention their
Commission recommendation ever again.

 

You are such a little hoodwinker.Reagan and Bush 43 both proved the EXACT Opposite.
Lower rates and especially capital gains and reap record receipts to the Treasury.
Reagan DOUBLED Carters Revenue from $500 Billion to a neat $1 Trillion.
Bush had 3-4 years of record receipts to the Treasury after has Tax cuts.
Bush also maintained around 5% unemployment.

 

Nice way of displaying ignorance of the economy.

http://www.davemanuel.com/investor-dictionary/marginally-attached-worker/

 

Revenues went from $517 billion in 1980 to $909 billion in 1988. A big chunk of that growth is from inflation, and another big chunk of it was from Reagan raising SS taxes.
SS tax revenues
1980 157.8
1988 334.3
Percent change: 111%

Income tax revenues
1980 244.1
1988 401.2
Percent change: 64%

Take out the inflation effects and the income tax increase was much more paltry.

Reagan got some extra growth by shifting the tax burden from the wealthiest to the poorer.

Which should leave no surprise why only the rich got richer over most the past 30 years, excepting when Clinton was in offfice.

 

Funny, but when people write something like that they usually do it by showing something the other person wrote was wrong or incorrect to demonstrate the display of ignorance.

 

those bastards! tell them to quit trying to get an education and start applying at taco bell

 

It's not about raising revenue. Obama admits it, right here. It's about "fairness". According to liberals, even if revenues drop, we must raise capital gains taxes.

[video=youtube;54jr3Ceu894]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=54jr3Ceu894[/video]

 

Yeah, working for a living would be beneath them and their "Gender Studies" degree. Better to not have a part time job, and to leech off the tax payer and their parents as long as possible. That's far more dignified.

 

Just cut Government wasteful spending.

 

you have a very warped view of education......not everyone wants a career working the french fry station.

and this may shock you, not everyone who goes to school needs to leech off anyone.