TrumpPutingate III: the beginning of the end

#8,226
#8,226
Jxn Vol said:
The 2009 Stimulus. Lol.
Click to expand...

It's hard to know what point someone is trying to make when "Lol" is their only rebuttal but this is what the 2009 stimulus accomplished:

The $787 Billion American Recovery and Reinvestment Act that was signed in 2009 to spur economic growth amid the greatest recession since The Great Depression was very successful. Weeks after the stimulus went into effect, unemployment claims began to subside. Twelve months later, the private sector began producing more jobs than it was losing, a trend which continued. Nearly 3.7 million jobs were created by the end of Obama's first term.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3 people
#8,227
#8,227
BowlBrother85 said:
It's hard to know what point someone is trying to make when "Lol" is their only rebuttal but this is what the 2009 stimulus accomplished:

The $787 Billion American Recovery and Reinvestment Act that was signed in 2009 to spur economic growth amid the greatest recession since The Great Depression was very successful. Weeks after the stimulus went into effect, unemployment claims began to subside. Twelve months later, the private sector began producing more jobs than it was losing, a trend which continued. Nearly 3.7 million jobs were created by the end of Obama's first term.
Click to expand...

I think you have one of Obama's short and curlies between your teeth.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#8,228
#8,228
BowlBrother85 said:
The unemployment rate on January 20, 2009 was 7.8%. It was 4.8% on January 20, 2017. FACT.
Click to expand...

I know you aren't going to like this so I apologize in advance.
Source: Washington Times.
For the past six years of the Obama economy, I’ve been telling readers that the administration has been juggling its job data to make the unemployment rates look much lower than they really are.

Now, Jim Clifton, chairman and CEO of the respected Gallup polling organization, has written a blistering broadside on the devious way President Obama’s Department of Labor defines its monthly job numbers, calling it “the big lie.”
The numbers do not count millions of Americans who want and need full-time jobs but are not defined as among the unemployed. That, as Mr. Clifton knows well, remains the chief reason why the jobless rate has fallen.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 4 people
#8,231
#8,231
1972 Grad said:
Which Democratic policies are going to lower the unemployment rate to less than 3.9%, and which ones are going to improve the economy even more? Which of their policies are going to bring more prisoners home? Which are more likely to bring No. Korea to the table? Which are more likely to further decimate Al Quaida (or however you spell it) ? Which of the Dem policies will further lower our tax burden? Give me a reason to change horses in the middle of the stream.
Click to expand...

Because your horse is really a jackass and he's about to go under. Sorry....couldn't resist.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#8,233
#8,233
McDad said:
I know you aren't going to like this so I apologize in advance.
Source: Washington Times.
For the past six years of the Obama economy, I’ve been telling readers that the administration has been juggling its job data to make the unemployment rates look much lower than they really are.

Now, Jim Clifton, chairman and CEO of the respected Gallup polling organization, has written a blistering broadside on the devious way President Obama’s Department of Labor defines its monthly job numbers, calling it “the big lie.”
The numbers do not count millions of Americans who want and need full-time jobs but are not defined as among the unemployed. That, as Mr. Clifton knows well, remains the chief reason why the jobless rate has fallen.
Click to expand...

Breitbart is a better source. Now, if you are arguing that the unemployment rate was much higher in January of 2017 than 4.8% that's fine but you do realize the old "garbage in/garbage out" rationale for statistics? If the unemployment rate was higher then, then it is higher than 3.9% now (which Trump takes credit for on a regular basis).
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#8,234
#8,234
BowlBrother85 said:
Breitbart is a better source. Now, if you are arguing that the unemployment rate was much higher in January of 2017 than 4.8% that's fine but you do realize the old "garbage in/garbage out" rationale for statistics? If the unemployment rate was higher then, then it is higher than 3.9% now (which Trump takes credit for on a regular basis).
Click to expand...

Is the analysis incorrect in the article?

Also, do you believe the number team Trump is touting?
 
Last edited:
#8,236
#8,236
McDad said:
Is the analysis incorrect in the article?
Click to expand...

I think the unemployment rate fell substantially between 2009 and 2017... probably not as much as 3 percentage points. However, not including underemployment or frictional unemployment (people who are only temporarily unemployed because they're moving from one job to another) isn't the big lie. I don't see anything wrong with it. The Washington Times would never make that charge under a Republican president.
 
#8,237
#8,237
BowlBrother85 said:
I think the unemployment rate fell substantially between 2009 and 2017... probably not as much as 3 percentage points. However, not including underemployment or frictional unemployment (people who are only temporarily unemployed because they're moving from one job to another) isn't the big lie. I don't see anything wrong with it. The Washington Times would never make that charge under a Republican president.
Click to expand...

I'll try again, does BLS count or does it not count those who have given up looking for FT work?

Also, do you believe the UE rate team Trump is touting?
 
Last edited:
#8,239
#8,239
McDad said:
I'll try again, does BLS count or does it not count those who have given up looking for FT work?
Click to expand...

I will put it in their words:

"Since discouraged workers are not actively searching for a job, they are considered nonparticipants in the labor market - that is, they are neither counted as unemployed or included in the labor force."
 
#8,240
#8,240
BowlBrother85 said:
I will put it in their words:

"Since discouraged workers are not actively searching for a job, they are considered nonparticipants in the labor market - that is, they are neither counted as unemployed or included in the labor force."
Click to expand...

Ok. The source is questionable but the content of who is counted as UE is correct.

That wasn't so hard was it?

Do you believe the UE rate team Trump is touting?
 
#8,241
#8,241
BowlBrother85 said:
I will put it in their words:

"Since discouraged workers are not actively searching for a job, they are considered nonparticipants in the labor market - that is, they are neither counted as unemployed or included in the labor force."
Click to expand...

Sounds like people not looking too hard for work or as I call them lazy MFr's
 
  • Like
Reactions: 5 people
#8,243
#8,243
Kinda sad BowlBro bailed (BailBro???) on the thread.

If data is manipulated by both parties, how can anyone put ant trust in the numbers any president offers?

The more leeway in the statistical data the easier it is to mislead the public.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#8,244
#8,244
McDad said:
Kinda sad BowlBro bailed (BailBro???) on the thread.

If data is manipulated by both parties, how can anyone put ant trust in the numbers any president offers?

The more leeway in the statistical data the easier it is to mislead the public.
Click to expand...
Statistics mean what someone wants them to mean.
 
#8,248
#8,248
BowlBrother85 said:
I will put it in their words:

"Since discouraged workers are not actively searching for a job, they are considered nonparticipants in the labor market - that is, they are neither counted as unemployed or included in the labor force."
Click to expand...

Discouraged workers?..... LMAO... is this the liberal tern for dead beat lazy ass good for nothings?
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.
Advertisement

Back
Top