PDA

View Full Version : Pre-Convention Tussle: Are Americans Better Off?



mikesilvia
09-03-2012, 04:40 PM
CHARLOTTE, N.C. (AP) -- In an overnight reversal of rhetoric, President Barack Obama's top allies insisted Monday that Americans surely are better off than four years ago despite a slow economic recovery and joblessness of 8.3 percent. Republicans countered that the president has failed on the fundamental question of this election.On this Labor Day, Republican Mitt Romney said in a statement: "For far too many Americans, today is another day of worrying when their next paycheck will come."His running mate, Paul Ryan, chimed in from a rally in Greenville. "Simply put, the...

More... (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2012/09/03/pre-convention_tussle_are_americans_better_off_115308. html)

INTIMADATOR2007
09-03-2012, 10:37 PM
http://youtu.be/fZgQhnNRSuw

mrveggieman
09-04-2012, 10:29 AM
I can't speak for anyone else but I am better off than 1 was four years ago. I was living with my fiance and daughter at the time in a 1 bedroom house and just got laid off from my job. Now I just moved into a 4 room house and have a decent job. I'm not going to complain.

habsheaven
09-04-2012, 10:36 AM
Four years ago the economy was in a freefall. Today, the economy is on the road to recovery. It's blatantly obvious.

shrewsbury
09-04-2012, 10:38 AM
I would disagree we our on a road to recovery, but that is no surprise.

duwal
09-04-2012, 05:04 PM
Four years ago the economy was in a freefall. Today, the economy is on the road to recovery. It's blatantly obvious.


blatantly obvious but I'm sure there are plenty that will deny it or not bring it to themselves to actually admit it

AUTaxMan
09-04-2012, 06:35 PM
Four years ago the economy was in a freefall. Today, the economy is on the road to recovery. It's blatantly obvious.

What are the signs that the economy is on the road to recovery? Real unemployment being at 15%, about twice what it was 4 years ago? Or is it the ever-downward-spiraling national debt? Maybe it's the record number of people on welfare and on foodstamps. Or is it real inflation, estimated by some to be in the 8-10% range?

Wickabee
09-04-2012, 06:57 PM
I refuse to read another unemployment stat until everyone decides which one they're going with. 8%, 11% 15%...this has no meaning anymore. Everyone uses a different scale with different rules to make their own point. It's useless garbage.

habsheaven
09-04-2012, 07:43 PM
What are the signs that the economy is on the road to recovery? Real unemployment being at 15%, about twice what it was 4 years ago? Or is it the ever-downward-spiraling national debt? Maybe it's the record number of people on welfare and on foodstamps. Or is it real inflation, estimated by some to be in the 8-10% range?

I love how the critics always have their own unemployment numbers to go by. If it's really 15% then it was higher two years ago. I guarantee you this. If Romney were to win we wouldn't hear you quote "REAL" unemployment rates for at least 4 years. Try getting real for once.

habsheaven
09-04-2012, 07:44 PM
I refuse to read another unemployment stat until everyone decides which one they're going with. 8%, 11% 15%...this has no meaning anymore. Everyone uses a different scale with different rules to make their own point. It's useless garbage.

Not everyone. I was using Jay's graphic. Which he has yet to respond to in the other thread.

theonedru
09-04-2012, 08:14 PM
In a way Americans are better off, we actually know how bad off we are now that there is no $ to spread around and cover the mass incompetence of not only government officials but companies and a lot of citizens as well..

bud7562
09-04-2012, 08:27 PM
I refuse to read another unemployment stat until everyone decides which one they're going with. 8%, 11% 15%...this has no meaning anymore. Everyone uses a different scale with different rules to make their own point. It's useless garbage. no one now's what is the real number is, it all guess work????

AUTaxMan
09-04-2012, 09:31 PM
I love how the critics always have their own unemployment numbers to go by. If it's really 15% then it was higher two years ago. I guarantee you this. If Romney were to win we wouldn't hear you quote "REAL" unemployment rates for at least 4 years. Try getting real for once.

It's not some made-up number. It's the U-6, also known as "real unemployment." It was about 8% when Obama took office. Now it's about 15%. Look it up and stop sticking your head in the sand.

Wickabee
09-04-2012, 09:47 PM
It's not some made-up number. It's the U-6, also known as "real unemployment." It was about 8% when Obama took office. Now it's about 15%. Look it up and stop sticking your head in the sand.

What is the fake unemployment at?

I hear purple unemployment is down 7.6% but squeaky unemployment is up 2.2%. The you've got soft unemployment, which is at virtually 0%, but that goes against the quiet unemployment which is at a scary 22.4%. I haven't heard what the round u8nemployment has been doing lately but it has to be better than the 17.8% mechanical unemployment. Bu all those numbers are irrelevant when compared to the multicolored-root beer unemployment rate of 4.5%.

JustAlex
09-04-2012, 09:48 PM
Four years ago the economy was in a freefall. Today, the economy is on the road to recovery. It's blatantly obvious.
Whoa there buddy....are you saying that Obama hasn't been a complete failure and disastrous president the way every single GOP wants people to think????

JustAlex
09-04-2012, 09:54 PM
What is the fake unemployment at?

I hear purple unemployment is down 7.6% but squeaky unemployment is up 2.2%. The you've got soft unemployment, which is at virtually 0%, but that goes against the quiet unemployment which is at a scary 22.4%. I haven't heard what the round u8nemployment has been doing lately but it has to be better than the 17.8% mechanical unemployment. Bu all those numbers are irrelevant when compared to the multicolored-root beer unemployment rate of 4.5%.
Well the real....REAL unemployment number is a number so high that only the GOP knows what it is and they are keeping quiet about it and will release this real....REAL number one week before the elections.

LOL, we were close to a depression in 2008-2009 but somehow things are worse now, and I'm sure IF Obama wins we will be in FULL depression by Jan. 2013, and a SUPER, REAL depression by mid-2013. :rolleyes:

shrewsbury
09-04-2012, 11:51 PM
here is a new stat.

since obama has been in office, the middle income wage earner has a decrease of $4000 per year. from 55k to 51k, all you have to do is figure most of us did not get a pay cut, so that leaves the fact that more middle income people are not working, or not working middle income jobs.

any job may be better than none for a person in crisis, but low paying jobs do not help the deficit, housing market, retail spending, or the economy in any way.

if an employee does some work, but it is not of quality nor the work they were assigned, they should be fired.

habsheaven
09-05-2012, 09:15 AM
here is a new stat.

since obama has been in office, the middle income wage earner has a decrease of $4000 per year. from 55k to 51k, all you have to do is figure most of us did not get a pay cut, so that leaves the fact that more middle income people are not working, or not working middle income jobs.

any job may be better than none for a person in crisis, but low paying jobs do not help the deficit, housing market, retail spending, or the economy in any way.

if an employee does some work, but it is not of quality nor the work they were assigned, they should be fired.

Here's a stat:

When Obama came into office he was facing an economic climate in a freefall. He has stopped that freefall and the economy has started to rebound. What have the Republicans done to help? Absolutely nothing!!

So now it's not about the "real" unemployment, rather it is about the jobs that have replaced the ones lost. It's becoming obvious that it doesn't matter what results Obama gets, you will find a way to criticize it.

You think it makes sense to fire the guy that is trying, and hire the guy that has been sabotaging him for 4 years and hasn't done a single thing to help.

shrewsbury
09-05-2012, 09:33 AM
actually the UE rate began to climb when the dems took the congress and senate and now has begun to fall after the republicans took back congress.

habs, look at my other thread, which can also be said to be a response to your comments on the other post.

AUTaxMan
09-05-2012, 10:03 AM
It's always been about the u-6. This is not some new measure of unemployment. It measures unemployment by the number of able bodied people, not just those seeking work.

mrveggieman
09-05-2012, 10:40 AM
I refuse to read another unemployment stat until everyone decides which one they're going with. 8%, 11% 15%...this has no meaning anymore. Everyone uses a different scale with different rules to make their own point. It's useless garbage.

I have worked in the field of market and political research for many years. Depending on the contract that you have you can rigg it to say whatever you want. For example you can do one poll that says that 89% of people are against abortion then turn around and do another poll two weeks later that now says 89% of people are pro-abortion. Most of them are useless propaganda to support a particlar groups political agenda.

AUTaxMan
09-05-2012, 10:51 AM
mrv, unemployment numbers are not a poll.

mrveggieman
09-05-2012, 11:50 AM
mrv, unemployment numbers are not a poll.

I understand that mrtaxman but thanks for pointing it out just the same but my point is you can rig data weather polls, financial records, or anything else to make it say what ever you want. You with your expericence dealing with people's taxes should be aware of this.

AUTaxMan
09-05-2012, 12:05 PM
I understand that mrtaxman but thanks for pointing it out just the same but my point is you can rig data weather polls, financial records, or anything else to make it say what ever you want. You with your expericence dealing with people's taxes should be aware of this.

You cannot rig the truth about unemployment. 15% of people in this country who ought to be working are not. Here are the numbers:

Unemployment Rate
2000 - 2012

Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Year
2000 4.0 4.1 4.0 3.8 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.1 3.9 3.9 3.9 3.9 2000
2001 4.2 4.2 4.3 4.4 4.3 4.5 4.6 4.9 5.0 5.3 5.5 5.7 2001
2002 5.7 5.7 5.7 5.9 5.8 5.8 5.8 5.7 5.7 5.7 5.9 6.0 2002
2003 5.8 5.9 5.9 6.0 6.1 6.3 6.2 6.1 6.1 6.0 5.8 5.7 2003
2004 5.7 5.6 5.8 5.6 5.6 5.6 5.5 5.4 5.4 5.5 5.4 5.4 2004
2005 5.3 5.4 5.2 5.2 5.1 5.0 5.0 4.9 5.0 5.0 5.0 4.9 2005
2006 4.7 4.8 4.7 4.7 4.6 4.6 4.7 4.7 4.5 4.4 4.5 4.4 2006
2007 4.6 4.5 4.4 4.5 4.4 4.6 4.7 4.6 4.7 4.7 4.7 5.0 2007
2008 5.0 4.9 5.1 5.0 5.4 5.6 5.8 6.1 6.1 6.5 6.8 7.3 2008
2009 7.8 8.3 8.7 8.9 9.4 9.5 9.5 9.6 9.8 10.0 9.9 9.9 2009
2010 9.7 9.8 9.8 9.9 9.6 9.4 9.5 9.6 9.5 9.5 9.8 9.4 2010
2011 9.1 9.0 8.9 9.0 9.0 9.1 9.1 9.1 9.0 8.9 8.7 8.5 2011
2012 8.3 8.3 8.2 8.1 8.2 8.2 8.3

Unemployment Rate - U6
2000 - 2012

Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Year
2000 7.1 7.2 7.1 6.9 7.1 7.0 7.0 7.1 7.0 6.8 7.1 6.9 2000
2001 7.3 7.4 7.3 7.4 7.5 7.9 7.8 8.1 8.7 9.3 9.4 9.6 2001
2002 9.5 9.5 9.4 9.7 9.5 9.5 9.6 9.6 9.6 9.6 9.7 9.8 2002
2003 10.0 10.2 10.0 10.2 10.1 10.3 10.3 10.1 10.4 10.2 10.0 9.8 2003
2004 9.9 9.7 10.0 9.6 9.6 9.5 9.5 9.4 9.4 9.7 9.4 9.2 2004
2005 9.3 9.3 9.1 8.9 8.9 9.0 8.8 8.9 9.0 8.7 8.7 8.6 2005
2006 8.4 8.4 8.2 8.1 8.2 8.4 8.5 8.4 8.0 8.2 8.1 7.9 2006
2007 8.4 8.2 8.0 8.2 8.2 8.3 8.4 8.4 8.4 8.4 8.4 8.8 2007
2008 9.2 9.0 9.1 9.2 9.7 10.1 10.5 10.8 11.1 11.8 12.7 13.5 2008
2009 14.2 15.1 15.7 15.8 16.4 16.5 16.5 16.7 16.8 17.2 17.1 17.1 2009
2010 16.7 16.9 16.9 17.0 16.6 16.5 16.5 16.6 16.9 16.8 16.9 16.6 2010
2011 16.1 15.9 15.7 15.9 15.8 16.2 16.1 16.2 16.4 16.0 15.6 15.2 2011
2012 15.1 14.9 14.5 14.5 14.8 14.9 15.0

Does this show a trend of things getting better? Maybe since a year ago, but not over the last 6 months and not over the last 4 years.

mrveggieman
09-05-2012, 12:08 PM
You cannot rig the truth about unemployment. 15% of people in this country who ought to be working are not.


I agree that there is a high percentage of people who should be working but are not for whatever reason. The republicans however have done nothing to prove that they will do anything to get those people back to work.

AUTaxMan
09-05-2012, 12:30 PM
I agree that there is a high percentage of people who should be working but are not for whatever reason. The republicans however have done nothing to prove that they will do anything to get those people back to work.

This is simply false. The republicans have repeatedly passed bills in the house to try to create jobs. They all have one thing in common. See if you can figure it out.

http://www.gop.gov/indepth/jobs/tracker

Wickabee
09-05-2012, 02:08 PM
You can rig the numbers by constantly coming out with new numbers.

Wickabee
09-05-2012, 02:11 PM
It's always been about the u-6. This is not some new measure of unemployment. It measures unemployment by the number of able bodied people, not just those seeking work.

So healthy retirees are included?

AUTaxMan
09-05-2012, 02:21 PM
So healthy retirees are included?

No, they aren't. I thought that was obvious, but I should have clarified. That group is not included in either unemployment statistic.

Wickabee
09-05-2012, 02:31 PM
No, they aren't. I thought that was obvious, but I should have clarified. That group is not included in either unemployment statistic.

So then what's the difference?

AUTaxMan
09-05-2012, 02:42 PM
So then what's the difference?

The U-3 does not count able-bodied people who were once searching for work but have since given up and part-time workers who are still searching for full-time employment. The U-6 includes those people, thus showing a more realistic figure for unemployment.

duwal
09-05-2012, 03:17 PM
The U-3 does not count able-bodied people who were once searching for work but have since given up and part-time workers who are still searching for full-time employment. The U-6 includes those people, thus showing a more realistic figure for unemployment.


but with the more realistic figure on unemployment its also including a good percentage of people that are finding any reason possible to complain about not working. Heck we even have a member on here that said he has been unemployed for 3 years but they didn't want to take a lesser job because 'those are for the Mexicans' There are people saying that they hand in their resume and get turned down because they are over qualified. Well it doesn't take a rocket science to figure out that you should trim your resume up some items. Others complain that there aren't any jobs in their area. Then look outside your area. Look for a job with a longer commute. Look into possibly relocating. If some of the unemployed actually lowered their ego some to join the workforce than the percentage would drop down at a pretty good rate. Jobs are out there but so many of the unemployed are just Americans being lazy

Wickabee
09-05-2012, 03:48 PM
The U-3 does not count able-bodied people who were once searching for work but have since given up and part-time workers who are still searching for full-time employment. The U-6 includes those people, thus showing a more realistic figure for unemployment.

So you're trying to pass off underemploymeny as outright unemployment. Gotcha.

AUTaxMan
09-05-2012, 03:59 PM
So you're trying to pass off underemploymeny as outright unemployment. Gotcha.

It does have an underemployment metric in it, but it provides a more realistic assessment of the employment problem in the country than does the U-3. The U-5 disregards the underemployment factor but includes the others. It is currently at 9.7%.

Unemployment Rate : U-5
2000 - 2012

Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Year
2000 4.8 5.0 4.8 4.7 4.8 4.7 4.8 4.8 4.7 4.6 4.7 4.7 2000
2001 5.0 5.1 5.0 5.1 5.1 5.3 5.4 5.8 5.8 6.2 6.4 6.6 2001
2002 6.7 6.6 6.6 6.8 6.7 6.7 6.8 6.7 6.6 6.6 6.8 6.9 2002
2003 6.9 6.9 6.9 6.9 7.0 7.2 7.1 7.1 7.1 7.0 6.8 6.6 2003
2004 6.8 6.6 6.8 6.5 6.6 6.6 6.5 6.4 6.4 6.5 6.3 6.3 2004
2005 6.4 6.4 6.2 6.1 6.0 6.0 5.9 5.9 5.9 5.9 5.9 5.8 2005
2006 5.7 5.7 5.6 5.5 5.5 5.6 5.7 5.7 5.3 5.3 5.4 5.2 2006
2007 5.6 5.4 5.2 5.3 5.3 5.5 5.5 5.5 5.5 5.6 5.6 5.8 2007
2008 6.0 5.8 5.9 5.8 6.3 6.5 6.7 7.1 7.1 7.5 8.0 8.5 2008
2009 9.0 9.5 9.8 10.1 10.7 10.8 10.8 11.0 11.1 11.5 11.2 11.4 2009
2010 11.1 11.1 11.0 11.2 10.9 11.0 11.0 11.0 11.0 11.2 11.2 10.9 2010
2011 10.7 10.5 10.3 10.4 10.3 10.7 10.7 10.6 10.5 10.4 10.2 10.0 2011
2012 9.9 9.8 9.6 9.5 9.6 7.7 9.7

Wickabee
09-05-2012, 07:02 PM
Now here's the real question. Is it really a good idea to have 1000 different numbers? Seems to me it's just a method of cherry-picking "facts" that may or may not exist to further one's point.

AUTaxMan
09-05-2012, 07:05 PM
Now here's the real question. Is it really a good idea to have 1000 different numbers? Seems to me it's just a method of cherry-picking "facts" that may or may not exist to further one's point.

I'm not sure why they have six different numbers, but they do.

theonedru
09-05-2012, 07:20 PM
but with the more realistic figure on unemployment its also including a good percentage of people that are finding any reason possible to complain about not working. Heck we even have a member on here that said he has been unemployed for 3 years but they didn't want to take a lesser job because 'those are for the Mexicans' There are people saying that they hand in their resume and get turned down because they are over qualified. Well it doesn't take a rocket science to figure out that you should trim your resume up some items. Others complain that there aren't any jobs in their area. Then look outside your area. Look for a job with a longer commute. Look into possibly relocating. If some of the unemployed actually lowered their ego some to join the workforce than the percentage would drop down at a pretty good rate. Jobs are out there but so many of the unemployed are just Americans being lazy

This speaks volumes over any statistical number

Wickabee
09-05-2012, 08:56 PM
I'm not sure why they have six different numbers, but they do.

You have 6 equations that lead to 6 different conclusions and pass it all off as "unemployment rate". With Obama in office, the Republicans can use the highest number while Democrats use the lowest. Put a Republican in and it's swapped out. It's stupidity at its finest, and none of these "statistics" mean a single thing.

habsheaven
09-05-2012, 10:08 PM
You have 6 equations that lead to 6 different conclusions and pass it all off as "unemployment rate". With Obama in office, the Republicans can use the highest number while Democrats use the lowest. Put a Republican in and it's swapped out. It's stupidity at its finest, and none of these "statistics" mean a single thing.

And all of those statistics show the same highs and lows, which also show that whichever rate you use it has come down over the last 2 years.

shrewsbury
09-06-2012, 01:45 AM
ok, here are some more stats and it still doesn't look good for obama.

the short;


Obama’s economic team calculated that without the stimulus plan, the economy would lose another 1,613,000 jobs over the ensuing two-year period. But with passage of the stimulus bill, they claimed that not only would those 1,613,000 jobs be saved, but an additional 1,887,000 would be created, all by January of 2011. But as you can see in the table below, Mr. Obama’s economic team was way off the mark. By February of 2010, just one year later, an additional 5,051,000 private sector jobs were lost. This brought the total number of jobs lost from the beginning of the Great Recession to 8,786,000. Fortunately, this turned out to be the end of the decline.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/2894973/posts