As we hurtle toward 2024, many pundits have commented on Joe Biden’s age. He turns 81 next month. Some, on have suggested he’s too old to run again for president.
That said, his main rival at the moment appears to be former President Donald Trump. Aged 77, he’s not that far behind Biden.
One person to weigh in with his opinion is 86-year-old Star Trek legend George Takei.
“Whenever the media want to talk about Biden’s age, remember that I am more than six years older than that kid, and both of us could run circles around the Orange Guy,” he tweeted.
“Oh, and Biden’s never been charged with a felony, let alone 91 of them. Just saying.”
Whenever the media want to talk about Biden’s age, remember that I am more than six years older than that kid, and both of us could run circles around the Orange Guy.
Oh, and Biden’s never been charged with a felony, let alone 91 of them. Just saying.
His tweet has quickly racked up over 25K likes, suggesting many agreed with its sentiment. However, his praise for Biden and the dig at Trump quickly rattled the MAGA hive. Many of the 4,000+ comments disagreed with his comment.
It’s hard to get charged when everything is corrupt in your favor.
Takei himself remains remarkably active for a person of his age. He recently took his acclaimed show, Allegiance, based on his experiences in an internment camp during World War II, to London. He’s also reliably sharp in interviews.
However, he’s right about the chatter around Biden’s age. A recent Wall Street Journal poll found that 73% of voters had concerns over the President’s advancing years. They said a statement that Biden “is too old to run for president” described him “very” or “somewhat well.”
A CNN poll from early September found a similar result. It said 73% of all voters were “seriously concerned” over Biden’s physical and mental competence. This included 56% of Democratic voters included in the survey. 60% of Democratic voters also expressed concerns over Biden’s ability to win re-election if he secures the Democratic nomination.
Biden has acknowledged the comments over his age. During a recent Labor Day event in Philadelphia, he said, “I’ll tell you what, someone said you know, that Biden he’s getting old, man. The only thing that comes with age is a little bit of wisdom. I’ve been doing this longer than anybody, and guess what? I’m going to continue to do it with your help.”
Biden´s age becomes irrelevant when he´s put up against the Count of Monte Crisco (really senile), and repugnicans themselves won´t even vote as a majority for any of that group of lightweights that pretended to debate last night on Fox Business (ha).
And as for George Takei, he´s just terrific – I love Allegiance and his success with the endeavor, and may he tweet or x for many years to come.
I wouldn’t vote for George any more than I would vote for Joe or Donald. But at least he hasn’t tried to star in a Star Trek series like Patrick Stewart, who has aged beyond his ability to act well.
Unless something major happens (illness or Trump being arrested or whatever), it seems pretty likely that Biden and Trump will face off in 2024. Biden is no where near by top choice and I don’t think he should run, but the other option would be letting a Republican win so I’m going to vote for Biden. One party has it in their platform to reverse marriage equality, to restrict education, to harm queer kids, and to deregulate a bunch of crap.
So, I guess my question for you is if you won’t vote for Biden or Trump, what are you going to do?
I’m still hoping that by some miracle, the choice will be better than Trump vs Biden. But if not, I will do what I did in 2020 and vote Libertarian or for some other 3rd party candidate.
Picard is a very good show. I thoroughly enjoyed it. I was surprised you thought Patrick Stewart’s performance wasn’t good. I thought it was excellent.
No idea why George Takai hasn’t been in a Star Trek reboot. He’d be very good, still.
As far as Joe being too old, I have my concerns here too, but if he is the nominee I will vote for him.
@dbmcvey
I live in Tennessee. My vote has been meaningless since 2004 here, because the Republican always gets the electoral college votes. Last time I voted for a Republican presidential candidate was 2000. But of course, the Democrats didn’t start running geriatric candidates until 2020.
Ablard and dbm,
Minds are not made in your image. Get used to it.
Fred,
Maybe vote for the lesser of two evils that can win? You can then influence others to do the same. You don’t want a dictator running our country do you?
@Diplomat
I’m subversive enough to believe that making a statement that I’m not going to keep voting for bad candidates from the DNC is more important than confirming their notion that people will vote for whomever they put on the ballot because the Republican agenda is a threat to democracy.
Is George claiming that because he’s older than Biden, and he allegedly has his faculties in order, that Biden can’t possibly be suffering from dementia? There need to be age limits in politics, this is getting ridiculous.
That is exactly George’s position. I don’t think Biden has dementia, but he is losing a step or two. Do I share your concern? Yes. Will I vote for him if he is the nominee? Yes, barring the resurrection of Abraham Lincoln.
Should there be age limits? Yes, in all elected positions. But we do not have them now.
Lumpy, I don’t know if it’s officially dementia but he’s not right, he’s forgetful and doesn’t seem to know what he’s doing most of the time. When it’s time for him to speak his handlers give him a shot of something to make him mildly coherent for an hour and a half and then back to being confused. So no, I would not vote for someone who is obviously not making his own decisions, over someone who is capable of making their own decisions.
I believe we should really think about the wisdom of Biden running again at his age. He is starting to look and, frankly, act fragile. He has done an excellent job, especially with this shit show of a congress he has to deal with. I have no regrets in supporting and voting for him.
I would prefer someone younger at this point. Newsome make sense to me. He’s really been stepping up.
If Joe is the candidate, I will actively support and vote for him. There is not one republican running that isn’t disastrously flawed. I fear that is what the status quo in the party is counting on.
As a tertiary issue, Kamala’s role as VP will be a bigger issue in a new election. While I like her, I think she is a political boat anchor as she has not taken advantage of the position – at least she has not promoted the aura of being ready to be president. It’s a weaker ticket overall than in 2020. This worries me.
George is the best and so cute in calling Biden ‘kid’ 🙂 . The U.S. is a thoroughly ageist nation, so anyone over 40 is considered “old,” so it’s no surprise that people are obsessed with Biden’s age. What’s so significant is that his age is the only real “issue” people can come up with to complain about because Biden has been – and is – a phenomenal President who advocates for all Americans. The impact he has had on the economy, including unemployment, is tremendous but, of course, ignorant American think their President should be blamed for every single issue they face.
Biden has done nothing for employment. The jobs he and his administration claim to have created are just people going back to work after COVID lockdowns.
Oh, Abs. If Trump falsely claimed he pulled 10 million jobs out of his rear end from COVID, we still wouldn’t be hearing the end of it from your supplicant, borderline idiotic liberals. Look into cognitive dissonance, sweet baby.
I love how conservatives will claim Trump is responsible for the jobs at the beginning of his term although they happened because of Obama’s administration. They don’t blame Trump for all the jobs lost from his mishandling of COVID, but they try to claim he’s responsible for the recovery under Biden.
But then, they also try to claim 9-11 happened under Clinton, the recession happened under Obama and the COVID recovery happened under Trump. They all seem to have lost their calendars.
Not. A. Conservative. Do they make sense after my ramshod medical gender transition in the good ol’ progressive hell state of California? God, yes. As of this month, I’m a paid canvasser for the No Labels Party and probably voting for RFK. My point still stands. Thanks for playing, though.
And by the way, the Clinton doctrine was certainly culpable for the Sept. 11th attacks. When 9/11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed was captured and asked about his plans for follow-on attacks, he smirked and said: “I’ll tell you everything when I get to New York and see my lawyer.” He mistakenly thought he’d be arrested and slapped on the wrist as it occured under Bill Clinton.
Shaver, you’re incorrect. Under Biden the US has created more jobs, including people going back to prior lost jobs under Don the Con, than any president since Clinton. The US unemployment rate is the lowest in 50 years, women’s participation rate in jobs is the highest ever, the Black and Asian American unemployment rates are the lowest ever, and the US has created hundreds of thousands of new manufacturing jobs. While inflation is still a problem, you are incorrect about unemployment. Please look at the Bureau of Labor Statistics’ numbers or anything other than FoxNews, where you seem to be getting all of your (wrong) information.
Decrans, Don the Con presided over the loss of 10 million jobs. I know it’s painful for you to admit, but Mr. MAGA FRAUDster CON was the one whose presidency ended in a complete and total economic and social disaster. Which he then capped off with a failed coup attempt. Say what you will about liberals, but NO “liberal” president has presided over job losses like Don the Con or George Walker Bush!
First off, not a supporter of Trump. I couldn’t care less. Secondly, if people are going back to work at old jobs, that is not job creation. Be honest. Speaking cute, little half-truths is something MAGA Republicans would do.
And in the spirit of transparency, the average middle-class family has lost $10,000 worth of spending power under the Biden presidency. Hasn’t fixed it yet! And here comes the 2024 election season down the pike. Cherry-pick those arguments all you wish. There are other economic realities on the kitchen table and that’s why Joe Biden is neck-and-neck with Trump. Facts and reality, Kangol.
Since Abs posts song lyrics and NYT articles, here’s some good stuff from FactCheck.org to put the liberal sycophant talking points to bed in the Queerty comment section. That way, when Kangol parrots another WhiteHouse.gov press release ad naseum, we’ll have context and receipts.
Factcheck.org
Speaking at the U.S. Conference of Mayors’ winter meeting, President Joe Biden botched a statistic on the number of people receiving unemployment benefits, misidentifying them simply as the number of people “out of work.” His comment leaves the false impression that unemployment declined by more than 16 million people on his watch, when the decline was actually under 5 million.
And a big reason for the large decline in unemployment benefits is the expiration of pandemic-related expansions of such benefits.
“Two years ago this week, 18 million people were out of work — two years ago this week,” Biden said at the conference on Jan. 20. “Now the — that number is under 1.6 million, near the lowest level in decades.”
The White House transcript notes that the line drew applause.
But it’s not accurate. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the number of people “out of work” — or officially unemployed — in the U.S. in January 2021 was about 10.2 million, and the number in December 2022 was 5.7 million.
A White House spokesperson told us Biden was referring to the number of people receiving unemployment insurance benefits. And he noted that Biden was including pandemic unemployment insurance programs. By that measure, and with those caveats, the statistic cited by the president would be nearly accurate (although we would note the number has crept up from 1.6 million in mid-December to 1.9 million by Dec. 31, the latest data now available).
Assistant White House Press Secretary Michael Kikukawa told us Biden was simply using “shorthand for something that is true,” and that on at least two occasions — in remarks in early December and in a tweet on Jan. 25 — Biden has “more fully contextualized” his comments by noting that he was talking about the number of people claiming unemployment benefits.
Biden may have simply been careless in his wording of the statistic before the U.S. Conference of Mayors, but the Department of Labor explains on its website that it is a common public misconception to confuse the two metrics.
“Some people think that to get these figures on unemployment the Government uses the number of persons filing claims for unemployment insurance (UI) benefits under State or Federal Government programs,” the Department of Labor says on a webpage dedicated to explaining the difference between the two. “But some people are still jobless when their benefits run out, and many more are not eligible at all or delay or never apply for benefits. So, quite clearly, UI information cannot be used as a source for complete information on the number of unemployed.”
Among the unemployed who are not covered by UI programs are “self-employed workers, unpaid family workers, workers in certain not-for-profit organizations, and several other small (primarily seasonal) worker categories,” the Department of Labor explains in a Frequently Asked Questions webpage. Also not eligible are unemployed people whose UI benefits have run out; workers who have newly entered the workforce and have not yet earned UI benefits; workers disqualified from UI because they lost their jobs “from their own actions rather than from economic conditions,” such as being fired for misconduct; and people who would qualify for UI but simply do not file for benefits.
“Because of these and other limitations, statistics on insured unemployment cannot be used as a measure of total unemployment in the United States,” the Department of Labor states. “Indeed, over the past decade, only about one-third of the total unemployed, on average, received regular UI benefits.”
Indeed, the number of people “out of work,” or unemployed by the Department of Labor’s definition, was 225% higher in December than the figure Biden cited. On the other side of Biden’s comparison, the number of unemployed people in January 2021, when Biden took office, was significantly lower than the number receiving unemployment benefits (the figure Biden used), and we’ll explain why.
Unemployment Insurance Claims
The total number of people getting unemployment benefits was steadily holding at about 2.1 million per week in January, February and the first couple of weeks of March 2020, right before the pandemic changed everything. Between the weeks ending March 14 and March 28, the number of people receiving unemployment benefits nearly quadrupled to 8.3 million. And it rose steadily for months after that, reaching a high of 33.2 million the week of June 20. (To see the total number receiving UI benefits, including pandemic programs, go to the Department of Labor’s webpage on “Unemployment Insurance Data.” Click on “Benefits and Claims” and then “UI Weekly Continued Claims — All Programs.”)
As the Bureau of Labor Statistics explained in September 2021, claims for unemployment benefits “rose sharply” during the height of the pandemic “because of the substantial job loss” but also because of “the expansion of UI programs.”
The federal government expanded UI benefits through the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act, or CARES Act, which was signed by President Donald Trump on March 27, 2020. As the Department of Labor explains, among other things, the CARES Act “expand[ed] states’ ability to provide unemployment insurance for many workers impacted by the COVID-19 pandemic, including for workers who are not ordinarily eligible for unemployment benefits.” Pandemic Unemployment Assistance, or PUA, for example, was offered to the self-employed and those seeking part-time work.
“To qualify for PUA benefits, you must not be eligible for regular unemployment benefits and be unemployed, partially unemployed, or unable or unavailable to work because of certain health or economic consequences of the COVID-19 pandemic,” the Department of Labor explained.
The law also extended the maximum number of weeks a person could receive unemployment benefits, through what was called the Pandemic Emergency Unemployment Compensation, or PEUC, program. “Importantly, the CARES Act gives states flexibility in determining whether you are ‘actively seeking work’ if you are unable to search for work because of COVID-19, including because of illness, quarantine, or movement restrictions,” the Department of Labor noted.
The week Biden took office in January 2021, the number of people receiving UI benefits through the PUA and PEUC programs was 11.5 million, accounting for nearly two-thirds of all UI recipients. That explains how there were some 8 million more people receiving UI benefits in January 2021 than there were unemployed people, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics.
In March of that year, Biden signed the American Rescue Plan Act, which extended the PUA and PEUC programs until Sept. 6, 2021. Some people receiving PUA and PEUC benefits continue to show up in small numbers on weekly reports, because claims are still being processed. But those two sources of UI benefits largely ended in September 2021. As a result, the total number of people getting UI benefits went from 12.1 million the last week of August 2021 to 3.3 million the first week of October 2021, a month later.
So a lot of the drop cited by Biden has to do with the expiration of UI benefits that were expanded because of the pandemic, which has since waned. Kikukawa, the White House spokesperson, also makes the case that “we were able to phase out those pandemic programs precisely because they weren’t needed anymore thanks to our historically strong recovery.”
According to the most recent data available from the last week of December, the total number of people getting UI benefits was 1.9 million. The number has been trending in the wrong direction since the week of Oct. 8, when it was just over 1.2 million. But even at 1.9 million, the number of people getting UI benefits is low, historically speaking. It was a bit higher in the first two months of 2020, just before the pandemic hit, but it was lower every week from the week of March 30, 2019, to the week of Dec. 21, 2019. And it was about the same or lower in parts of 2015, 2016, 2017 and 2018.
Calculating the Unemployed
As we said, the number of people receiving UI benefits is a very different statistic than the estimated number of unemployed people in the U.S.
According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, “[p]eople are classified as unemployed if they do not have a job, have actively looked for work in the prior 4 weeks, and are currently available for work.” Actively looking for work includes such things as conducting job interviews, submitting resumes or filling out job applications.
The estimated number of unemployed people in the U.S. is based on data collected in a monthly survey — called the Current Population Survey — of over 60,000 households and conducted by the U.S. Census Bureau.
In that survey, a person only officially counts as “unemployed” if they are out of work and say they are available for work and also say they have looked for work at least once in the past four weeks. BLS also keeps track of other “alternative measures of labor underutilization,” which includes “marginally attached workers,” people who say they would work and have looked for work in the past year, but not in the past four weeks; and people who are “part-time for economic reasons” (sometimes called “under-employed”), which includes people who say they want to work full time but have had to settle for part-time work. Obviously, the number of unemployed increases if those kinds of categories are included.
But as we said, the official number of unemployed people in the U.S. was 5.7 million in December. That’s a 44% drop since Biden took office. The number of unemployed had already dropped 56% in nine months prior to Biden taking office.
The number of unemployed people in December is low, historically speaking. The number was almost exactly the same – technically slightly lower — in February 2020 under Trump, right before the pandemic hit. It was also lower in several months of 1999 and 2000. But as we said, although not the lowest, the number is comparatively low in recent history. The average monthly number of unemployed going back to 2000 is 9.2 million.
It’s just not as low as Biden’s claim would leave people to believe. Biden said that two years ago, there were 18 million people “out of work” and now “that number is under 1.6 million.” The number of unemployed Americans was much lower than that two years ago, and it is much higher than that now.
And lastly, Kangol proves my point about supplicant liberals. You sound like a walking press release from whitehouse.gov. Ironic that you’re telling Shaver to get news from other sources beyond Fox News. I got a good LOL from that one, Kang.
You sound like a supplicant GOPer, Decrans. If you do want to believe me, visit the Bureau of Labor Statistics. What’s next, a 5,000 word quoted piece about the Democratic debate audience numbers in 2019 and 2020?
We use cookies on our website to give you the most relevant experience by remembering your preferences and repeat visits. By clicking “Accept”, you consent to the use of ALL the cookies.
This website uses cookies to improve your experience while you navigate through the website. Out of these, the cookies that are categorized as necessary are stored on your browser as they are essential for the working of basic functionalities of the website. We also use third-party cookies that help us analyze and understand how you use this website. These cookies will be stored in your browser only with your consent. You also have the option to opt-out of these cookies. But opting out of some of these cookies may affect your browsing experience.
Necessary cookies are absolutely essential for the website to function properly. These cookies ensure basic functionalities and security features of the website, anonymously.
Cookie
Duration
Description
cookielawinfo-checkbox-analytics
11 months
This cookie is set by GDPR Cookie Consent plugin. The cookie is used to store the user consent for the cookies in the category "Analytics".
cookielawinfo-checkbox-analytics
11 months
This cookie is set by GDPR Cookie Consent plugin. The cookie is used to store the user consent for the cookies in the category "Analytics".
cookielawinfo-checkbox-functional
11 months
The cookie is set by GDPR cookie consent to record the user consent for the cookies in the category "Functional".
cookielawinfo-checkbox-functional
11 months
The cookie is set by GDPR cookie consent to record the user consent for the cookies in the category "Functional".
cookielawinfo-checkbox-necessary
11 months
This cookie is set by GDPR Cookie Consent plugin. The cookies is used to store the user consent for the cookies in the category "Necessary".
cookielawinfo-checkbox-necessary
11 months
This cookie is set by GDPR Cookie Consent plugin. The cookies is used to store the user consent for the cookies in the category "Necessary".
cookielawinfo-checkbox-others
11 months
This cookie is set by GDPR Cookie Consent plugin. The cookie is used to store the user consent for the cookies in the category "Other.
cookielawinfo-checkbox-performance
11 months
This cookie is set by GDPR Cookie Consent plugin. The cookie is used to store the user consent for the cookies in the category "Performance".
cookielawinfo-checkbox-performance
11 months
This cookie is set by GDPR Cookie Consent plugin. The cookie is used to store the user consent for the cookies in the category "Performance".
viewed_cookie_policy
11 months
The cookie is set by the GDPR Cookie Consent plugin and is used to store whether or not user has consented to the use of cookies. It does not store any personal data.
viewed_cookie_policy
11 months
The cookie is set by the GDPR Cookie Consent plugin and is used to store whether or not user has consented to the use of cookies. It does not store any personal data.
Functional cookies help to perform certain functionalities like sharing the content of the website on social media platforms, collect feedbacks, and other third-party features.
Performance cookies are used to understand and analyze the key performance indexes of the website which helps in delivering a better user experience for the visitors.
Analytical cookies are used to understand how visitors interact with the website. These cookies help provide information on metrics the number of visitors, bounce rate, traffic source, etc.
Advertisement cookies are used to provide visitors with relevant ads and marketing campaigns. These cookies track visitors across websites and collect information to provide customized ads.
dbmcvey
I would vote for Biden or George Takei over any of the Republican candidates.
still_onthemark
I would vote for my cat over any of the Republican candidates.
jackmister
Jabba the tRump is hardly any better fit than Joe, mentally or physically.
Fahd
Biden´s age becomes irrelevant when he´s put up against the Count of Monte Crisco (really senile), and repugnicans themselves won´t even vote as a majority for any of that group of lightweights that pretended to debate last night on Fox Business (ha).
And as for George Takei, he´s just terrific – I love Allegiance and his success with the endeavor, and may he tweet or x for many years to come.
FreddieW
I wouldn’t vote for George any more than I would vote for Joe or Donald. But at least he hasn’t tried to star in a Star Trek series like Patrick Stewart, who has aged beyond his ability to act well.
Sheppard87
Unless something major happens (illness or Trump being arrested or whatever), it seems pretty likely that Biden and Trump will face off in 2024. Biden is no where near by top choice and I don’t think he should run, but the other option would be letting a Republican win so I’m going to vote for Biden. One party has it in their platform to reverse marriage equality, to restrict education, to harm queer kids, and to deregulate a bunch of crap.
So, I guess my question for you is if you won’t vote for Biden or Trump, what are you going to do?
FreddieW
I’m still hoping that by some miracle, the choice will be better than Trump vs Biden. But if not, I will do what I did in 2020 and vote Libertarian or for some other 3rd party candidate.
abfab
Observe: Saint Fred talks Miracles and Scruples in the same breath. Christ has risen! The Pences are looking for a house slave. Please apply.
LumpyPillows
Picard is a very good show. I thoroughly enjoyed it. I was surprised you thought Patrick Stewart’s performance wasn’t good. I thought it was excellent.
No idea why George Takai hasn’t been in a Star Trek reboot. He’d be very good, still.
As far as Joe being too old, I have my concerns here too, but if he is the nominee I will vote for him.
dbmcvey
Good to hear that Fred’s vote will be meaningless.
FreddieW
I also liked the last 2 seasons of Picard, but Patrick Stewart was the weakest link. No, I don’t think he can act anymore. Jeri Ryan kept me watching.
FreddieW
@dbmcvey
I live in Tennessee. My vote has been meaningless since 2004 here, because the Republican always gets the electoral college votes. Last time I voted for a Republican presidential candidate was 2000. But of course, the Democrats didn’t start running geriatric candidates until 2020.
dbmcvey
Glad to hear it Fred. The less influence you have the better.
Diplomat
Ablard and dbm,
Minds are not made in your image. Get used to it.
Fred,
Maybe vote for the lesser of two evils that can win? You can then influence others to do the same. You don’t want a dictator running our country do you?
FreddieW
@Diplomat
I’m subversive enough to believe that making a statement that I’m not going to keep voting for bad candidates from the DNC is more important than confirming their notion that people will vote for whomever they put on the ballot because the Republican agenda is a threat to democracy.
ShaverC
Is George claiming that because he’s older than Biden, and he allegedly has his faculties in order, that Biden can’t possibly be suffering from dementia? There need to be age limits in politics, this is getting ridiculous.
FreddieW
Agree completely.
abfab
This is funny. Our brilliant Political Scientists weigh in with the same old bullshit. You two couldn’t run a laundrymat.
dbmcvey
Fred agreeing with Shaver. How surprising.
LumpyPillows
That is exactly George’s position. I don’t think Biden has dementia, but he is losing a step or two. Do I share your concern? Yes. Will I vote for him if he is the nominee? Yes, barring the resurrection of Abraham Lincoln.
Should there be age limits? Yes, in all elected positions. But we do not have them now.
dbmcvey
Hey Lumps, he can still get the Republicans to promise not to eliminate Social Security and Medicare without them realizing what they’re doing.
ShaverC
Lumpy, I don’t know if it’s officially dementia but he’s not right, he’s forgetful and doesn’t seem to know what he’s doing most of the time. When it’s time for him to speak his handlers give him a shot of something to make him mildly coherent for an hour and a half and then back to being confused. So no, I would not vote for someone who is obviously not making his own decisions, over someone who is capable of making their own decisions.
abfab
No Shaver. It is officially demetia. Oh how you love playing arm chair physician. Go see one.
LumpyPillows
I believe we should really think about the wisdom of Biden running again at his age. He is starting to look and, frankly, act fragile. He has done an excellent job, especially with this shit show of a congress he has to deal with. I have no regrets in supporting and voting for him.
I would prefer someone younger at this point. Newsome make sense to me. He’s really been stepping up.
If Joe is the candidate, I will actively support and vote for him. There is not one republican running that isn’t disastrously flawed. I fear that is what the status quo in the party is counting on.
As a tertiary issue, Kamala’s role as VP will be a bigger issue in a new election. While I like her, I think she is a political boat anchor as she has not taken advantage of the position – at least she has not promoted the aura of being ready to be president. It’s a weaker ticket overall than in 2020. This worries me.
dbmcvey
That ship has sailed. He will be our candidate and I will vote for him.
dbmcvey
And Kamala is fine.
bachy
Don’t allow the perfect to be the enemy of the good. If we wait for the perfect Democratic candidate, we will be waiting forever.
abfab
Perfect for me would be that Greek man. Yum.
LumpyPillows
Kamala’s poll numbers would argue otherwise. Biden’s age means every day is a question mark. So much could change between now and next year.
ScottOnEarth
George is the best and so cute in calling Biden ‘kid’ 🙂 . The U.S. is a thoroughly ageist nation, so anyone over 40 is considered “old,” so it’s no surprise that people are obsessed with Biden’s age. What’s so significant is that his age is the only real “issue” people can come up with to complain about because Biden has been – and is – a phenomenal President who advocates for all Americans. The impact he has had on the economy, including unemployment, is tremendous but, of course, ignorant American think their President should be blamed for every single issue they face.
ShaverC
Biden has done nothing for employment. The jobs he and his administration claim to have created are just people going back to work after COVID lockdowns.
abfab
Yeah Shaver, You’re STILL unemployed. Biden really sucks. Get up off your ass and start knocking on doors, bitch.
decrans
Oh, Abs. If Trump falsely claimed he pulled 10 million jobs out of his rear end from COVID, we still wouldn’t be hearing the end of it from your supplicant, borderline idiotic liberals. Look into cognitive dissonance, sweet baby.
dbmcvey
I love how conservatives will claim Trump is responsible for the jobs at the beginning of his term although they happened because of Obama’s administration. They don’t blame Trump for all the jobs lost from his mishandling of COVID, but they try to claim he’s responsible for the recovery under Biden.
But then, they also try to claim 9-11 happened under Clinton, the recession happened under Obama and the COVID recovery happened under Trump. They all seem to have lost their calendars.
decrans
Not. A. Conservative. Do they make sense after my ramshod medical gender transition in the good ol’ progressive hell state of California? God, yes. As of this month, I’m a paid canvasser for the No Labels Party and probably voting for RFK. My point still stands. Thanks for playing, though.
decrans
And by the way, the Clinton doctrine was certainly culpable for the Sept. 11th attacks. When 9/11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed was captured and asked about his plans for follow-on attacks, he smirked and said: “I’ll tell you everything when I get to New York and see my lawyer.” He mistakenly thought he’d be arrested and slapped on the wrist as it occured under Bill Clinton.
Kangol2
Shaver, you’re incorrect. Under Biden the US has created more jobs, including people going back to prior lost jobs under Don the Con, than any president since Clinton. The US unemployment rate is the lowest in 50 years, women’s participation rate in jobs is the highest ever, the Black and Asian American unemployment rates are the lowest ever, and the US has created hundreds of thousands of new manufacturing jobs. While inflation is still a problem, you are incorrect about unemployment. Please look at the Bureau of Labor Statistics’ numbers or anything other than FoxNews, where you seem to be getting all of your (wrong) information.
Kangol2
Decrans, Don the Con presided over the loss of 10 million jobs. I know it’s painful for you to admit, but Mr. MAGA FRAUDster CON was the one whose presidency ended in a complete and total economic and social disaster. Which he then capped off with a failed coup attempt. Say what you will about liberals, but NO “liberal” president has presided over job losses like Don the Con or George Walker Bush!
decrans
First off, not a supporter of Trump. I couldn’t care less. Secondly, if people are going back to work at old jobs, that is not job creation. Be honest. Speaking cute, little half-truths is something MAGA Republicans would do.
decrans
And in the spirit of transparency, the average middle-class family has lost $10,000 worth of spending power under the Biden presidency. Hasn’t fixed it yet! And here comes the 2024 election season down the pike. Cherry-pick those arguments all you wish. There are other economic realities on the kitchen table and that’s why Joe Biden is neck-and-neck with Trump. Facts and reality, Kangol.
decrans
Since Abs posts song lyrics and NYT articles, here’s some good stuff from FactCheck.org to put the liberal sycophant talking points to bed in the Queerty comment section. That way, when Kangol parrots another WhiteHouse.gov press release ad naseum, we’ll have context and receipts.
Factcheck.org
Speaking at the U.S. Conference of Mayors’ winter meeting, President Joe Biden botched a statistic on the number of people receiving unemployment benefits, misidentifying them simply as the number of people “out of work.” His comment leaves the false impression that unemployment declined by more than 16 million people on his watch, when the decline was actually under 5 million.
And a big reason for the large decline in unemployment benefits is the expiration of pandemic-related expansions of such benefits.
“Two years ago this week, 18 million people were out of work — two years ago this week,” Biden said at the conference on Jan. 20. “Now the — that number is under 1.6 million, near the lowest level in decades.”
The White House transcript notes that the line drew applause.
But it’s not accurate. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the number of people “out of work” — or officially unemployed — in the U.S. in January 2021 was about 10.2 million, and the number in December 2022 was 5.7 million.
A White House spokesperson told us Biden was referring to the number of people receiving unemployment insurance benefits. And he noted that Biden was including pandemic unemployment insurance programs. By that measure, and with those caveats, the statistic cited by the president would be nearly accurate (although we would note the number has crept up from 1.6 million in mid-December to 1.9 million by Dec. 31, the latest data now available).
Assistant White House Press Secretary Michael Kikukawa told us Biden was simply using “shorthand for something that is true,” and that on at least two occasions — in remarks in early December and in a tweet on Jan. 25 — Biden has “more fully contextualized” his comments by noting that he was talking about the number of people claiming unemployment benefits.
Biden may have simply been careless in his wording of the statistic before the U.S. Conference of Mayors, but the Department of Labor explains on its website that it is a common public misconception to confuse the two metrics.
“Some people think that to get these figures on unemployment the Government uses the number of persons filing claims for unemployment insurance (UI) benefits under State or Federal Government programs,” the Department of Labor says on a webpage dedicated to explaining the difference between the two. “But some people are still jobless when their benefits run out, and many more are not eligible at all or delay or never apply for benefits. So, quite clearly, UI information cannot be used as a source for complete information on the number of unemployed.”
Among the unemployed who are not covered by UI programs are “self-employed workers, unpaid family workers, workers in certain not-for-profit organizations, and several other small (primarily seasonal) worker categories,” the Department of Labor explains in a Frequently Asked Questions webpage. Also not eligible are unemployed people whose UI benefits have run out; workers who have newly entered the workforce and have not yet earned UI benefits; workers disqualified from UI because they lost their jobs “from their own actions rather than from economic conditions,” such as being fired for misconduct; and people who would qualify for UI but simply do not file for benefits.
“Because of these and other limitations, statistics on insured unemployment cannot be used as a measure of total unemployment in the United States,” the Department of Labor states. “Indeed, over the past decade, only about one-third of the total unemployed, on average, received regular UI benefits.”
Indeed, the number of people “out of work,” or unemployed by the Department of Labor’s definition, was 225% higher in December than the figure Biden cited. On the other side of Biden’s comparison, the number of unemployed people in January 2021, when Biden took office, was significantly lower than the number receiving unemployment benefits (the figure Biden used), and we’ll explain why.
Unemployment Insurance Claims
The total number of people getting unemployment benefits was steadily holding at about 2.1 million per week in January, February and the first couple of weeks of March 2020, right before the pandemic changed everything. Between the weeks ending March 14 and March 28, the number of people receiving unemployment benefits nearly quadrupled to 8.3 million. And it rose steadily for months after that, reaching a high of 33.2 million the week of June 20. (To see the total number receiving UI benefits, including pandemic programs, go to the Department of Labor’s webpage on “Unemployment Insurance Data.” Click on “Benefits and Claims” and then “UI Weekly Continued Claims — All Programs.”)
As the Bureau of Labor Statistics explained in September 2021, claims for unemployment benefits “rose sharply” during the height of the pandemic “because of the substantial job loss” but also because of “the expansion of UI programs.”
The federal government expanded UI benefits through the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act, or CARES Act, which was signed by President Donald Trump on March 27, 2020. As the Department of Labor explains, among other things, the CARES Act “expand[ed] states’ ability to provide unemployment insurance for many workers impacted by the COVID-19 pandemic, including for workers who are not ordinarily eligible for unemployment benefits.” Pandemic Unemployment Assistance, or PUA, for example, was offered to the self-employed and those seeking part-time work.
“To qualify for PUA benefits, you must not be eligible for regular unemployment benefits and be unemployed, partially unemployed, or unable or unavailable to work because of certain health or economic consequences of the COVID-19 pandemic,” the Department of Labor explained.
The law also extended the maximum number of weeks a person could receive unemployment benefits, through what was called the Pandemic Emergency Unemployment Compensation, or PEUC, program. “Importantly, the CARES Act gives states flexibility in determining whether you are ‘actively seeking work’ if you are unable to search for work because of COVID-19, including because of illness, quarantine, or movement restrictions,” the Department of Labor noted.
The week Biden took office in January 2021, the number of people receiving UI benefits through the PUA and PEUC programs was 11.5 million, accounting for nearly two-thirds of all UI recipients. That explains how there were some 8 million more people receiving UI benefits in January 2021 than there were unemployed people, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics.
In March of that year, Biden signed the American Rescue Plan Act, which extended the PUA and PEUC programs until Sept. 6, 2021. Some people receiving PUA and PEUC benefits continue to show up in small numbers on weekly reports, because claims are still being processed. But those two sources of UI benefits largely ended in September 2021. As a result, the total number of people getting UI benefits went from 12.1 million the last week of August 2021 to 3.3 million the first week of October 2021, a month later.
So a lot of the drop cited by Biden has to do with the expiration of UI benefits that were expanded because of the pandemic, which has since waned. Kikukawa, the White House spokesperson, also makes the case that “we were able to phase out those pandemic programs precisely because they weren’t needed anymore thanks to our historically strong recovery.”
According to the most recent data available from the last week of December, the total number of people getting UI benefits was 1.9 million. The number has been trending in the wrong direction since the week of Oct. 8, when it was just over 1.2 million. But even at 1.9 million, the number of people getting UI benefits is low, historically speaking. It was a bit higher in the first two months of 2020, just before the pandemic hit, but it was lower every week from the week of March 30, 2019, to the week of Dec. 21, 2019. And it was about the same or lower in parts of 2015, 2016, 2017 and 2018.
Calculating the Unemployed
As we said, the number of people receiving UI benefits is a very different statistic than the estimated number of unemployed people in the U.S.
According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, “[p]eople are classified as unemployed if they do not have a job, have actively looked for work in the prior 4 weeks, and are currently available for work.” Actively looking for work includes such things as conducting job interviews, submitting resumes or filling out job applications.
The estimated number of unemployed people in the U.S. is based on data collected in a monthly survey — called the Current Population Survey — of over 60,000 households and conducted by the U.S. Census Bureau.
In that survey, a person only officially counts as “unemployed” if they are out of work and say they are available for work and also say they have looked for work at least once in the past four weeks. BLS also keeps track of other “alternative measures of labor underutilization,” which includes “marginally attached workers,” people who say they would work and have looked for work in the past year, but not in the past four weeks; and people who are “part-time for economic reasons” (sometimes called “under-employed”), which includes people who say they want to work full time but have had to settle for part-time work. Obviously, the number of unemployed increases if those kinds of categories are included.
But as we said, the official number of unemployed people in the U.S. was 5.7 million in December. That’s a 44% drop since Biden took office. The number of unemployed had already dropped 56% in nine months prior to Biden taking office.
The number of unemployed people in December is low, historically speaking. The number was almost exactly the same – technically slightly lower — in February 2020 under Trump, right before the pandemic hit. It was also lower in several months of 1999 and 2000. But as we said, although not the lowest, the number is comparatively low in recent history. The average monthly number of unemployed going back to 2000 is 9.2 million.
It’s just not as low as Biden’s claim would leave people to believe. Biden said that two years ago, there were 18 million people “out of work” and now “that number is under 1.6 million.” The number of unemployed Americans was much lower than that two years ago, and it is much higher than that now.
decrans
And lastly, Kangol proves my point about supplicant liberals. You sound like a walking press release from whitehouse.gov. Ironic that you’re telling Shaver to get news from other sources beyond Fox News. I got a good LOL from that one, Kang.
Kangol2
You sound like a supplicant GOPer, Decrans. If you do want to believe me, visit the Bureau of Labor Statistics. What’s next, a 5,000 word quoted piece about the Democratic debate audience numbers in 2019 and 2020?