Ohio Chatter
Ohio Chatter

Forums

All Threads Serious Business Sports Politics Archive Pick 'ems Wordio
Log In Create Account

FDR warns about Mitt Romney

Home ▸ Archive ▸ Politics ▸ FDR warns about Mitt Romney
ZWICK 4 PREZ's avatar

ZWICK 4 PREZ

Senior Member

7,733 posts
Oct 5, 2012 12:54 PM
[video=youtube;SUZGkNAUSvY][/video]
Oct 5, 2012 8:54am
Q

QuakerOats

Senior Member

8,740 posts
Oct 5, 2012 1:10 PM
FDR and LBJ are supremely responsible for the horrible situation we find ourselves in today.

Yet obama is already outdistancing them both as being the most destructive president in U.S. history.
Oct 5, 2012 9:10am
ZWICK 4 PREZ's avatar

ZWICK 4 PREZ

Senior Member

7,733 posts
Oct 5, 2012 1:29 PM
QuakerOats;1287607 wrote:FDR and LBJ are supremely responsible for the horrible situation we find ourselves in today.

Yet obama is already outdistancing them both as being the most destructive president in U.S. history.
:rolleyes:
Oct 5, 2012 9:29am
B

BoatShoes

Senior Member

5,703 posts
Oct 5, 2012 1:44 PM
Unemployment rate is now lower than 8% for first time since Obama took office...America is doing better than other industrialized nation's which have imposed austerity as they're heading towards another recession (as we will too if the sequester goes into effect). We're growing but not fast enough. Need to do something about housing and governments need to stop firing people. Not there yet but doing better than four years ago.

Perhaps this will take Obama's shellacking out of the news.
Oct 5, 2012 9:44am
bases_loaded's avatar

bases_loaded

Senior Member

6,912 posts
Oct 5, 2012 1:57 PM
QuakerOats;1287607 wrote:FDR and LBJ are supremely responsible for the horrible situation we find ourselves in today.

Yet obama is already outdistancing them both as being the most destructive president in U.S. history.
Political rhetoric getting cheers from a crowd of supporters...at least now I know where the reverberation sound originates in Obamas speeches.
Oct 5, 2012 9:57am
Q

QuakerOats

Senior Member

8,740 posts
Oct 5, 2012 1:59 PM
That is exactly what this fraudulently manufactured statistic is supposed to do, cover up for obama, the empty suit. This was completely expected as the desperation has set in, but it so ridiculously corrupt it stands out like a fart in church.

NO ONE BELIEVES IT BECAUSE IT IS A COMPLETE LIE.
Oct 5, 2012 9:59am
J

jmog

Senior Member

6,567 posts
Oct 5, 2012 2:02 PM
BoatShoes;1287626 wrote:Unemployment rate is now lower than when President Obama took office...America is doing better than other industrialized nation's which have imposed austerity as they're heading towards another recession (as we will too if the sequester goes into effect). We're growing but not fast enough. Need to do something about housing and governments need to stop firing people. Not there yet but doing better than four years ago.

Perhaps this will take Obama's shellacking out of the news.
1. Anyone with a brain knows that the real unemployment rate is much higher, it is only sitting around 8% because of the accounting trick of not counting people who have quit looking for jobs.

2. You are factually incorrect as well, in Jan 2009 the unemployment rate was 7.7%, it is now 7.8%. So over 3 and a half years later and it is basically the same (plus read my first statement, unemployment is actually worse now when considered the participation rate). The labor force participation rate is not only 2% lower than when Obama took office, but it is still decreasing. It is not coming back up. Its the lowest it has been since 1981.
Oct 5, 2012 10:02am
B

BoatShoes

Senior Member

5,703 posts
Oct 5, 2012 2:06 PM
QuakerOats;1287638 wrote:That is exactly what this fraudulently manufactured statistic is supposed to do, cover up for obama, the empty suit. This was completely expected as the desperation has set in, but it so ridiculously corrupt it stands out like a fart in church.

NO ONE BELIEVES IT BECAUSE IT IS A COMPLETE LIE.
:laugh: Yes. Yesssss. That's it.

And we added more jobs in August in September than we thought and both the labor participation rate and the employed-to-population ratio are up so dropouts weren't what caused the drop in the rate.

Imagine, if we'd passed the American Jobs Act last fall we'd be at around 6% unemployment or lower...

With all the election season hiring in October I imagine that the next report just prior to the election will be better.
Oct 5, 2012 10:06am
B

BoatShoes

Senior Member

5,703 posts
Oct 5, 2012 2:08 PM
jmog;1287642 wrote:1. Anyone with a brain knows that the real unemployment rate is much higher, it is only sitting around 8% because of the accounting trick of not counting people who have quit looking for jobs.
No. labor force participation is up and employment-to-population ratio is up. And, "real unemployment" you know like U2, U3 etc. was higher than 8% when he came into office too...moving the goalposts if you want to play that game.

^EDIT: Real unemployment sentence should say "like U4, U5"
Oct 5, 2012 10:08am
J

jmog

Senior Member

6,567 posts
Oct 5, 2012 2:10 PM
BoatShoes;1287647 wrote:No. labor force participation is up and employment-to-population ratio is up. And, "real unemployment" you know like U2, U3 etc. was higher than 8% when he came into office too...moving the goalposts if you want to play that game.
September participation rate was 64%, in Jan of 2009 it was 66%, please explain how that is "up"? I mean, I have a math degree, but I'm willing to be wrong if you can explain how 64>66?
Oct 5, 2012 10:10am
J

jmog

Senior Member

6,567 posts
Oct 5, 2012 2:11 PM
BoatShoes;1287647 wrote:No. labor force participation is up and employment-to-population ratio is up. And, "real unemployment" you know like U2, U3 etc. was higher than 8% when he came into office too...moving the goalposts if you want to play that game.
U3 was 7.7% in Jan of 2009, unless the BLS is wrong and you are right.
Oct 5, 2012 10:11am
B

BoatShoes

Senior Member

5,703 posts
Oct 5, 2012 2:16 PM
jmog;1287652 wrote:U3 was 7.7% in Jan of 2009, unless the BLS is wrong and you are right.


U3 is what shows up in all the news reports. the last time it was under 8% was in January 09 as you correctly stated. When you say "real unemployment" you're talking about the other measures which all also went down.


We could really use some help in the Construction sector. Need to do something about Housing.



And, Labor Force Participation finally went up.



So it was a good report all the way around.
Oct 5, 2012 10:16am
J

jmog

Senior Member

6,567 posts
Oct 5, 2012 2:19 PM
Lastly...

Lets look at 3.5 years after peaks of previous recessions.

In 2003 we hit 6.3% U3 under Bush and the Dems were calling for his head. The tax cuts and other pro-business measures and 3.5 years later in 2007 the U3 was 4.4%.

In June of 1992 the U3 hit 7.8%, 3.5 years later in Dec of 1995 it was at 5.5%.

In December of 1982 the U3 hit 10.8%, 3.5 years later it was 7.2%.

In May of 1975 the U3 hit 9.0%, 3.5 years later it was 6.0%.

In May of 1961 U3 hit 7.1%, 3.5 years later it was 5.1%.

I could keep going, but you get the idea, every previous recession had a recovery that was MUCH faster and not just "the same or worse" after 3.5 years. Every other recession the country was BETTER after 3.5 years except this one.


Also, I stand corrected, in Jan of 2009, the U3 was listed as 7.7% originally and corrected later to 7.8%, so you are still incorrect, it is NOT lower, it is the same.
Oct 5, 2012 10:19am
B

BoatShoes

Senior Member

5,703 posts
Oct 5, 2012 2:19 PM
jmog;1287651 wrote:September participation rate was 64%, in Jan of 2009 it was 66%, please explain how that is "up"? I mean, I have a math degree, but I'm willing to be wrong if you can explain how 64>66?
Not up since January 2009. Up in the last month indicating that the unemployment rate didn't drop because of people dropping out of the workforce you silly goose.
Oct 5, 2012 10:19am
J

jmog

Senior Member

6,567 posts
Oct 5, 2012 2:21 PM
BoatShoes;1287656 wrote:

U3 is what shows up in all the news reports. the last time it was under 8% was in January 09 as you correctly stated. When you say "real unemployment" you're talking about the other measures which all also went down.


We could really use some help in the Construction sector. Need to do something about Housing.



And, Labor Force Participation finally went up.



So it was a good report all the way around.
In other words, a bunch of graphs to say that I was right? U3 is the same as it was when he took office and participation rate is about 2% worse?
Oct 5, 2012 10:21am
B

BoatShoes

Senior Member

5,703 posts
Oct 5, 2012 2:22 PM
jmog;1287659 wrote:
I could keep going, but you get the idea, every previous recession had a recovery that was MUCH faster and not just "the same or worse" after 3.5 years. Every other recession the country was BETTER after 3.5 years except this one.
This has been covered...public employment is the difference. If public employment grew at the rate it did following the last three recessions this recovery is way better because private sector employment has risen faster than in the previous three recessions. Your beef is with Republicans firing public employees in state's like Ohio.
Oct 5, 2012 10:22am
B

BoatShoes

Senior Member

5,703 posts
Oct 5, 2012 2:24 PM
jmog;1287663 wrote:In other words, a bunch of graphs to say that I was right? U3 is the same as it was when he took office and participation rate is about 2% worse?
Dude...

1. I said that the unemployment rate is under 8% for the first time since January 09. I didn't disagree with you on that point.

2. When you said "everybody knows real unemployment is still way above 8%" I agreed but noted that it was also way higher than 8% in january 09

I did make a mistake in post when I said "real unemployment" was U3...when that's the number that is reported in the news that doesn't count people dropping out, etc. but I meant U4, U5, etc.

3. I never said labor force participation was better than in January 09.
Oct 5, 2012 10:24am
J

jmog

Senior Member

6,567 posts
Oct 5, 2012 2:26 PM
BoatShoes;1287665 wrote:This has been covered...public employment is the difference. If public employment grew at the rate it did following the last three recessions this recovery is way better because private sector employment has risen faster than in the previous three recessions. Your beef is with Republicans firing public employees in state's like Ohio.
So another big government answer from Boat Shoes, imagine that. Let's hire more government workers!

So, you are really saying that the reason we aren't at 5-6% unemployment is because the government isn't big enough?
Oct 5, 2012 10:26am
BGFalcons82's avatar

BGFalcons82

Senior Member

2,173 posts
Oct 5, 2012 2:29 PM
jmog;1287663 wrote:In other words, a bunch of graphs to say that I was right? U3 is the same as it was when he took office and participation rate is about 2% worse?
Be careful, jmog. Mr. Boat loves his rate of change graphs. Like the Labor Force Participation one above: According to it, it was around 66% when Barry came in and, as you noted, it's under 64 in the most recent measurement in the graph. BUT...it went "up" in the last cycle, therefore the Participation rate is "increasing". See how it's done?
Oct 5, 2012 10:29am
J

jmog

Senior Member

6,567 posts
Oct 5, 2012 2:32 PM
The problem with Boat's graphs, is that he uses them to stretch the truth without lying to confuse those who don't understand math and think "man, this Obama guy is working!"

Speaking of real unemployment (U6), when he took office in Jan 09 it was 14.2%, it is now 14.7%, and it has not significantly changed this year (hovering around 14.8 the whole year).
Oct 5, 2012 10:32am
B

BoatShoes

Senior Member

5,703 posts
Oct 5, 2012 2:32 PM
jmog;1287671 wrote:So another big government answer from Boat Shoes, imagine that. Let's hire more government workers!

So, you are really saying that the reason we aren't at 5-6% unemployment is because the government isn't big enough?
Yes, states have fired too many people particularly teachers which should keep up with population growth so kids aren't crowded into tiny class rooms.

And, either way, your point about the previous recessions only holds true because of growth in public sector employment as Obama has a better record on private sector employment on his watch than in the last three recessions.
Oct 5, 2012 10:32am
BGFalcons82's avatar

BGFalcons82

Senior Member

2,173 posts
Oct 5, 2012 2:35 PM
QuakerOats;1287638 wrote:That is exactly what this fraudulently manufactured statistic is supposed to do, cover up for obama, the empty suit. This was completely expected as the desperation has set in, but it so ridiculously corrupt it stands out like a fart in church.

NO ONE BELIEVES IT BECAUSE IT IS A COMPLETE LIE.
Correct again. :thumbup:

Let's see....creating 114,000 jobs = a 0.3 drop in the unemployment rate. Doing a little math, that means we are only 3,000,000 jobs away from a 0% unemployment rate if we are to believe the BLS!! Of course, there are really 23,000,000 under or unemployed Americans, so the 20,000,000 left who don't get a job can be classified as not wanting to work, fell off the planet, or will qualify for social security disability benefits.
Oct 5, 2012 10:35am
B

BoatShoes

Senior Member

5,703 posts
Oct 5, 2012 2:35 PM
BGFalcons82;1287673 wrote:Be careful, jmog. Mr. Boat loves his rate of change graphs. Like the Labor Force Participation one above: According to it, it was around 66% when Barry came in and, as you noted, it's under 64 in the most recent measurement in the graph. BUT...it went "up" in the last cycle, therefore the Participation rate is "increasing". See how it's done?
The whole point of the labor participation graph is to show that the drop to 7.8% U3 unemployment is not because people were dropping out of the work force to cause the drop.
Oct 5, 2012 10:35am
Q

QuakerOats

Senior Member

8,740 posts
Oct 5, 2012 2:41 PM
BoatShoes;1287647 wrote:No. labor force participation is up and employment-to-population ratio is up. And, "real unemployment" you know like U2, U3 etc. was higher than 8% when he came into office too...moving the goalposts if you want to play that game.

^EDIT: Real unemployment sentence should say "like U4, U5"

Hilarious. The movers of the goalpost are this regime who have forced 20 MILLION Americans OUT of the workforce with no hope for a job, so they quit looking for work (and are enticed to do so by a planned massive expansion in social programs) and the denominator changes in accordance with the plan to magically drop U3 to their pre-determined, desired level, one month before the election.

This regime is the master of the unemployment statistical shell game ---- either force poor Americans out of the labor market and keep them out, and/or pay them welfare to stay out, and/or sign them up for SS disability (in record numbers), and/or hire a bunch of obama government workers; all of which will create the fantasy of a lower U3. See related article linked hereto: http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2012/10/04/it-time-to-end-unemployment-rate-shell-game/

We all know U3 is well over 11%; and we all know 23 million Americans are suffering terribly because we have a president who insists on ramming through a Marxist policy agenda.
Oct 5, 2012 10:41am
Q

QuakerOats

Senior Member

8,740 posts
Oct 5, 2012 2:46 PM
As Tom Grace says:

"The highest one-month jump in 29 years! "Incredibly good" numbers. So incredible they are just that--not believable. I have been watching government numbers for over 40 years, and this is the most ludicrous, insanely false, politically motivated report I have ever seen. My respect for this government just hit a new low."


I couldn't agree more. obama's penchant for lying is well documented, as is his corrupt Chicago-thug politics, but this LIE is perhaps his best. More troubling though, is the suffering being endured by the 23 MILLION Americans out of work solely because of his desire to retain power by systematically manufacturing false data.
Oct 5, 2012 10:46am