• 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!

U.S. Unemployment Falls to Lowest Level Since May 2008[W:489, 497]

Status
Not open for further replies.
imagep said:
That's good news, it's dropped 7% from it's peak in 2009 and it's lower now than it was when Bush left office. Are you just looking for a way to bash the Bush administration? If so, you are succeeding.
Click to expand...

After almost 7 years and after 8.2 trillion added to the debt, 10.8% represents almost 17 million unemployed/under employed/discouraged workers plus others doesn't appear to be good news to me. How many of those 17 million people would have benefited better had the 8.2 trillion added to the debt been used to actually promote economic growth and job creation? It really is too bad that the percentage number is the focus of liberals when it is good but the rest of the story is ignored.
 
 
Conservative said:
Please show me the month that discouraged workers are less than they were with Bush? Do you think the economic results generated by Obama justify the 8.2 trillion added to the debt? Are liberal standards really that low?
Click to expand...
July 2008 - January 2009 U-4 was higher than current.
 
Conservative said:
Do you think the economic results generated by Obama justify the 8.2 trillion added to the debt?
Click to expand...

The increase in debt isn't Obama's fault. You jerks put the country into the hospital and Obama has put it back to work. Now you complain that he's responsible for the medical bills.

>>Are liberal standards really that low?

No. Clinton put up big surpluses. Bush's friends gave us big deficits. Some people who call themselves conservatives can't see that.
 
pinqy said:
July 2008 - January 2009 U-4 was higher than current.
Click to expand...

I was talking discouraged workers so apparently BLS got it wrong. Did you call them and let them know?


I know this is hard for people like you to understand but here we are almost 7 years into the Obama Administration, 8.2 trillion more in debt and the discouraged number is higher than when he took office. Apparently low standards are the norm in the liberal world.

I remember well when Bush had unemployment under 5% and discouraged workers under 500,000 that it was called the worst economy since Hoover and now the unemployment rate is higher than 5% with discouraged workers over 700,000 and Obama is the savior of our economy. How do you explain the disconnect? Guess you buy the liberal media spin and pass on the false information without verifying it.
 
mmi;1064625375]The increase in debt isn't Obama's fault. You jerks put the country into the hospital and Obama has put it back to work. Now you complain that he's responsible for the medical bills.
Click to expand...

That is your opinion but as with most liberals you buy the media spin. Tell me how this recession affected you and your family? Those jerks as you call them must include the Democrat controlled Congress but apparently you have a very selective memory

No. Clinton put up big surpluses. Bush's friends gave us big deficits. Some people who call themselves conservatives can't see that.
Click to expand...

Really? Clinton surpluses? Can you show me the Treasury data, you know the bank account of the U.S., that shows those surpluses?

Debt to the Penny (Daily History Search Application)

Looks to me like he added 1.4 trillion to the debt so don't you think that a surplus would show a reduction??
 
pinqy said:
July 2008 - January 2009 U-4 was higher than current.
Click to expand...

Interesting, what people like mmi do is show that liberals buy rhetoric and never verify the accuracy. I posted the discouraged worker numbers so either you got it wrong or BLS. My bet is that you got it wrong yet mmi gives you a like for posting distorted information.
 

Obama didn't put it back to work, he put it into Hospice.

And Clinton had a GOP Congress, remember ?
 
Conservative said:
I was talking discouraged workers so apparently BLS got it wrong. Did you call them and let them know?
Click to expand...
The U-4 is Unemployed plus Discouraged workers as a percent of the Labor Force plus Discouraged workers.

We have more people now than in 2008, which is why rates are used. As a percent of the labor force plus discouraged, there are fewer unemployed and discouraged now than then.



I know this is hard for people like you to understand but here we are almost 7 years into the Obama Administration, 8.2 trillion more in debt and the discouraged number is higher than when he took office.
Click to expand...
But it was going up when he took office and took a while to go down. What you're doing is acting as if the fact that the number is slightly higher now means it was continuously going up, when the reality was it continued to go up but now is on the way down.
 

Apparently you didn't know what the U-4 was. Odd.
 

Wonder why it didn't take so long when Reagan was in office nor did it take 8.2 trillion added to the debt to still have a higher number than when the recession began and when Obama took office?

You simply buy the rhetoric and ignore the incompetence and lack of leadership. Yes, it was going up when he took office and after a 842 billion stimulus it took another two plus years for the numbers to begin dropping plus trillions added to the debt. Absolutely stunning how low your standards apparently are and how little you understand about leadership or in the case of Obama the lack of leadership

When exactly does the debt, the high number of U-6 people, low economic growth become a concern to you
 
pinqy said:
Apparently you didn't know what the U-4 was. Odd.
Click to expand...

Apparently unemployed, under employed, discouraged worker numbers don't matter to you. 8.2 trillion added to the debt and still the discouraged workers are higher than when he took office and the U-6 rate 2 points higher than when the recession began. Apparently a liberal success story based upon very low standards and expectations.
 
Conservative said:
Wonder why it didn't take so long when Reagan was in office
Click to expand...
When exactly does the debt, the high number of U-6 people, low economic growth become a concern to you
Click to expand...
If the U-6 was going up, it would be a concern. It has been coming down, so it's not.

Conservative said:
Apparently unemployed, under employed, discouraged worker numbers don't matter to you. .
Click to expand...

You only mentioned discouraged, so that's what I responded to.
 

I like how you jump around...you use discouraged level comparing Jan 2009 to now and dismiss the U-4 rate, which was higher, but for U-6, which was 14.2% when Obama took office, you ignore that and go back to pre-recession.

Why are you using different dates like that?
 
pinqy said:
If the U-6 was going up, it would be a concern. It has been coming down, so it's not.



You only mentioned discouraged, so that's what I responded to.
Click to expand...

The question should be why doesn't the debt and still high U-6 rate bother you? It remains in record high area after trillions spent to bring it down. When do actual results become an issue to you.

You believe cutting the deficit in half but still in record high range is a good thing? Do you believe that cutting the U-6 rate down but still in record high range is a good thing? Seems that low standards are what motivates liberals especially those who blame Bush for everything that happened when he was in office.

Kept hearing over and over again that when the unemployment rate was under 5% and the deficit under 400billion, and the discouraged workers under 500,000 that this was the worst economy since Hoover

https://books.google.com/books?id=Q...his is the worst economy since Hoover&f=false

But now the unemployment rate is higher, the discouraged workers is higher, the GDP growth lower, the debt is higher and Obama is called the savior. why the disconnect and why do good people like you continue to buy the rhetoric?
 

I don't jump around at all and have been using the unemployed, under employed, discouraged workers the entire time. I use discouraged workers because it remains at record levels especially compared to Bush and discouraged workers are part of the equation that affects the official unemployment rate and puts the economy in true perspective.

What doesn't make a lot of sense is that the number went to 1.2 million after an 842 billion stimulus and two years after implementation. Wonder why all those people stopped looking for work with such a strong leader and economy under Obama?
 
Conservative said:
I don't jump around at all and have been using the unemployed, under employed, discouraged workers the entire time.
Click to expand...

You compared the LEVEL of discouraged workers from January 2009 to now.
You compared the U-6 from Dacember 2007 to now. Why the two different dates?
 
pinqy said:
You compared the LEVEL of discouraged workers from January 2009 to now.
You compared the U-6 from Dacember 2007 to now. Why the two different dates?
Click to expand...

December 2007 is when the recession began, that is the recession Obama claimed he had the answers to solve. Discouraged workers are part of the number in 2007, 2009 when he took office, and 2015 today after 8.2 trillion added to the debt. You tell me when you want to compare the numbers to? Didn't the Democrats control Congress in 2007-2011? Didn't the stimulus get passed and signed in February 2009?

How do you think we should judge Obama's performance? He was elected to get us back to pre recession levels and still hasn't done that. You claim to not be an Obama supporter and yet all you do is defend the indefensible. The numbers and the cost to generate those numbers make you look foolish and a typical liberal.
 
It's just that the U-6 was HIGHER when Obama took office than it is now, but you ignore that and go back to 2007 when it was lower. Discouraged LEVEL but not RATE was higher when Obama took office so you were ok with that.

When Obama took office, the U-6 rate was 14.2% and went up to 17.2%. How low does it have to go before you say it's improving?



How do you think we should judge Obama's performance? .
Click to expand...
By a single standard and not cherry picking data and times to make present him in the worst light and ignoring any improvement at all.
 
Last edited:
Conservative said:
... now the unemployment rate is higher, the discouraged workers is higher, the GDP growth lower, the debt is higher and Obama is called the savior. why the disconnect and why do good people like you continue to buy the rhetoric?
Click to expand...

Pretty much, anyone would have looked like the savior, compared to Bush. A Magic 8 Ball or a barrel full of monkeys could have done a better job that Bush. Bush lowered the bar so much that any community organizer POTUS would have looked like a hero.

It doesn't really matter that Obama's performance has been pathetic, buy comparison, it's still better than Bush's. Three Bush terms, three wars, three recessions.
 
[/QUOTE]

Don't you think when Obama signed and passed a stimulus program at a cost of 842 billion that the U-6 rate ought to drop? When do actual costs play into your analysis of the results? How low do the numbers need to go, back to pre recession levels. Isn't that what we were promised or the claims made?
 

That is your opinion and exactly what I would expect from someone Gruber was describing. Actual results are always trumped by media rhetoric and those too lazy to verify what they are told.

You claim that Obama's performance is better than Bush's yet offer nothing except a comparison to 2008. Bush was in office 7 years prior to 2008 and yet those numbers mean nothing to you. Wonder why? Name for me that average Obama result better than Bush's? Unemployment? NO, GDP? NO, better debt? NO

Where do you get your numbers and please stop making Gruber look brilliant.
 

It took Bush being asleep at the wheel for seven years our economy to become screwed up, and it's taken another 7 years for it to repair itself. Sounds about right to me.

What we don't need are anymore Bush recessions or Bush wars.
 
imagep said:
It took Bush being asleep at the wheel for seven years our economy to become screwed up, and it's taken another 7 years for it to repair itself. Sounds about right to me.

What we don't need are anymore Bush recessions or Bush wars.
Click to expand...

Again, it is absolutely stunning that people like you still cannot get over Bush and use your perceptions to ignore the actual Obama results. It wasn't the Bush war it was passed by a Democrat controlled Senate 76-23.

It is amazing to me that when we were told that less than 5% unemployment, less than 500,000 discouraged workers, strong positive economic growth, 400 billion in deficits that this was the worst economy since Hoover, yet today with more than 700,000 discouraged workers, over 5% unemployment, a record 8.2 trillion added to the debt, stagnant economic growth, Obama's results are trumpeted and the best you can do is distort the Bush record. What is it about Obama supporters that create such a very selective memory and such loyal support?
 

Nothing is good or bad without something to compare it to. I otherwords, nothing is absolute. Presidential performance is just the same.

Like if I told you that I am 6 kritans tall and weigh 200 zigars, that would mean nothing in itself. It's only when you understand the units of measurement, and have some sort of baseline concept that my height of 6 kritans and weight of 200 zigars means anything.

Most conservatives seem to be OK with the performance of our country under Bush, thus they set an exceptionally low baseline. Compared to that baseline, Obummer is a wonderful POTUS. Now if you compared Obummer to a different president, like Reagan, then depending on the metric, Obummer could still be wonderful, or he could be terrible.

In my opinion, Obummer is the worst Dem president during my lifetime, and Reagan was the best republican president. I find it hillarious when people compare Obummer to Reagan (the worst of one set to the best of a different set), a better comparison would be Obummer to W Bush (the worst of each set).
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Menu
Log in
Register
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more…