Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
I'm waiting for him to pull out his chart again that shows the LFPR didn't drop under Bush. The chart that starts in 2004.Here's another question you're too scared to answer ...They is no one but dumb ass obama supporters laughing but you're to stupid to realize the jokes on you.Everyone on this board is laughing at you right now.Which had more workers 66% or 62% it's simple well maybe not for an obama supporterThose are percentages. Others are referring to raw numbers. Two completely different sets of statistics.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.
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.
Dumb cock sucking son of a bitches
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?
Weird how the GOP fought it right?
Nixon created the EPA by executive order in 1970 as a sop to the anti-Vietanm war left — not because he thought an EPA was needed.
Nixon reassigned to the EPA the ongoing environmental protection activities of other federal agencies.
So Nixon’s move was little more than a cynical bureaucratic reshuffling done to facilitate his Vietnam policies — not some proud legacy of the Republican party.
Myth Nixon created the EPA to help the environment JunkScience.com
Where do you get this nonsense? Nixon couldn't have cared LESS about the anti-Vietnam war left! You get more and more idiotic with each post in this string!
And yet he promised them he would get us out of Vietnam, and he did.
Come on, Oro...if you know anything about Richard Nixon you know that he wasn't doing things back then to appease the far Left! He took us out of Vietnam because it had become obvious that we were not going to "win" that war.
In fact, he met with the left on several occasions and let them air their grievances; the primary one was getting the U.S. out of Vietnam. He made it his campaign promise. He also compromised on the environment, to such an extent that he created the EPA you right wingers love to hate so much. The fact of the matter is that Richard Nixon was far more compromising than any conservative alive today.
The fact is Richard Nixon was far more compromising than Barack Obama, Nancy Pelosi or Harry Reid! Most of the other Presidents of the past century have been as well! So what's your point?
Trying to contend that Nixon spent a great deal of time trying to appease the far Left back then is an amusing concept, Oro but I don't recall that being the case. By that point the vast majority of the country wanted out of Vietnam so ending the war was hardly something that Nixon did to appease the far Left.
I don't hate the EPA. I hate when environmental "zealots" use the EPA as a club to beat up businesses or whole industries that they want to see go away no matter what the cost is to the American people.
Thats not the god damn link ed the liar is just that a lying sack of dog shit.This is the link to the correct data regarding the NUMBER of PEOPLE working: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 blsLinks 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?
You never posted the link for this particular chart.
That's some debating skills you've got there!
Bureau of Labor Statistics Data
Why, thank you Ed.
It didn't drop like it is now stay around 66% but did go higher dumb ass.I'm waiting for him to pull out his chart again that shows the LFPR didn't drop under Bush. The chart that starts in 2004.Here's another question you're too scared to answer ...They is no one but dumb ass obama supporters laughing but you're to stupid to realize the jokes on you.Everyone on this board is laughing at you right now.Which had more workers 66% or 62% it's simple well maybe not for an obama supporterThose are percentages. Others are referring to raw numbers. Two completely different sets of statistics.
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.
Dumb cock sucking son of a bitches
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?
What increase stupid?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.SEEMS you are to dumb to realize you never answer my questionAww, seems you're too scared to answer my question.Makes no difference since the labor force participation rate does not indicate the heath of the job market.which is greater 66% or 62% you dumb ass obama supporters just keep on bringing the stupid don't you?
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?
Figures.
Which percentage has more worker?
2009 66% or 2014 62%
and why has it continued to drop since 2009?
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>
Here is the correct data dumb assThis is the link to the correct data regarding the NUMBER of PEOPLE working: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 blsLinks been posted several times from the BLSCan you provide a link please?
I really don't feel like searching through 35 pages of this thread, so do you mind posting the link?
You never posted the link for this particular chart.
That's some debating skills you've got there!
Bureau of Labor Statistics Data
There is nothing stupid about me, it's not my fault you're a god damn dumb ass cock sucking dick licking obama shit eaten supporter.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.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.
The Right can rationalize anything!
You continue to ignore that the LFPR was 67.2 in Jan 2001 when Bush was inaugurated. Your chart doesn't encompass his entire presidency.It didn't drop like it is now stay around 66% but did go higher dumb ass.I'm waiting for him to pull out his chart again that shows the LFPR didn't drop under Bush. The chart that starts in 2004.Here's another question you're too scared to answer ...They is no one but dumb ass obama supporters laughing but you're to stupid to realize the jokes on you.Everyone on this board is laughing at you right now.Which had more workers 66% or 62% it's simple well maybe not for an obama supporter
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.
Dumb cock sucking son of a bitches
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?
Here is the correct data dumb assThis is the link to the correct data regarding the NUMBER of PEOPLE working: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 blsLinks 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?
You never posted the link for this particular chart.
That's some debating skills you've got there!
Bureau of Labor Statistics Data
Bureau of Labor Statistics Data
It must be you dumb asses are going bat shit crazy over it.Here is the correct data dumb assThis is the link to the correct data regarding the NUMBER of PEOPLE working: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 blsI really don't feel like searching through 35 pages of this thread, so do you mind posting the link?
You never posted the link for this particular chart.
That's some debating skills you've got there!
Bureau of Labor Statistics Data
Bureau of Labor Statistics Data
LMAO!
The participation rate isn't significant. Its been falling for 15 years, and will continue to fall for the next 15 years as the baby boomers age.
.
2001 is irrelevant \but if you want to go with that fineYou continue to ignore that the LFPR was 67.2 in Jan 2001 when Bush was inaugurated. Your chart doesn't encompass his entire presidency.It didn't drop like it is now stay around 66% but did go higher dumb ass.I'm waiting for him to pull out his chart again that shows the LFPR didn't drop under Bush. The chart that starts in 2004.Here's another question you're too scared to answer ...They is no one but dumb ass obama supporters laughing but you're to stupid to realize the jokes on you.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.
Dumb cock sucking son of a bitches
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?
It must be you dumb asses are going bat shit crazy over it.Here is the correct data dumb assThis is the link to the correct data regarding the NUMBER of PEOPLE working: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!
Bureau of Labor Statistics Data
Bureau of Labor Statistics Data
LMAO!
The participation rate isn't significant. Its been falling for 15 years, and will continue to fall for the next 15 years as the baby boomers age.
.
Why did the participation rate stay at a steady 66% up until obama came along and now hows continued to drop and hasn't been back up since 2009
Yall are some of the dumbest people alive. I'm surprised you made it out of the birth canal
Dumb ass they haven't retired and those who left the work force came backIt must be you dumb asses are going bat shit crazy over it.Here is the correct data dumb assThis is the link to the correct data regarding the NUMBER of PEOPLE working:You never posted the link for this particular chart.
That's some debating skills you've got there!
Bureau of Labor Statistics Data
Bureau of Labor Statistics Data
LMAO!
The participation rate isn't significant. Its been falling for 15 years, and will continue to fall for the next 15 years as the baby boomers age.
.
Why did the participation rate stay at a steady 66% up until obama came along and now hows continued to drop and hasn't been back up since 2009
Yall are some of the dumbest people alive. I'm surprised you made it out of the birth canal
Can you say...."baby boomers?"....idiot.
Dumb ass they haven't retired and those who left the work force came backIt must be you dumb asses are going bat shit crazy over it.Here is the correct data dumb assThis is the link to the correct data regarding the NUMBER of PEOPLE working:
Bureau of Labor Statistics Data
Bureau of Labor Statistics Data
LMAO!
The participation rate isn't significant. Its been falling for 15 years, and will continue to fall for the next 15 years as the baby boomers age.
.
Why did the participation rate stay at a steady 66% up until obama came along and now hows continued to drop and hasn't been back up since 2009
Yall are some of the dumbest people alive. I'm surprised you made it out of the birth canal
Can you say...."baby boomers?"....idiot.
Ass hat.
doesn't matter a good portion didn't retire Did that help any?Dumb ass they haven't retired and those who left the work force came backIt must be you dumb asses are going bat shit crazy over it.Here is the correct data dumb ass
Bureau of Labor Statistics Data
LMAO!
The participation rate isn't significant. Its been falling for 15 years, and will continue to fall for the next 15 years as the baby boomers age.
.
Why did the participation rate stay at a steady 66% up until obama came along and now hows continued to drop and hasn't been back up since 2009
Yall are some of the dumbest people alive. I'm surprised you made it out of the birth canal
Can you say...."baby boomers?"....idiot.
Ass hat.
Let me help you with a little math. 1946 is the beginning of the baby booming years. If you subtract 1946 from the year 2009, you get 63. Wallaaahhhh, retirement age. Ding dong.
doesn't matter a good portion didn't retire Did that help any?Dumb ass they haven't retired and those who left the work force came backIt must be you dumb asses are going bat shit crazy over it.LMAO!
The participation rate isn't significant. Its been falling for 15 years, and will continue to fall for the next 15 years as the baby boomers age.
.
Why did the participation rate stay at a steady 66% up until obama came along and now hows continued to drop and hasn't been back up since 2009
Yall are some of the dumbest people alive. I'm surprised you made it out of the birth canal
Can you say...."baby boomers?"....idiot.
Ass hat.
Let me help you with a little math. 1946 is the beginning of the baby booming years. If you subtract 1946 from the year 2009, you get 63. Wallaaahhhh, retirement age. Ding dong.
No, I'll stick with the actual rate if 5.9%Let's see:Unemployment is well over 15%...
Unemployed is 9,262,000
Labor force is 155,862,000
Giving a UE rate of 9,262,000/155,862,000 = 5.9%
There are, however 6,349,000 people who are not working or looking for work (so they're not in the labor force) who say they want a job.
Add them in:
(9,262,000+6,349,000)/(155,862,000+6,349,000) = 15,611,000/162,211,000 = 9.6%
So even including everyone who says they want a job, regardless of if they're looking or could accept a job, the rate would only be 9.6%
So how are you getting 15%?
Please show your math.
You go ahead and run with 9.6.
Economy gains 248 000 jobs as hiring rebounds
The labor market rebounded sharply in September as employers added 248,000 jobs, the second largest gain for any month this year.
The unemployment rate fell to 5.9% from 6.1%, lowest since July 2008, the Labor Department said Friday.
Unemployment is well over 15%... and as long as the Federal Government continues to encourage unemployment, by offsetting the downsides to BEING UNEMPLOYED, unemployment will continue to be off the chart and the Left will continue to lie about it.
Project much?
ONE policy conservatives have EVER been on the correct side of history on?
I thought the 'job creators' were using the lowest SUSTAINED effective tax burden in 80 years to 'create jobs'?
We prefer "Americans".Why are we rewarding the 'job creators'?
Why are Corps having record profits (in the US and worldwide), lowest EFFECTIVE tax rate in 40+ years AND for the first time EVER recorded, labor costs less than half their costs, being handled with hid gloves as they stretch out their current workforce for peanuts?
I'm sorry, how did you objectively calculate your "over 15%" again? I must have missed your explanation.No, I'll stick with the actual rate if 5.9%Let's see:Unemployment is well over 15%...
Unemployed is 9,262,000
Labor force is 155,862,000
Giving a UE rate of 9,262,000/155,862,000 = 5.9%
There are, however 6,349,000 people who are not working or looking for work (so they're not in the labor force) who say they want a job.
Add them in:
(9,262,000+6,349,000)/(155,862,000+6,349,000) = 15,611,000/162,211,000 = 9.6%
So even including everyone who says they want a job, regardless of if they're looking or could accept a job, the rate would only be 9.6%
So how are you getting 15%?
Please show your math.
You go ahead and run with 9.6.
Of course you will... Objective reasoning is not within the intellectual means of the intellectually less fortunate.
