fairsheet
Senator
Norkalein, your description of what Corruptbhudda is trying to do here, is spot on. Thank you.
Rate Of Unemployed Not Seeking Work Highest Recorded
- Thread starter Corruptbuddha
- Start date
Someday, they'll have to take off the blinders. All data can be manipulated to obtain the desired result.
Wake up call! The manufacturing jobs are gone and won't return. This IS the new norm for this country. That said, when did the Tea Party take office? I notice we still have Pelosi and Company ...
degsme
Council Member
um GWB Crashed $800,000,000,0000 out of the GDP
He created a crash that was losing 820,000 jobs PER MONTH (The whole Civillian Labor force pool in the Great Depression was only 59 million, so that would be 1.5% unemploymnt growth PER MONTH in Great Depression Terms - and it was crashing for 9 mos prior to Obama taking office).
So how that is a case of THE CONSERVATIVES (not GWB's since this was conservatives at BOTH ends of Penn ave that did this one) economy "getting worse" as we get closer to the election cycle is rather beyond me.
Dino
Russian Asset
Yeah really, you just keep blowing it up. It started as the worst economy since the 1980's, Obama kicked in up to worst since the Great Depression, and you've decided it needs racheting up just a bit more to the worst in our history to make a case for Obama's reelection.
Add red shoes and a big tent and you'll be perfectly in character.
Add red shoes and a big tent and you'll be perfectly in character.
degsme
Council Member
Nope. It always was the worst Crash as a percent of GDP since the Great Depression and the worst crash in absolute terms in human history
it was the GOP that kept trying to play it down.
GDP collapse at 9% - which at GOP GDP growth rates is FOUR YEARS worth of growth per annum lost
Job Losses peaking at 820,000+ PER MONTH - 3/4% per month, for close to 14 mos solid.
Dino
Russian Asset
Blah blah blah, I quote the New York Times...
In the 2008 general election, Mr. Obama faced Senator John McCain of Arizona, a national icon on questions of national security and an advocate of political change who had little interest in economic issues. In an election dominated by the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression, this was a problem.
See? So spin and exaggerate and have a field day. Your credibility remains exactly where it's been since your first posts here, with the rats in the sewer.
In the 2008 general election, Mr. Obama faced Senator John McCain of Arizona, a national icon on questions of national security and an advocate of political change who had little interest in economic issues. In an election dominated by the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression, this was a problem.
See? So spin and exaggerate and have a field day. Your credibility remains exactly where it's been since your first posts here, with the rats in the sewer.
Zam-Zam
Senator
Companion Story
Dependency Index Surges 23% Under President Obama
The American public's dependence on the federal government shot up 23% in just two years under President Obama, with 67 million now relying on some federal program, according to a newly released study by the Heritage Foundation.
Complete text: http://news.investors.com/article/600452/201202080802/government-dependence-jumps-under-president-obama.htm
Dependency Index Surges 23% Under President Obama
The American public's dependence on the federal government shot up 23% in just two years under President Obama, with 67 million now relying on some federal program, according to a newly released study by the Heritage Foundation.
Complete text: http://news.investors.com/article/600452/201202080802/government-dependence-jumps-under-president-obama.htm
moddem38
Council Member
This is really funny take on the subject-- (http://gregmankiw.blogspot.com/),go down a few posts
Abbott and Costello explain unemployment
Thanks to U Chicago's Allen Sanderson for sending this along:
COSTELLO: I want to talk about the unemployment rate in America.
ABBOTT: Good "subject". Terrible "times". It's about 9%.
COSTELLO: That many people are out of work?
ABBOTT: No, that's 16%.
COSTELLO: You just said 9%.
ABBOTT: 9% Unemployed.
COSTELLO: Right 9% out of work.
ABBOTT: No, that's 16%.
COSTELLO: Okay, so it's 16% unemployed.
ABBOTT: No, that's 9%...
COSTELLO: WAIT A MINUTE. Is it 9% or 16%?
ABBOTT: 9% are unemployed. 16% are out of work.
COSTELLO: If you are out of work you are unemployed.
ABBOTT: No, you can't count the "Out of Work" as the unemployed. You have to look for work to be unemployed.
COSTELLO: But ... they are out of work!
ABBOTT: No, you miss my point.
COSTELLO: What point?
ABBOTT: Someone who doesn't look for work, can't be counted with those who look for work. It wouldn't be fair.
COSTELLO: To who?
ABBOTT: The unemployed.
COSTELLO: But they are ALL out of work.
ABBOTT: No, the unemployed are actively looking for work...Those who are out of work stopped looking. They gave up. And, if you give up, you are no longer in the ranks of the unemployed.
COSTELLO: So if you're off the unemployment roles, that would count as less unemployment?
ABBOTT: Unemployment would go down. Absolutely!
COSTELLO: The unemployment just goes down because you don't look for work?
ABBOTT: Absolutely it goes down. That's how you get to 9%. Otherwise it would be 16%. You don't want to read about 16% unemployment do ya?
COSTELLO: That would be frightening.
ABBOTT: Absolutely.
COSTELLO: Wait, I got a question for you. That means they're two ways to bring down the unemployment number?
ABBOTT: Two ways is correct.
COSTELLO: Unemployment can go down if someone gets a job?
ABBOTT: Correct.
COSTELLO: And unemployment can also go down if you stop looking for a job?
ABBOTT: Bingo.
COSTELLO: So there are two ways to bring unemployment down, and the easier of the two is to just stop looking for work.
ABBOTT: Now you're thinking like an economist.
COSTELLO: I don't even know what the hell I just said!
Abbott and Costello explain unemployment
Thanks to U Chicago's Allen Sanderson for sending this along:
COSTELLO: I want to talk about the unemployment rate in America.
ABBOTT: Good "subject". Terrible "times". It's about 9%.
COSTELLO: That many people are out of work?
ABBOTT: No, that's 16%.
COSTELLO: You just said 9%.
ABBOTT: 9% Unemployed.
COSTELLO: Right 9% out of work.
ABBOTT: No, that's 16%.
COSTELLO: Okay, so it's 16% unemployed.
ABBOTT: No, that's 9%...
COSTELLO: WAIT A MINUTE. Is it 9% or 16%?
ABBOTT: 9% are unemployed. 16% are out of work.
COSTELLO: If you are out of work you are unemployed.
ABBOTT: No, you can't count the "Out of Work" as the unemployed. You have to look for work to be unemployed.
COSTELLO: But ... they are out of work!
ABBOTT: No, you miss my point.
COSTELLO: What point?
ABBOTT: Someone who doesn't look for work, can't be counted with those who look for work. It wouldn't be fair.
COSTELLO: To who?
ABBOTT: The unemployed.
COSTELLO: But they are ALL out of work.
ABBOTT: No, the unemployed are actively looking for work...Those who are out of work stopped looking. They gave up. And, if you give up, you are no longer in the ranks of the unemployed.
COSTELLO: So if you're off the unemployment roles, that would count as less unemployment?
ABBOTT: Unemployment would go down. Absolutely!
COSTELLO: The unemployment just goes down because you don't look for work?
ABBOTT: Absolutely it goes down. That's how you get to 9%. Otherwise it would be 16%. You don't want to read about 16% unemployment do ya?
COSTELLO: That would be frightening.
ABBOTT: Absolutely.
COSTELLO: Wait, I got a question for you. That means they're two ways to bring down the unemployment number?
ABBOTT: Two ways is correct.
COSTELLO: Unemployment can go down if someone gets a job?
ABBOTT: Correct.
COSTELLO: And unemployment can also go down if you stop looking for a job?
ABBOTT: Bingo.
COSTELLO: So there are two ways to bring unemployment down, and the easier of the two is to just stop looking for work.
ABBOTT: Now you're thinking like an economist.
COSTELLO: I don't even know what the hell I just said!
