Has unemployment increased on Obama's watch?
FanOreilly
2011/12/12 21:00:56
|
|
|||||
|
266 votes
|
|
91% | ||
|
27 votes
|
|
9% | ||
Debbie Wasserman Schultz aka 'Debbie Downer' head of the DNC made an amazing claim on Fox News...remember, the news network liberals hate?
Wasserman Schultz: Unemployment is nearing right around where it was when President Obama took office and it's dropping. You just said it's been increasing and that's not true.
Actually, Debbie what Gretchen said was:
Gretchen Carlson, FOX News: Unemployment has gone up precipitously since he took office.
I am no mathamagician but by my calculations, unemployment has gone up on Obama's watch...but then of course I went to government schools so I may be wrong.
So is Debbie Downer wrong on quoting Gretchen and wrong on unemployment or does she just have a poor short-term memory?
Has unemployment gone up under Obama?
Wasserman Schultz: Unemployment is nearing right around where it was when President Obama took office and it's dropping. You just said it's been increasing and that's not true.
Actually, Debbie what Gretchen said was:
Gretchen Carlson, FOX News: Unemployment has gone up precipitously since he took office.
I am no mathamagician but by my calculations, unemployment has gone up on Obama's watch...but then of course I went to government schools so I may be wrong.
So is Debbie Downer wrong on quoting Gretchen and wrong on unemployment or does she just have a poor short-term memory?
Has unemployment gone up under Obama?
Read More: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2011/12/12/...
Top Opinion
-
Yes, unemployment has increased on Obama's watch
+36They will get another bunch of occupiers to rape, riot and defecate in public to distract us from the facts.
The truth is that the actual unemployment rate is far higher than 8.6%. The recent drop in unemployment is a fake statistical trick achieved by not counting people who have been unemployed for over 6 months who have stopped looking for jobs.
And this 8.6% figure doesn't count all the people out of work who are self-employed or freelance workers. If you factor in those people and the folks who have dropped off the Unemployment Insurance rolls, the actual unemployment rate is 14-18% currently.
What she said is fundamentally true. "Unemployment is nearing right around where it was when President Obama took office and it's dropping. You just said it's been increasing and that's not true."
Unemployment has been going down for the last two years, and it is within one point of what it was when GW Bush left office.
Unemployment is not meaured any differently now than whe GW was in office, or when Clinton was in office, or when that idiotic bobble-headed B actor, Reagan, was in office.
The "actual unemployment" as you phrase it, has always been higher than the unemployment rate.
So what are you whining about?
I am having trouble getting links to graphs and charts to transfer, or I would show you.
I see you haven't provided any proof either.
If you look at a graph of the monthly unemployment rate however, you will see that it has dropped, with a few hiccups, fairly steadily since October 2009.
And don't use Right Wing Nut Jobs sites as your evidence. You obviously won't get a clear picture of reality from them.
How is unemployment calculated differently under the Obama adminstration than it was for other administrations? Provide a source if you can. Really, I'm interested. If there is a real difference, I want to know what it is. I have not been able to find any source stating a difference in calculation methodology.
And no, Debbie Wasserman-Schultz is not a liar. Not really.
The official unemployment rate is in fact within one point of what it was when GW left office after havint fallen steadily since October 2009.
Look it up . . . Remember to use a reputable source and not some ridiculously bogus Right Wing BS, as is your habit.
............ Ok, this seems to work now. Now you can verify my claims for yourself.
http://www.google.com/publicd...
Use the above link. When the site comes up, go to the left an left click on "Unemployment Rate" the grap...
I am having trouble getting links to graphs and charts to transfer, or I would show you.
I see you haven't provided any proof either.
If you look at a graph of the monthly unemployment rate however, you will see that it has dropped, with a few hiccups, fairly steadily since October 2009.
And don't use Right Wing Nut Jobs sites as your evidence. You obviously won't get a clear picture of reality from them.
How is unemployment calculated differently under the Obama adminstration than it was for other administrations? Provide a source if you can. Really, I'm interested. If there is a real difference, I want to know what it is. I have not been able to find any source stating a difference in calculation methodology.
And no, Debbie Wasserman-Schultz is not a liar. Not really.
The official unemployment rate is in fact within one point of what it was when GW left office after havint fallen steadily since October 2009.
Look it up . . . Remember to use a reputable source and not some ridiculously bogus Right Wing BS, as is your habit.
............ Ok, this seems to work now. Now you can verify my claims for yourself.
http://www.google.com/publicd...
Use the above link. When the site comes up, go to the left an left click on "Unemployment Rate" the graph should appear.
Put your cursor on the graph, and it will show you the month and the unemployment rate. You will see that everything I have told you is absolutely true.
Unemployment went from a high of 10.1 percent in October 2009, over two years ago, to the 8.6 percent it is now.
Are you seriously disputing the unemployment numbers that the Obama administration has reported itself? For goodness sakes! It's a matter of public record, not a claim I alone am making based on some partisan source. I can't believe I'm even having this conversation. You are demanding proof for something so basic and uncontroversial that I get the feeling I'm having a conversation with a crazy person.
And are you seriously disputing that the Obama administration has consistently used the metric of "jobs created or saved"? Where have you been for the past three years? Do you pay any attention whatsoever to the news? Here's a story from NPR so you won't whine about linking to Right-wing sources: http://www.npr.org/blogs/thet...
If you can't be honest enough to acknowledge the brute fact that unemployment is higher today than it was when Obama took office, or that the official rate has remained above 9% for most of the past 2 years, then there's no point in continuing this conversation. You're obviously going to stubbornly believe whatever you want to believe, and frankly, at this point you're just wasting my time.
Debbie Wasserman-Schultz was lying when she claimed that unemployment didn't increase since Obama took office. It did. 10...
Are you seriously disputing the unemployment numbers that the Obama administration has reported itself? For goodness sakes! It's a matter of public record, not a claim I alone am making based on some partisan source. I can't believe I'm even having this conversation. You are demanding proof for something so basic and uncontroversial that I get the feeling I'm having a conversation with a crazy person.
And are you seriously disputing that the Obama administration has consistently used the metric of "jobs created or saved"? Where have you been for the past three years? Do you pay any attention whatsoever to the news? Here's a story from NPR so you won't whine about linking to Right-wing sources: http://www.npr.org/blogs/thet...
If you can't be honest enough to acknowledge the brute fact that unemployment is higher today than it was when Obama took office, or that the official rate has remained above 9% for most of the past 2 years, then there's no point in continuing this conversation. You're obviously going to stubbornly believe whatever you want to believe, and frankly, at this point you're just wasting my time.
Debbie Wasserman-Schultz was lying when she claimed that unemployment didn't increase since Obama took office. It did. 10.1% is a larger percentage than 7.7%. 9.2% is a larger percentage than 7.7%. Even 8.6% is a larger percentage than 7.7%. I don't see how you or DWS can say otherwise, yet that's what you seem to be arguing. The interviewer asserted the fact that unemployment rose under Obama, and she was right. Just because it edged down last month doesn't mean it hasn't been over 9% for over two years.
Here's text straight from the Bureau of Labor Statistics:
"The unemployment rate fell by 0.4 percentage point to 8.6 percent in November, and nonfarm payroll employment rose by 120,000, the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics reported today. Employment continued to trend up in retail trade, leisure and hospitality, professional and business services, and health care. Government
employment continued to trend down."
And:
"In November, the unemployment rate declined by 0.4 percentage point to 8.6 percent. From April through October, the rate held in a narrow range from 9.0 to 9.2 percent. The number of unemployed persons, at 13.3 million, was down by 594,000 in November. The labor force, which is the sum of the unemployed and employed, was down by a little more than half that amount. (See table A-1.)"
So in other words, November of this year is the first time since late 2009 that the unemployment rate has dropped below 9%. Do you understand? Do you also understand that 8.6% isn't a good unemployment percentage? It's nothing to be happy about. It doesn't even count all the millions of teenagers and college students who haven't been able to get their first job over the past three years, and therefore are totally uncounted in any estimate of the unemployment rate. Economists estimate that the economy needs to add between 150,000 to 200,000 new jobs every month just to keep up with new entrants into the job market. That means that over the past three years we needed to create between 5.4 million to 7.2 million new jobs just to keep the unemployment rate flat at 7.7% when Obama took office. That hasn't happened. Not even close. The fact remains that 8.6% unemployment is bad news, no matter how you or DWS want to try to spin it.
You can read the full BLS report here: http://www.bls.gov/news.relea...
Yes, unemployment today is higher than it was when Obama took office, but only .8 percent higher, down from its high of 10.1 percent in October 2009.
In other words, uemployment has, on average, been going down for the last two years.
And no, Debbie Wasserman did not claim "that unemployment didn't increase since Obama took office."
She said this:
"Unemployment is nearing right around where it was when President Obama took office and it's dropping. You just said it's been increasing and that's not true."
Learn how to read Dan, and quit making giant leaps of illogic.
Don't you think there's some funny accounting going on here?
Even Left-wing blogger/Washington Post contributor Ezra Klein agrees that the unemployment rate is 11%.
http://www.washingtonpost.com...
Debbie claimed that unemployment is dropping, but it has remained flat at about 9% for over two years. A one month drop of .6% after years of flatlined unemployment is not "nearing right around where it was when President Obama took office and it's dropping."
I would also add that a miniscule drop in unemployment during the annual holiday season is not evidence that unemployment is actually dropping. All it means is that retailers and service industry companies are hiring temporary seasonal workers for the holidays -- just like they do every year. It's a completely unremarkable phenomenon. As soon as the holidays are past, those people will be out on their backsides and unemployment will increase again.
This is from the article you cited:
"According to government statistics, if the same number of people were seeking work today as in 2007, the jobless rate would be 11 percent."
And that makes perfect sense.
Population is continually increasing. That means that the Labor Force is growing proportionally.
Unemployment Rate = (Unemployed/Labor Force) x 100
With everything else being constant, a larger Labor Force creates a smaller Unemployment Rate.
Therefore, with the same number of unemployed but with a large Labor Force, the unemployment rate is less.
All this wild speculation by Right Wingers about some sort of conspiracy involving number manipulation is just plain stupid.
BTW, if you don't understand the math, take it to a seventh grader and have him or her explain it to you.
No, because (as I mentioned earlier in this conversation) new would-be entrants into the labor force are not, in fact, entering into the labor force, because not enough jobs are being created every month (120K-200K needed) to absorb those new entrants. They remain unemployed and unaccounted for under the current method of calculating the unemployment rate, just as those who have given up actively looking for work are no longer counted as unemployed under the current method. The labor force has contracted at the same time that the population has increased, and there's nothing proportional about it.
"Therefore, with the same number of unemployed but with a large Labor Force, the unemployment rate is less."
Again, no, we're not talking about the same number of unemployed. It's an ever-growing number of unemployed due to population growth alone. Teens and college students and recent graduates who are looking for their first job are not getting hired and are therefore not being counted, at the rate of about 150,000 to 200,000 per month. Over the course of the past three years alone, that means there are between 5.4 million and 7.2 million unemployed young people who have never been coun...
No, because (as I mentioned earlier in this conversation) new would-be entrants into the labor force are not, in fact, entering into the labor force, because not enough jobs are being created every month (120K-200K needed) to absorb those new entrants. They remain unemployed and unaccounted for under the current method of calculating the unemployment rate, just as those who have given up actively looking for work are no longer counted as unemployed under the current method. The labor force has contracted at the same time that the population has increased, and there's nothing proportional about it.
"Therefore, with the same number of unemployed but with a large Labor Force, the unemployment rate is less."
Again, no, we're not talking about the same number of unemployed. It's an ever-growing number of unemployed due to population growth alone. Teens and college students and recent graduates who are looking for their first job are not getting hired and are therefore not being counted, at the rate of about 150,000 to 200,000 per month. Over the course of the past three years alone, that means there are between 5.4 million and 7.2 million unemployed young people who have never been counted in the unemployment rate calculations.
I'm not talking about any sort of conspiracy theory at all. I'm talking about a fundamental deficiency in the method of calculating the real unemployment rate. Almost everyone seems to agree that the real unemployment rate is significantly higher than the official unemployment rate. For you to try to characterize my comments as a conspiracy theory is ridiculous.
And give it a rest with the petty insults. I know how to read and I know how to do math, jackass. You're no smarter or better educated than me, and it doesn't make your argument any more persuasive to belittle and insult me.
Labor Force = the Total Number of People Available to Work
Unemployed = People who are not working
The number of people in the labor force who are not working are the unemployed.
And the labor force will grow more or less propotionately with the population. A person does not have to be employed to be in the labor force.
You are really overcomplicating things with all of your misunderstandings.
You had better go and find that seventh grader.
The Labor Department's statistics don't include the underemployed and those who have stopped looking for work. This alternative measure creates a much higher number.
What's the real unemployment rate?
John Williams, a statistician and economist, says the real unemployment figure including all discouraged workers who stopped looking for work is closer to a staggering 22.6%.
The treacherous, traitorous behavior of Republicans knows no bounds.
The idea of actually harming citizens for political gain is just revolting to me.
At least, we can count on Obama and the Democrats to work FOR the people and not against the people like the Repugnant ones do.
Obama for President in 2012 !
Why?
That's right, it will effect the amount of money in our Social Security Locked Box.
The idea is to help people now when times are rough, and when things pickup, to reinstate the regular payroll taxes.
Does that not make sense?
I assume you're a Republican hard liner who will not budge an inch on repealing the Bush tax cuts for the Rich . . . for the people who are not facing hard times, but you're all upset about tax relief for the middle class who are facing hard times.
Please explain your reasoning. I don't get it.
Oh . . . and one more thing . . . what does this little diversion have to do with the unemployment rate, the subject of the poll?
You must have me confused with another Lee.
At any rate, you don't have to pay this money from your paycheck to the government anymore.
It's money that you would otherwise be made to pay into the govenment.
A tax is what most people call money they are compelled to pay the govenment.
And when you are no longer forced to pay a tax, most people would call that a tax cut or a tax break.
But you don't have to call it that.
Why don't you go ahead and make a name up for it that you like better?
I'm so excited. I can't wait to see what you come up with.
That's what intragovenmental borrowing involves. That's when one agency borrows from another agency. The debt is called intragovernmenal debt.
What Obama is doing is a little different from that. Instead of taking from social security to lend to another agency, he is simply giving money directly back to the people.
I can understand his position. These are hard times. A lot of people don't make as much as they used to, and its nice to have a little something extra left over.
Of course, this won't last forever. Hopefully next year things will be better, and we can start collecting FICA again.
At least the government is giving instead of taking away this time.
The biggest problem with manufacturing is the fact that the cost of labor here is so high compared to other nations.
An electrical engineer just out of college here is paid 80 thousand dollars (if he can find a job) and only four thousand in China. . . . Big difference.
I'm not sure that trade unions are the cause either. What carpenter here in the US is going to work for the five dollars a day they pay carpenters in China? It cannot be done.
A big part of the problem is the fact that corporations and investors here want to maximize profits, and of course that means minimizing expenses . . . so of course a lot of jobs are leaving the country.
If we cannot compete in manufacturing, then what is the answer?