Another Good Month On The Jobs Front...unemployment Drops To 5.9%

[Faun]

Spits the idiot who thinks 142.2 is greater than 146.6 million.

which is greater 66% or 62% you dumb ass obama supporters just keep on bringing the stupid don't you?

Makes no difference since the labor force participation rate does not indicate the heath of the job market.

But let's take a look at the "not in labor force" numbers, shall we? If this Obama's fault, how did the level of increase start before he became president?

Aww, seems you're too scared to answer my question.

Figures.

SEEMS you are to dumb to realize you never answer my question
Which percentage has more worker?
2009 66% or 2014 62%
and why has it continued to drop since 2009?

You're too stupid to understand I've already answered your question. It's a meaningless number in terms of the health of the job market. It's impacted heavily by people who choose not to work, such as retirees, students, and people who choose welfare, UE benefits, and disability rather than work.

And the drop started long before 2009, so that question is based on a false premise.

See, that's what it looks like when questions get answered ... this is what it looks like when questions don't get answered ...

Question: "If this Obama's fault, how did the level of increase start before he became president?"

<silence>

 

[Faun]

You obviously have a very difficult time with simple statistics, you have since I joined this board.

There are more people working now than there were in 2009. The reason the LFPR has decreased is because the overall pool of the labor force has increased as well. Pretty simple stuff.

Dumb ass what has more workers 66% or 62%
I realize obama are the most stupid people alive but don't go full blown moron.

Those are percentages. Others are referring to raw numbers. Two completely different sets of statistics.

Which had more workers 66% or 62% it's simple well maybe not for an obama supporter

You're a moron, that's your fault and no one else's. Those numbers don't indicate how many people are working.

I'm still smarter than you anyone who can support obama is dumber than dirt.

Well you clearly think you are, I'll grant you that.

 

[Faun]

You obviously have a very difficult time with simple statistics, you have since I joined this board.

There are more people working now than there were in 2009. The reason the LFPR has decreased is because the overall pool of the labor force has increased as well. Pretty simple stuff.

Dumb ass what has more workers 66% or 62%
I realize obama are the most stupid people alive but don't go full blown moron.

Those are percentages. Others are referring to raw numbers. Two completely different sets of statistics.

Which had more workers 66% or 62% it's simple well maybe not for an obama supporter

Everyone on this board is laughing at you right now.

For example, if the labor force was 100,000 people and 66,000 are working then you would have a 66% LFPR. A few years later the labor force is 120,000 people and 74,400 are working then you have a 62% LFPR. More people working in the later example but a lower rate. As I said simple math but over your head.

They is no one but dumb ass obama supporters laughing but you're to stupid to realize the jokes on you.
Dumb cock sucking son of a bitches

Here's another question you're too scared to answer ...

The labor force participation rate started dropping around 2001 under Bush...

... question --> how come none of you brain-dead Conservatives ever mentioned the labor force participation rate once?

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Dumb ass what has more workers 66% or 62%
I realize obama are the most stupid people alive but don't go full blown moron.

Those are percentages. Others are referring to raw numbers. Two completely different sets of statistics.

Which had more workers 66% or 62% it's simple well maybe not for an obama supporter

Everyone on this board is laughing at you right now.

For example, if the labor force was 100,000 people and 66,000 are working then you would have a 66% LFPR. A few years later the labor force is 120,000 people and 74,400 are working then you have a 62% LFPR. More people working in the later example but a lower rate. As I said simple math but over your head.

They is no one but dumb ass obama supporters laughing but you're to stupid to realize the jokes on you.
Dumb cock sucking son of a bitches

Here's another question you're too scared to answer ...

The labor force participation rate started dropping around 2001 under Bush...

... question --> how come none of you brain-dead Conservatives ever mentioned the labor force participation rate once?

You are a dumb ass obama supporter that refuses to answer anything
Like
if what you say is true that we have more people working now than we did in 2008 why doesn't the BLS chart show more workers participation rate?

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Dumb ass what has more workers 66% or 62%
I realize obama are the most stupid people alive but don't go full blown moron.

Those are percentages. Others are referring to raw numbers. Two completely different sets of statistics.

Which had more workers 66% or 62% it's simple well maybe not for an obama supporter

You're a moron, that's your fault and no one else's. Those numbers don't indicate how many people are working.

I'm still smarter than you anyone who can support obama is dumber than dirt.

Well you clearly think you are, I'll grant you that.

Facts are facts only a stupid piece of shit would support obama

 

[bigrebnc1775]

which is greater 66% or 62% you dumb ass obama supporters just keep on bringing the stupid don't you?

Makes no difference since the labor force participation rate does not indicate the heath of the job market.

But let's take a look at the "not in labor force" numbers, shall we? If this Obama's fault, how did the level of increase start before he became president?

Aww, seems you're too scared to answer my question.

Figures.

SEEMS you are to dumb to realize you never answer my question
Which percentage has more worker?
2009 66% or 2014 62%
and why has it continued to drop since 2009?

You're too stupid to understand I've already answered your question. It's a meaningless number in terms of the health of the job market. It's impacted heavily by people who choose not to work, such as retirees, students, and people who choose welfare, UE benefits, and disability rather than work.

And the drop started long before 2009, so that question is based on a false premise.

See, that's what it looks like when questions get answered ... this is what it looks like when questions don't get answered ...

Question: "If this Obama's fault, how did the level of increase start before he became president?"

<silence>

Look at the BLS chart you dumb son of bitch where exactly does the participation rate drop ? If we have more people working now the participation rate would be higher than in 2009 you dumb son of a bitch.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Dumb ass what has more workers 66% or 62%
I realize obama are the most stupid people alive but don't go full blown moron.

Those are percentages. Others are referring to raw numbers. Two completely different sets of statistics.

Which had more workers 66% or 62% it's simple well maybe not for an obama supporter

Everyone on this board is laughing at you right now.

For example, if the labor force was 100,000 people and 66,000 are working then you would have a 66% LFPR. A few years later the labor force is 120,000 people and 74,400 are working then you have a 62% LFPR. More people working in the later example but a lower rate. As I said simple math but over your head.

They is no one but dumb ass obama supporters laughing but you're to stupid to realize the jokes on you.
Dumb cock sucking son of a bitches

You are absolutely clueless about statistics. You own your own business though. LOL

No I'm not but you sure in the hell are fucking stupid obama supporter.
only a dumb ass would support the piece of shit.

 

[pinqy]

Makes no difference since the labor force participation rate does not indicate the heath of the job market.

But let's take a look at the "not in labor force" numbers, shall we? If this Obama's fault, how did the level of increase start before he became president?

Aww, seems you're too scared to answer my question.

Figures.

SEEMS you are to dumb to realize you never answer my question
Which percentage has more worker?
2009 66% or 2014 62%
and why has it continued to drop since 2009?

You're too stupid to understand I've already answered your question. It's a meaningless number in terms of the health of the job market. It's impacted heavily by people who choose not to work, such as retirees, students, and people who choose welfare, UE benefits, and disability rather than work.

And the drop started long before 2009, so that question is based on a false premise.

See, that's what it looks like when questions get answered ... this is what it looks like when questions don't get answered ...

Question: "If this Obama's fault, how did the level of increase start before he became president?"

<silence>

Look at the BLS chart you dumb son of bitch where exactly does the participation rate drop ? If we have more people working now the participation rate would be higher than in 2009 you dumb son of a bitch.

Did you not learn percentages in 4th grade? The rate is the labor force divided by population. The labor force increased, but the population went up by more.

 

[Faun]

Those are percentages. Others are referring to raw numbers. Two completely different sets of statistics.

Which had more workers 66% or 62% it's simple well maybe not for an obama supporter

Everyone on this board is laughing at you right now.

For example, if the labor force was 100,000 people and 66,000 are working then you would have a 66% LFPR. A few years later the labor force is 120,000 people and 74,400 are working then you have a 62% LFPR. More people working in the later example but a lower rate. As I said simple math but over your head.

They is no one but dumb ass obama supporters laughing but you're to stupid to realize the jokes on you.
Dumb cock sucking son of a bitches

Here's another question you're too scared to answer ...

The labor force participation rate started dropping around 2001 under Bush...

... question --> how come none of you brain-dead Conservatives ever mentioned the labor force participation rate once?

You are a dumb ass obama supporter that refuses to answer anything
Like
if what you say is true that we have more people working now than we did in 2008 why doesn't the BLS chart show more workers participation rate?

Now you're flat out lying (typical for conservatives) as I've already answered your questions.

Here's another question you're afraid to answer .... Do people who don't want to work lower the labor force participation rate?

 

[AceRothstein]

Aww, seems you're too scared to answer my question.

Figures.

SEEMS you are to dumb to realize you never answer my question
Which percentage has more worker?
2009 66% or 2014 62%
and why has it continued to drop since 2009?

You're too stupid to understand I've already answered your question. It's a meaningless number in terms of the health of the job market. It's impacted heavily by people who choose not to work, such as retirees, students, and people who choose welfare, UE benefits, and disability rather than work.

And the drop started long before 2009, so that question is based on a false premise.

See, that's what it looks like when questions get answered ... this is what it looks like when questions don't get answered ...

Question: "If this Obama's fault, how did the level of increase start before he became president?"

<silence>

Look at the BLS chart you dumb son of bitch where exactly does the participation rate drop ? If we have more people working now the participation rate would be higher than in 2009 you dumb son of a bitch.

Did you not learn percentages in 4th grade? The rate is the labor force divided by population. The labor force increased, but the population went up by more.

You just confused him even more.

 

[Faun]

Makes no difference since the labor force participation rate does not indicate the heath of the job market.

But let's take a look at the "not in labor force" numbers, shall we? If this Obama's fault, how did the level of increase start before he became president?

Aww, seems you're too scared to answer my question.

Figures.

SEEMS you are to dumb to realize you never answer my question
Which percentage has more worker?
2009 66% or 2014 62%
and why has it continued to drop since 2009?

You're too stupid to understand I've already answered your question. It's a meaningless number in terms of the health of the job market. It's impacted heavily by people who choose not to work, such as retirees, students, and people who choose welfare, UE benefits, and disability rather than work.

And the drop started long before 2009, so that question is based on a false premise.

See, that's what it looks like when questions get answered ... this is what it looks like when questions don't get answered ...

Question: "If this Obama's fault, how did the level of increase start before he became president?"

<silence>

Look at the BLS chart you dumb son of bitch where exactly does the participation rate drop ? If we have more people working now the participation rate would be higher than in 2009 you dumb son of a bitch.

The drop starts around 2001. See, that's what it looks like to answer a question.

Here's another question you're too afraid to answer.... since that drop began around 2001, how come no one talked about it until around 2010?

 

[pinqy]

Aww, seems you're too scared to answer my question.

Figures.

SEEMS you are to dumb to realize you never answer my question
Which percentage has more worker?
2009 66% or 2014 62%
and why has it continued to drop since 2009?

You're too stupid to understand I've already answered your question. It's a meaningless number in terms of the health of the job market. It's impacted heavily by people who choose not to work, such as retirees, students, and people who choose welfare, UE benefits, and disability rather than work.

And the drop started long before 2009, so that question is based on a false premise.

See, that's what it looks like when questions get answered ... this is what it looks like when questions don't get answered ...

Question: "If this Obama's fault, how did the level of increase start before he became president?"

<silence>

Look at the BLS chart you dumb son of bitch where exactly does the participation rate drop ? If we have more people working now the participation rate would be higher than in 2009 you dumb son of a bitch.

Did you not learn percentages in 4th grade? The rate is the labor force divided by population. The labor force increased, but the population went up by more.

You just confused him even more.

I'm not sure that's possible.

 

[edthecynic]

I used to think he was fucking with us all, that he couldn't be as stupid as he came across. The stupid continues to this day.

Actually he is pretending to be stupid. Ever since Reagan said he was too stupid to know he was lying about trading arms for hostages, the Right have rationalized that you have to KNOW you are lying to be a liar, and therefore you aren't lying when you lie if you are too stupid to know you are lying, and so if you play stupid you can continue to lie with impunity and not see yourself as the lying scum you are. Only those who expose your lies are liars.
The Right can rationalize anything!

 

[Carla_Danger]

Those are percentages. Others are referring to raw numbers. Two completely different sets of statistics.

Which had more workers 66% or 62% it's simple well maybe not for an obama supporter

Everyone on this board is laughing at you right now.

For example, if the labor force was 100,000 people and 66,000 are working then you would have a 66% LFPR. A few years later the labor force is 120,000 people and 74,400 are working then you have a 62% LFPR. More people working in the later example but a lower rate. As I said simple math but over your head.

They is no one but dumb ass obama supporters laughing but you're to stupid to realize the jokes on you.
Dumb cock sucking son of a bitches

You are absolutely clueless about statistics. You own your own business though. LOL

No I'm not but you sure in the hell are fucking stupid obama supporter.
only a dumb ass would support the piece of shit.

I think someone needs "anger management."

 

[Carla_Danger]

Poor, brain-dead, Conservatives. Math is always so fuzzy to them.

Total Employed
1/2009: 142,152,000
9/2014: 146,600,000

Earth to brain-dead Conservative ... 146.6 million is greater than 142.2 million

Hey stupid

Can you provide a link please?

Links been posted several times from the BLS

I really don't feel like searching through 35 pages of this thread, so do you mind posting the link?

i'M NOT GOING TO DO IT, i HAVE POSTED IT SEVERAL TIMES YOU WANT IT GO LOOK FOR IT OR TAKE MY WORD THE CHART CAME FROM THE bls

You never posted the link for this particular chart.

That's some debating skills you've got there!

 

[asterism]

"It was worse than we thought" is a stupid argument. That's why it was stupid for anyone to predict prosperity under Obama. It was very clear the depth of the hole and it was very clear that neither of the people running were going to be able to get us out quickly. That's why I think that less is more in government intervention.

The crash would not have happened if the bailouts had not been telegraphed.

lol, SERIOUSLY? Do you NOT remember the fall of 2008, and the WORLD WIDE CRASH that the Banksters created with their shadow banking that Dubya cheered on?

Private Banksters CREATED a world wide credit bubble, they looked at short term profits ahead of their own firms best inters ts, grow a brain!

The parts of the economy that went belly up, were those NOT regulated, or where regulations existed, but were mainly ignored by Dubya's EXECUTIVE BRANCH OVERSIGHT!!!


FACTS on Dubya s great recession US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum


The biggest culprits in the housing fiasco came from the private sector, and more specifically from a mortgage industry that was out of control. These included lenders who originated home loans, investment bankers who packaged them into securities, rating agencies that misjudged these securities, and global investors who bought them without much, if any, study.

In other words, America’s mortgage securitization machine was fundamentally broken. It created millions of mortgage loans that, even under reasonable economic assumptions, stood little chance of being repaid — and were not.




Also to blame, of course, were regulators, who gave the private mortgage market little, if any, oversight. The market’s watchdogs were lulled to sleep by a misplaced view that self-interested private financial institutions would regulate themselves.

McCains 2008 economic adviser By Mark Zandi


Fannie and Freddie don t deserve blame for bubble - The Washington Post

You apparently missed the part where I said, "neither of the people running were going to be able to get us out quickly." So when you quote an advisor of the losing team, I revert to my previous comment.

Obama and McCain are both frauds.

Yes, Dubya/GOP dug a DEEP and wide hole and the GOP has been a disloyal o position party against US

Your choice dug a DEEP and wide hole too. Obamacare was even more unfunded than Medicare Part D.

A HUGE fukkkkking lie. I'm shocked, no really I am. lol


Something that was funded 100%+ according to the CBO was what Obama/Dems gave US

Dubya/GOP pushed through in the middle of the night, a bill that had ZERO funding mechanisms but relied on the general fund, as he then went and took US to Korean war level revenues. Going from the nearly 21% of GDP Clinton gavce US to 125%... Brilliant fukkking 'fiscal' policy

Not really. The CBO scored the cost of the Affordable Care Act at $1.76 Trillion over 10 years while it scored the cost of Medicare Part D at $100 Billion annually which in reality was about twice as much as what was actually spent from 2003 to 2013.

Competition and the Cost of Medicare s Prescription Drug Program Congressional Budget Office

CBO Obamacare to cost 1.76 trillion over 10 yrs WashingtonExaminer.com

 

[edthecynic]

Hey stupid

Can you provide a link please?

Links been posted several times from the BLS

I really don't feel like searching through 35 pages of this thread, so do you mind posting the link?

i'M NOT GOING TO DO IT, i HAVE POSTED IT SEVERAL TIMES YOU WANT IT GO LOOK FOR IT OR TAKE MY WORD THE CHART CAME FROM THE bls

You never posted the link for this particular chart.

That's some debating skills you've got there!

This is the link to the correct data regarding the NUMBER of PEOPLE working:

Bureau of Labor Statistics Data

 

[Carla_Danger]

Can you provide a link please?

Links been posted several times from the BLS

I really don't feel like searching through 35 pages of this thread, so do you mind posting the link?

i'M NOT GOING TO DO IT, i HAVE POSTED IT SEVERAL TIMES YOU WANT IT GO LOOK FOR IT OR TAKE MY WORD THE CHART CAME FROM THE bls

You never posted the link for this particular chart.

That's some debating skills you've got there!

This is the link to the correct data regarding the NUMBER of PEOPLE working:

Bureau of Labor Statistics Data

Why, thank you Ed.

 

[Dad2three]

lol, SERIOUSLY? Do you NOT remember the fall of 2008, and the WORLD WIDE CRASH that the Banksters created with their shadow banking that Dubya cheered on?

Private Banksters CREATED a world wide credit bubble, they looked at short term profits ahead of their own firms best inters ts, grow a brain!

The parts of the economy that went belly up, were those NOT regulated, or where regulations existed, but were mainly ignored by Dubya's EXECUTIVE BRANCH OVERSIGHT!!!


FACTS on Dubya s great recession US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum


The biggest culprits in the housing fiasco came from the private sector, and more specifically from a mortgage industry that was out of control. These included lenders who originated home loans, investment bankers who packaged them into securities, rating agencies that misjudged these securities, and global investors who bought them without much, if any, study.

In other words, America’s mortgage securitization machine was fundamentally broken. It created millions of mortgage loans that, even under reasonable economic assumptions, stood little chance of being repaid — and were not.




Also to blame, of course, were regulators, who gave the private mortgage market little, if any, oversight. The market’s watchdogs were lulled to sleep by a misplaced view that self-interested private financial institutions would regulate themselves.

McCains 2008 economic adviser By Mark Zandi


Fannie and Freddie don t deserve blame for bubble - The Washington Post

You apparently missed the part where I said, "neither of the people running were going to be able to get us out quickly." So when you quote an advisor of the losing team, I revert to my previous comment.

Obama and McCain are both frauds.

Yes, Dubya/GOP dug a DEEP and wide hole and the GOP has been a disloyal o position party against US

Your choice dug a DEEP and wide hole too. Obamacare was even more unfunded than Medicare Part D.

A HUGE fukkkkking lie. I'm shocked, no really I am. lol


Something that was funded 100%+ according to the CBO was what Obama/Dems gave US

Dubya/GOP pushed through in the middle of the night, a bill that had ZERO funding mechanisms but relied on the general fund, as he then went and took US to Korean war level revenues. Going from the nearly 21% of GDP Clinton gavce US to 125%... Brilliant fukkking 'fiscal' policy

Not really. The CBO scored the cost of the Affordable Care Act at $1.76 Trillion over 10 years while it scored the cost of Medicare Part D at $100 Billion annually which in reality was about twice as much as what was actually spent from 2003 to 2013.

Competition and the Cost of Medicare s Prescription Drug Program Congressional Budget Office

CBO Obamacare to cost 1.76 trillion over 10 yrs WashingtonExaminer.com

No REALLY? Obamacares WAS 100%+ funded, Dubya/GOP's Medicare expannsion they pushed through in the middle of the night, not one penny of revenues was raised for it!!!

 

[Dad2three]

Which year had the most participation rate? dumb ass
We have fewer people working now,

Poor, brain-dead, Conservatives. Math is always so fuzzy to them.

Total Employed
1/2009: 142,152,000
9/2014: 146,600,000

Earth to brain-dead Conservative ... 146.6 million is greater than 142.2 million

Hey stupid

Can you provide a link please?

Links been posted several times from the BLS

I really don't feel like searching through 35 pages of this thread, so do you mind posting the link?

Here s BLS PRIVATE sector jobs

Bureau of Labor Statistics Data