Unemployment fell

[IndyColtsFan]

Originally posted by: heyheybooboo
@ alchemize

Loser Horns w/ Buzzer

tell me who is the one spending more

Please reread my post (and in fairness, I probably did not word it well):

"Have you seen the deficit numbers of Obama vs. Bush? Go ahead and look for them and THEN tell me who is the one spending more."

 

[heyheybooboo]

I love the way you guys get your panties in a wadd without even looking at the Obama budget.

 

[IndyColtsFan]

Originally posted by: heyheybooboo
I love the way you guys get your panties in a wadd without even looking at the Obama budget.

Hey, mine aren't in a wad. I didn't like Bush. I'm not fond of Obama. I don't have a horse in this race, but the numbers are pretty scary for both guys. They just happen to be scarier going forward. The graphs we linked to include the White House's own projections.

 

[Jiggz]

Originally posted by: Special K

Originally posted by: lokiju

Originally posted by: Martin
Here, use this handy flowchart:
http://www.nakedhedgefund.com/...oyment-rate-flowchart/

Holy shit!

So according to that chart, it's entirely possible that this apparent drop in unemployment could just be the result of a large number of unemployed people being cut out of the unemployment statistic?

I suppose it could also be due to jobs created from stimulus spending, but will those jobs last?

I'm not saying I think things are going to suddenly get much worse, but the improved unemployment rate does seem somewhat suspicious.

Using simple mathematics and with total disregard on what the BLS considers employed and unemployed. With an additional net loss of 234K jobs how could unemployment percentage dip to 9.4% from 9.5%? Obviously, there was no "gain" in employment which can cause the dip since the "net" was a "loss" of 234K jobs. So it's also obvious to say this so called "Spendulus" didn't create jobs or if it did it was so few and just enough to keep BLS fully manned to put out this smokescreen or BS about the economy.

 

[Siddhartha]

Using the same math to calculate the numbers, around 750,000 jobs were lost in December or January and last month the number was down to around 250,000.

From what I have read, economists were predicting that last month's unemployment numbers would be higher.

The optimism or rather less pessimism being expressed about the economy stems from the fact that this one sector exceed expectations.

Yes, the US and the world is still in a bad recession.

 

[alchemize]

Originally posted by: heyheybooboo
@ alchemize

Loser Horns w/ Buzzer

tell me who is the one spending more

Well first, Congress sets the budgets and the president approves. But you are correct for your 200 day time period.

Tell you what, 200 days in a awful small sample size. But you're so sure that Obama is going to spend less, we really need to measure a full term. I've been here 10 years, I'll be around. I don't know if you will or not, but I'll put faith in it. Let's bet say, $10,000? If you don't like that number, come up with another. Inflation adjusted, Bush's 2nd term versus Obama's first, who spends more? Deal?

 

[Patranus]

Originally posted by: alchemize
Well first, Congress sets the budgets and the president approves.

So then the deficits from 2007 forward are the results of the DEMOCRATICALLY controlled congress?

 

[Special K]

Originally posted by: Jiggz

Originally posted by: Special K

Originally posted by: lokiju

Originally posted by: Martin
Here, use this handy flowchart:
http://www.nakedhedgefund.com/...oyment-rate-flowchart/

Holy shit!

So according to that chart, it's entirely possible that this apparent drop in unemployment could just be the result of a large number of unemployed people being cut out of the unemployment statistic?

I suppose it could also be due to jobs created from stimulus spending, but will those jobs last?

I'm not saying I think things are going to suddenly get much worse, but the improved unemployment rate does seem somewhat suspicious.

Using simple mathematics and with total disregard on what the BLS considers employed and unemployed. With an additional net loss of 234K jobs how could unemployment percentage dip to 9.4% from 9.5%? Obviously, there was no "gain" in employment which can cause the dip since the "net" was a "loss" of 234K jobs. So it's also obvious to say this so called "Spendulus" didn't create jobs or if it did it was so few and just enough to keep BLS fully manned to put out this smokescreen or BS about the economy.

Here's an Op-Ed article I found in the NYT that agrees with my suspicions: the only reason the official unemployment rate fell for July is because a large chunk of unemployed workers were removed from the statistics:

link

 

[Patranus]

Originally posted by: Special K
Here's an Op-Ed article I found in the NYT that agrees with my suspicions: the only reason the official unemployment rate fell for July is because a large chunk of unemployed workers were removed from the statistics:

link

Thats what I said but was called a "troll"

Here is another link to another story
http://www.forbes.com/2009/08/...tway-unemployment.html

Gotta cook the books to ram through health care.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: Patranus

Originally posted by: Special K
Here's an Op-Ed article I found in the NYT that agrees with my suspicions: the only reason the official unemployment rate fell for July is because a large chunk of unemployed workers were removed from the statistics:

link

Thats what I said but was called a "troll"

Here is another link to another story
http://www.forbes.com/2009/08/...tway-unemployment.html

Gotta cook the books to ram through health care.

And by 'cook the books' you mean 'use the exact same measure for unemployment that has been used for decades', right?

 

[First]

Originally posted by: Patranus

Originally posted by: Special K
Here's an Op-Ed article I found in the NYT that agrees with my suspicions: the only reason the official unemployment rate fell for July is because a large chunk of unemployed workers were removed from the statistics:

link

Thats what I said but was called a "troll"

Here is another link to another story
http://www.forbes.com/2009/08/...tway-unemployment.html

Gotta cook the books to ram through health care.

lmao. Damn, you guys are going to look worse than 06-08 ProfJohn in 2010.

 

[TheSlamma]

From the Forbes article:

"Even worse, the Economic Policy Institute highlights that the number of workers who have been unemployed for over six months increased by 584,000 to 5 million.

So, 584,000 people fall into long-term unemployment. For regular unemployment, 247,000 jobs were lost and 422,000 people left the labor force altogether, but since the latter number is larger, the rate "improves." That's why the 9.4% rate is the bad news."

 

[Patranus]

So......Did Obama "cook the books" because he needed some good news?

Retail sales disappointed in July and the number of newly laid-off workers filing claims for unemployment benefits rose unexpectedly last week. The latest government reports reinforced concerns about how quickly consumers will be able to contribute to a broad economic recovery.

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/...pf-1948834182.html?x=0

 

[Engineer]

Originally posted by: Patranus
So......Did Obama "cook the books" because he needed some good news?

Retail sales disappointed in July and the number of newly laid-off workers filing claims for unemployment benefits rose unexpectedly last week. The latest government reports reinforced concerns about how quickly consumers will be able to contribute to a broad economic recovery.

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/...pf-1948834182.html?x=0

From that same article....

The number of people remaining on the benefit rolls, meanwhile, fell to 6.2 million from 6.34 million the previous week. Analysts had expected a smaller decline. The continuing claims data lags initial claims by one week.