HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » Clint Eastwood LIED. U.S....
Introducing Discussionist: A new forum by the creators of DU

Sat Sep 1, 2012, 07:17 PM

Clint Eastwood LIED. U.S. Labor Department counts 12.8 million people as unemployed - not 23 million



Eastwood's inflated unemployment count

NEW YORK (CNNMoney) -- Clint Eastwood's biting criticism of President Obama was a big hit with the crowd at the Republican National Convention. But his reading of the nation's unemployment situation missed by a wide margin.

Eastwood's speech on Thursday night mocked supporters of the president like Oprah Winfrey, who cried the night Obama was elected for years ago.

"I haven't cried that hard since I found out that there are 23 million unemployed people in this country," Eastwood said. "This administration hasn't done enough to cure that."

But the U.S. Labor Department, which puts out the official government jobs data, counts 12.8 million people as unemployed -- not 23 million.

Even if you add in unemployed people who are not counted in that total because they are not actively looking for work -- a category the Labor Department terms "marginally attached" -- that number rises to just over 15.3 million.

-snip-

http://money.cnn.com/2012/08/31/news/economy/eastwood-unemployment/index.html




Or the blame may lie at the feet of the Romney campaign since they gave Eastwood a set of talking points to incorporate into his speech/act.


-snip-

According to the Times, the Eastwood appearance was cleared by senior campaign leaders Russell Schriefer and Stuart Stevens, who drew up a rough set of talking points for Eastwood.

-snip-
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clint_Eastwood_at_the_2012_Republican_National_Convention



21 replies, 2178 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 21 replies Author Time Post
Reply Clint Eastwood LIED. U.S. Labor Department counts 12.8 million people as unemployed - not 23 million (Original post)
Tx4obama Sep 2012 OP
CJCRANE Sep 2012 #1
Lone_Star_Dem Sep 2012 #7
Cha Sep 2012 #17
elleng Sep 2012 #2
Vincardog Sep 2012 #3
gulliver Sep 2012 #4
johnnie Sep 2012 #5
LeftofObama Sep 2012 #8
Lionessa Sep 2012 #6
DURHAM D Sep 2012 #9
Zalatix Sep 2012 #12
Fumesucker Sep 2012 #20
Lionessa Sep 2012 #14
Tx4obama Sep 2012 #15
zbdent Sep 2012 #10
spanone Sep 2012 #11
fascisthunter Sep 2012 #13
Cha Sep 2012 #16
Hydra Sep 2012 #18
Terra Alta Sep 2012 #19
Igel Sep 2012 #21

Response to Tx4obama (Original post)

Sat Sep 1, 2012, 07:20 PM

1. IIRC, 23 million jobs were *created* under the Clinton administration.

Maybe that's where the number came from (deep in the recesses of Clint's memory).

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CJCRANE (Reply #1)

Sat Sep 1, 2012, 07:29 PM

7. Maybe, It is close to the number of jobs created under Clinton.

I think the number would be inflated about 500k or so, but it's as good a guess as any.

I'm inclined to believe he just whipped the number out of his butt, personally.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Lone_Star_Dem (Reply #7)

Sat Sep 1, 2012, 09:23 PM

17. I'm inclined to think your inclination

is Freaking Spot ON.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tx4obama (Original post)

Sat Sep 1, 2012, 07:22 PM

2. Surprised?

Lie down with dogs . . . .

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tx4obama (Original post)

Sat Sep 1, 2012, 07:23 PM

3. Who determines "they are not actively looking for work"? I suspect it is directly tied to UI Benes

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tx4obama (Original post)

Sat Sep 1, 2012, 07:24 PM

4. I wonder if he got the 23 million number from the Romney people.

That would be interesting. That is apparently the number they have been using. Eastwood is gonna be pissed if the Romney people fed him a bunch of bullshit.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tx4obama (Original post)

Sat Sep 1, 2012, 07:24 PM

5. Don't blame Clint

Blame the ceiling fan that told him those stats.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to johnnie (Reply #5)

Sat Sep 1, 2012, 07:30 PM

8. LOL! n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tx4obama (Original post)

Sat Sep 1, 2012, 07:24 PM

6. But I believe by most non-gov't sources, the

 

actual count is usually abou twice the gov't count since the gov't doesn't count idle self-employed, or those that given up looking, etc., and depending on whether you count adults with min wage jobs which is sometimes worse than being unemployed.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Lionessa (Reply #6)

Sat Sep 1, 2012, 07:50 PM

9. You are defending Clint and Romeny staff ... Really?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DURHAM D (Reply #9)

Sat Sep 1, 2012, 08:16 PM

12. There's the U3 numbers and the U6 numbers.

 

The GOP went by the U3 numbers to judge Bush, they're going by the U6 numbers to judge Obama. I'm not sure what the U6 numbers are now, but they're always higher than U3.

23 million might be the U6 numbers, or an exaggeration thereof.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Zalatix (Reply #12)

Sat Sep 1, 2012, 10:46 PM

20. Evidently the U6 is about 15% right now..

http://portalseven.com/employment/unemployment_rate_u6.jsp

Job recovery is scant for Americans in prime working years

http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/job-recovery-is-scant-for-americans-in-prime-working-years/2012/05/29/gJQAnza9zU_story.html

The proportion of Americans in their prime working years who have jobs is smaller than it has been at any time in the 23 years before the recession, according to federal statistics, reflecting the profound and lasting effects that the downturn has had on the nation’s economic prospects.

By this measure, the jobs situation has improved little in recent years. The percentage of workers between the ages of 25 and 54 who have jobs now stands at 75.7 percent, just a percentage point over what it was at the downturn’s worst, according to federal statistics.

Before the recession the proportion hovered at 80 percent.

While the unemployment rate may be the most closely watched gauge of the economy in the presidential campaign, this measure of prime-age workers captures more of the ongoing turbulence in the job market. It reflects “missing workers” who have stopped looking for work and aren’t included in the unemployment rate.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DURHAM D (Reply #9)

Sat Sep 1, 2012, 08:48 PM

14. The way I'm looking at it, I'm defending the 12.5 million uncounted un-

 

un-employed and under-employed. But if you want to add a heap of bullshit to fit you agenda, go ahead, though I think that stinks.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Lionessa (Reply #14)

Sat Sep 1, 2012, 09:18 PM

15. You can read the last paragraph up in the OP excerpt, instead of making up your own numbers n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tx4obama (Original post)

Sat Sep 1, 2012, 08:10 PM

10. I wonder how many of those "unemployed" that are even "accurately" reflected in the numbers

are being employed "under the table" but not reported ...

You know, the ones who say they need to be paid in cash, no checks ...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tx4obama (Original post)

Sat Sep 1, 2012, 08:13 PM

11. imagine that, a lyin' teabugger

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tx4obama (Original post)

Sat Sep 1, 2012, 08:16 PM

13. Hint: he's an ACTOR! Hi profession is to deceive.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tx4obama (Original post)

Sat Sep 1, 2012, 09:21 PM

16. Yeah, he's a MF Liar just like mitt and mini mitt.

Ol' Clint didn't mention the teabag congress that blocked PBO's JOB Bill, either. Idiot is too lazy/brainwashed to do his homework.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tx4obama (Original post)

Sat Sep 1, 2012, 10:35 PM

18. That might actually be a low number

Considering the official(ly skewed) number is much lower than the actual.

Nope, find another fact to contradict. This one has wings.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tx4obama (Original post)

Sat Sep 1, 2012, 10:39 PM

19. Eastwood is a Republican.

Lying is in his blood, basically. What's a little 10 million difference, if enough people believe his lies?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Terra Alta (Reply #19)

Sat Sep 1, 2012, 11:48 PM

21. Depends on what he means by "unemployment."

People that usually don't like relying on U-3 are suddenly swearing by it.

U-6 is quite a bit higher. I've seen 15 million cited, but if 8% of the workforce is 12 million people then 16% can't be 15 million. To use U-6, often cited as "broader unemployment"--although suddenly it's mostly not unemployment at all, you have to think those that are involuntarily underemployed are unemployed. In '08 this was certainly the case; now this is emphatically not the case.

They flip-flop. We, apparently, do the much superior flop-flip.

Then there are alternative measures for unemployment. U-6 doesn't include everybody who could work or might want to work; there are criteria that must be met. If you graduated, looked for a year or two, and then gave up and decided to be a stay-at-home mom or dad then you're not in U-6. Employed people as a percentage of the working-age population has been declining for a number of years. Some wags have claimed that the percentage of workers would have held steady had the economy allowed it--and that those completely out of the laborforce people should be counted as unemployed.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread