jmog;1287679 wrote: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).

Look, you're all concerned about the "real unemployment" number because it's BHO in office and you want him gone. It's terrible. But the fact is that the measure used to measure presidents and what Romney talked about in the debate was the U3 number saying it hasn't been below 8% since he got into office...and now it has.

the 8% magic U3 number has been breached and in a legitimate fashion. We're doing better than four years ago in Oct. 08.

BoatShoes;1287712 wrote:Look, you're all concerned about the "real unemployment" number because it's BHO in office and you want him gone. It's terrible. But the fact is that the measure used to measure presidents and what Romney talked about in the debate was the U3 number saying it hasn't been below 8% since he got into office...and now it has.

the 8% magic U3 number has been breached and in a legitimate fashion. We're doing better than four years ago in Oct. 08.

By a small margin, and anyone who can claim they know cause is a flat out liar.

The number of unemployed dropped 456,000 last month, while only 114,000 jobs got added. That either means that 342,000 people left the US, or they left the work force in one way or another.


Another 342,000 Americans simply discarded by the obama regime.

Change we can believe in ...

QuakerOats;1287699 wrote: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.

Who is Tom Grace?

And you're doing an awful lot of statistic denying lately eh? It's always nice to know about how much we can learn about the real statistics out there from the conspiracy theorists.

How bout this.

I admit that Obama got smoked in the debate and because so many people saw it there's a good chance the race is looking a lot better for Romney,

You admit that the polls have had Obama in the lead thus far and this is actually an ok jobs report.

Should be a tight race until the end.

BoatShoes;1287716 wrote:Who is Tom Grace?

Former Cubs player, popularized the term "slumpbuster"?

Wait, that was Mark Grace.

BoatShoes;1287716 wrote:You admit that the polls have had Obama in the lead thus far and this is actually an ok jobs report.

Should be a tight race until the end.

It is a horrific jobs report, and you are intelligent enough to know that. We are STILL not even creating enough jobs to cover the job market's new entrants alone; that is pathetic, it is economic hel!l. There is no growth, and we all know why.

And if the race is tight it is only tight because of the media's protective shield around this sham of a president, which as the nation saw Wednesday, was exposed.

BoatShoes;1287712 wrote:Look, you're all concerned about the "real unemployment" number because it's BHO in office and you want him gone. It's terrible. But the fact is that the measure used to measure presidents and what Romney talked about in the debate was the U3 number saying it hasn't been below 8% since he got into office...and now it has.

the 8% magic U3 number has been breached and in a legitimate fashion. We're doing better than four years ago in Oct. 08.

Incorrect again, in Oct 2008 the U3 unemployment was at 6.5%, it is now at 7.7%. Maybe in "Boatshoes" math 7.7% is better than 6.5%, but in real math it is not.

Malcolm X warning about Obama
[video=youtube;7BYVv4LY_KQ][/video]

QuakerOats;1287699 wrote: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.

QuakerOats;1287715 wrote:The number of unemployed dropped 456,000 last month, while only 114,000 jobs got added. That either means that 342,000 people left the US, or they left the work force in one way or another.


Another 342,000 Americans simply discarded by the obama regime.

Change we can believe in ...

I get Obama's political motivation for lying repeatedly. But the fact that most headlines from the media basically parrot what the administration says is beyond pathetic.

Hopefully there are enough voters who can see through the intentional fog.

jmog;1287729 wrote:Incorrect again, in Oct 2008 the U3 unemployment was at 6.5%, it is now at 7.7%. Maybe in "Boatshoes" math 7.7% is better than 6.5%, but in real math it is not.

Oh Jmog. Tisk Tisk.

The reason I say we're better off than in October 2008 is because the Jobs report for September declared that we lost 159,000 jobs which was the worst report in 5 years. This year we gained 114,000 jobs...not enough...but resulting in the lowest unemployment rate since Obama's been in office. Things are getting better.

The NY Times on Oct. 3, 2008: "159,000 Jobs Lost in September, Worst Report in 5 years"

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/04/business/economy/04jobs.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

This is the NY Times on Oct. 5, 2012 "Jobless Rate Falls to 7.8% Lowest Level of Obama's Term."

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/06/business/economy/us-added-114000-jobs-in-september-rate-drops-to-7-8.html?hp

With George W. Bush or Ronald Reagan's government employment numbers...this wouldn't even be a close election despite Obama's failure in the debate. If we'd passed the American Jobs Act last fall we're at or below 6% unemployment but Republicans would've had no chance at getting the white house back would they???

At approximately $200K per job. Yeah, great idea if you want to be re-elected. Good for the country? Not even close.

queencitybuckeye;1287954 wrote:At approximately $200K per job. Yeah, great idea if you want to be re-elected. Good for the country? Not even close.

Well the AJA prescribed about $145 billion in direct spending, $49 billion for extension of unemployment benefits for the long term unemployed and $253 billion in tax relief. Could you have gotten behind the tax relief?

Or, the approximately 300,000 teachers that have been laid off since last fall could've been hired back with $10-20 billion aid to the states to hire them back.

http://www.opm.gov/feddata/historicaltables/totalgovernmentsince1962.asp

More government employees than under W until about 2011, then there were major government cut backs, but not at the federal level, no we kept that growing big.

The state and local governments cut back for BUDGET REASONS, your answer is for them to hire people they don't have the money for an then magically the U3 is 6% while state and local governments are going bankrupt.

Only a Keynesian would think that is a good idea.

BoatShoes;1287974 wrote:Well the AJA prescribed about $145 billion in direct spending, $49 billion for extension of unemployment benefits for the long term unemployed and $253 billion in tax relief. Could you have gotten behind the tax relief?

Or, the approximately 300,000 teachers that have been laid off since last fall could've been hired back with $10-20 billion aid to the states to hire them back.

Notice the AJA helped government workers and unions especially government workers in unions...no wonder it didn't get rave reviews.

jmog;1287976 wrote: Only a Keynesian would think that is a good idea.

The idea that one gets a shot of warmth from peeing one's pants, and ignoring the fact that they will soon be both cold and wet.

jmog;1287976 wrote:http://www.opm.gov/feddata/historicaltables/totalgovernmentsince1962.asp

More government employees than under W until about 2011, then there were major government cut backs, but not at the federal level, no we kept that growing big.

The state and local governments cut back for BUDGET REASONS, your answer is for them to hire people they don't have the money for an then magically the U3 is 6% while state and local governments are going bankrupt.

Only a Keynesian would think that is a good idea.

The state and local budgets could've been supported by the federal government and it's greater borrowing capacity...that's why we have federal political union in our common currency area...it's also why Florida hasn't ended up like Spain. The state and local governments wouldn't go bankrupt if the feds were supporting them as they needed in our current lesser depression.

Pretty amazed at how much people are willing to justify keeping crippling unemployment when the solution is rather easy and the consequences very few.

queencitybuckeye;1287987 wrote:The idea that one gets a shot of warmth from peeing one's pants, and ignoring the fact that they will soon be both cold and wet.

Well in this case there's not much evidence we'd soon be "cold and wet." We ran a 1.3 trillion deficit last year and are projected to run a 1.1 trillion deficit this year according to the CBO...the bond vigilantes didn't attack us last year and there was low inflation...little reason to think a 1.3 trillion deficit this year would result in such things when currently interest rates are still incredibly low and core inflation is low.

History puts the probabilty at 100%

Not 99
Not 99.9999999999999999
100%

BoatShoes;1288006 wrote:The state and local budgets could've been supported by the federal government and it's greater borrowing capacity...that's why we have federal political union in our common currency area...it's also why Florida hasn't ended up like Spain. The state and local governments wouldn't go bankrupt if the feds were supporting them as they needed in our current lesser depression.

Pretty amazed at how much people are willing to justify keeping crippling unemployment when the solution is rather easy and the consequences very few.

Somehow I can't quite wrap my head around the "consequences very few" part. Bailing out anyone and everyone who's in the red must have a consequence somewhere.

And how is unemployment all of a sudden so crippling when all you have to do to solve it is pretend hundreds of thousands of unemployed people don't really exist?

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.

Why do you assume the private sector would be hiring like they have if they had to compete even more with government for labor?

The real world does not operate on a Keynesian formula. I know why our Leaders will not abandon that premise, because it justifies their quest for absolute power. I don't see why people like you won't think critically of their doctrine though.

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.

No Woodrow Wilson was much worse