Unemployment Rate

[tpeichel]

With the stimulus Obama predicted 5.6% employment rate
With no stimulus Obama predicted 6.0 % employment rate
Actual unemployment rate 8.3%
If the labor participation rate was the same as when Obama took office, unemployment would be 11%
Tell me why I should believe Obama when he predicts his plan over the next four years will help the economy grow?

[Wickabee]

Well it can be argued that unemployment dropped in his tenure, predictions are never exact and rarely correct and hindsight is 20/20.

I would say you should never believe anyone who predicts anything. Take it into account, sure, but no one knows the future, not even the President.

[habsheaven]

How many jobs is Romney's campaign promising in his first term, 12 million? Who wants to wager Romney hits that goal?

[shrewsbury]

unemployment dropped?

5.6 to 8.4 doesn't seem like a drop to me, even after they fixed the math in his favor, it has risen.

stimulus only stimulated those Obama liked and the price of precious metals

[Wickabee]

unemployment dropped?

5.6 to 8.4 doesn't seem like a drop to me, even after they fixed the math in his favor, it has risen.

stimulus only stimulated those Obama liked and the price of precious metals

So unemployment was at 11%, as you said, and is now at 8.3%...how is that not a drop?
He started at 11%, not 5.6% that was a projection, an arbitrary and imagined number that never actually existed. Using his projection as his starting point to say unemployment rose is number fixing, not using the actual, existing numbers.

[tpeichel]

So unemployment was at 11%, as you said, and is now at 8.3%...how is that not a drop?
He started at 11%, not 5.6% that was a projection, an arbitrary and imagined number that never actually existed. Using his projection as his starting point to say unemployment rose is number fixing, not using the actual, existing numbers.

11% would be the unemployment rate if millions of unemployed were still be counted as unemployed. After a person stops looking for work, the unemployment rate no longer counts them as one of the unemployed. Here's a graph of the labor participation rate. If you're not working you're not paying taxes and simply consuming whatever the government can collect from taxpaying citizens and pass on to you. This is the really scary chart.

[Wickabee]

Ok...than what shrew posted is incorrect.

Or conservatives are using a bunch of contradictory numbers to prove a point that doesn't exist.

[tpeichel]

Ok...than what shrew posted is incorrect.

Or conservatives are using a bunch of contradictory numbers to prove a point that doesn't exist.

The red dots are the actual unemployment rates. They have been roughly 3% higher than Obama has predicted, but as mentioned previously, that is only because they calculate the rate strangely. Comparing his predicted rate of 5.6% to the 11% using the same labor participation as when he took office and you realize how clueless these guys were.

I scoffed when these clowns came up with a plan to solve our problem of too much debt with even larger quantities of debt, but the Obama cheerleaders always tried to shout me down. There are only two ways to get rid of debt, pay it down with surplus (annual trillion dollar deficits anyone?) or default and make the people who made the bad bets suffer.

We refuse to do either and just keep digging the debt hole deeper. Obama has already said he's going to continue the same strategy and he's not going to go after the banksters since "they didn't break any laws". I imagine that Romney won't be all that much different.

[shrewsbury]

no, wickabee, it means what i posted was right on.

when did those numbers change and the formula change? when Obama took office

look at the graph and use your head instead of thinking you need to be anti conservative, there is no conspiracy theory

we went from 63% americans working when he took office to under 59%, how is that an improvement, that would mean 4% less are working, my numbers made him look better at 2.8

[Wickabee]

The red dots are the actual unemployment rates. They have been roughly 3% higher than Obama has predicted, but as mentioned previously, that is only because they calculate the rate strangely. Comparing his predicted rate of 5.6% to the 11% using the same labor participation as when he took office and you realize how clueless these guys were.

I scoffed when these clowns came up with a plan to solve our problem of too much debt with even larger quantities of debt, but the Obama cheerleaders always tried to shout me down. There are only two ways to get rid of debt, pay it down with surplus (annual trillion dollar deficits anyone?) or default and make the people who made the bad bets suffer.

We refuse to do either and just keep digging the debt hole deeper. Obama has already said he's going to continue the same strategy and he's not going to go after the banksters since "they didn't break any laws". I imagine that Romney won't be all that much different.

Oh I agree the stimulus plans in both the US and Canada have done little-to-nothing to fix the economy. However you have to decide which sets of numbers you want to use. Where was unemplyomen at when he took office as opposed to now? Where was/is the "labour participation" rate? Are the two converse? As in if unemployment is 11% does that make the labour participation 89%?
You can't mix the numbers up. Use one set or the other, or use both but only in relation to the same number, unemployment then vs now and labour participation then vs now. Otherwise you're just being confusing. If that's what you want, fine, but it doesn't make much of a point.