It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by butcherguy
reply to post by campanionator
Yes, 7.8 %..... that's great.
When it was 5.4% the Democratic Party railed about how awful it was.
So they expected so much better of Bush at 5.4%, but when Obama has it at 7.8%, he is doing a brilliant job.
I guess they really have low expectations for Obama.
Originally posted by Blarneystoner
In my 40 plus years, I've never seen such contempt for any POTUS, including Carter and Nixon.
It's as if all Republicans would jump for joy if the economy completely collapsed under the current administration. It wouldn't surprise me if they were actually praying for it.
Originally posted by Wrabbit2000
In specific reference to the economy, the numbers speak for themselves and they speak loud and clear. Obama is bad for employment and it shows.
That's a screen shot of the chart last week from the Bureau of Labor Statistics. Bush had a bad time in 2002/03 for this...but then, umm...
Originally posted by Andcoulter
Originally posted by Wrabbit2000
In specific reference to the economy, the numbers speak for themselves and they speak loud and clear. Obama is bad for employment and it shows.
That's a screen shot of the chart last week from the Bureau of Labor Statistics. Bush had a bad time in 2002/03 for this...but then, umm...
You seem to have trouble reading the chart. Jobs kept vanishing and kept vanishing and kept vanishing and when Obama took office and his policies started going into effect, that trend began to reverse.
Please show me what I am missing.
Originally posted by Wrabbit2000
reply to post by Andcoulter
Huh? Wha? I don't get what you're talking about. That chart is the national unemployment numbers for the months/years indicated by the Bureau of Labor Stats. What do you mean the jobs kept vanishing and vanishing until Obama got elected?
Umm... I think I see what you are reading but I can't be right.. You can't mean the number going down and down for the years prior to Obama coming was a bad thing, can you? The LOWER the number, the better in this....or am I totally missing your point??
I made up a quick little graphic to show the performance problem a bit better here.... The charts are direct copies from the BLS site, the Averages are figured by those and anyone else can check it that way. The 2012 number is derived from the BLS stats on the 9 months of 2012, including the 7.8 figure, and pulling the average.
Like I said, the numbers speak for themselves and they speak loud and clear. At least on this one indicator, they sure do.
...At 46,681,833 million the persons hooked on SNAP, the July number crossed the previous record posted a short month before, as the foodstamp curve continues ‘plumbing’ newer and greater heights each month.
More disturbing is that in the same month, the number of US households reliant on foodstamps rose by a whopping 99,493 to 22,541,744.
Assuming a modest 2 persons per household, the increase means that more people went on Foodstamps in the month of July than found jobs (181,000 according to the latest revised NFP data).
Furthermore, it appears that buying votes has become a tad more expensive in the past month. After the benefit per household dipped to a record low in April at just $275.81, this has since retraced some of its losses and is now at an inflationary $277.92.
Oh well: inflation....
That is, in nearly the four years, since President Obama took office in January 2009, only 827,000 people have been added to the labor force, while during that same time period, 8,208,000 have been added to those not in the labor force. The chart relies on data available from the federal Bureau of Labor Statistics. "The numbers represented in the chart are a measure of growth from January 2009 through September 2012," the Republican side of the Senate Budget Committee explains. "The data is sourced from the Bureau of Labor Statistics’ Current Population Survey, a sample of 60,000 households conducted by personal and telephone interviews. Basic labor force data are gathered monthly. The labor force consists of all people aged 16 and over either employed or actively seeking work. It does not include discouraged workers, people who have retired, or those on welfare or disability who are no longer looking for work. The 'not in the labor force' group is defined as the total civilian non-institutional population minus the labor force."