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

[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>

What increase stupid?

Wow, you really are as stupid as they come. Oh, that's right, you're a Bush voter. That makes you the dumbest ape on the planet.

What increase you ask? You really can't read a graph, can you, ape? Allow me to edumicate you ... look at the graph I posted ... now follow that red line which starts at the lower left of the graph and ascends upwards towards the top right of the graph. That ascension is the "increase." Now that you know that, see if you have the balls to answer the question I asked........

 

[Faun]

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?

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.

It didn't drop like it is now stay around 66% but did go higher dumb ass.

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.

Nor will the coward answer the question of why no one on the right ever once mentioned the labor force participation rate while Duhbya was president even though the decline in the rate started while he was president.

 

[Faun]

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?

Only in every instance... more notable examples: Lowering Standards lowers performance; paying people to not work, undermines the incentive to work; removing the focus upon good promotes evil...

I thought the 'job creators' were using the lowest SUSTAINED effective tax burden in 80 years to 'create jobs'?

They did... then Bush the elder increased that burden, which reduced performance, Clinton increased it more, lowering performance more... Bush the W, reduced it, increased performance and obama increased it, while paying people to not work significantly more and performance plummeted.

Why are we rewarding the 'job creators'?

We prefer "Americans".

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?

You're conflating profits with subsidized investment... lower taxes with tax deferments, social-corporate subsidies due to 'progressive' (fascist) {Crony-capitalist} policy.

.

.

.

OH! LOL!... And you're delusional. The US has the highest corporate tax rate in the world and is presently failing due ENTIRELY, WHOLLY, UTTERLY, THOROUGHLY to socialism.

Huh? Clinton lowered performance? You do know there were more jobs created during his presidency than any other, before or since, don't you?

 

[Faun]

The problem with ya'll dumb ass obama supporters argument is the numbers don't match
The unemployment rate for the same years

Now that chart that yall hate

ob ama's unemployment numbers for 2014 was 5.9 with a participation rate of 62.7
Going to the year and month that bush had the same unemployment numbers
july 2008 5.8 with a participation rate of 66.1
If we have more jobs now why isn't the participation rate up at the same level of july 2008?

My G-d, you can't possibly be this retarded?? Even for a Bush voter, you under perform. Again, the answer to your question is ... the labor force participation rate doesn't measure workers. So yes, that is why we have more people working today even though the LFPR has declined. Which it began declining around 2001 before accelerating around 2008 when the economy cratered and baby boomers began hitting the retirement age of 62.

Now here's another question you don't possess the stones to answer ... do retiring baby boomers cause a strain on the labor force participation rate? Yes or no?

 

[Dad2three]

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?

Only in every instance... more notable examples: Lowering Standards lowers performance; paying people to not work, undermines the incentive to work; removing the focus upon good promotes evil...

I thought the 'job creators' were using the lowest SUSTAINED effective tax burden in 80 years to 'create jobs'?

They did... then Bush the elder increased that burden, which reduced performance, Clinton increased it more, lowering performance more... Bush the W, reduced it, increased performance and obama increased it, while paying people to not work significantly more and performance plummeted.

Why are we rewarding the 'job creators'?

We prefer "Americans".

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?

You're conflating profits with subsidized investment... lower taxes with tax deferments, social-corporate subsidies due to 'progressive' (fascist) {Crony-capitalist} policy.

.

.

.

OH! LOL!... And you're delusional. The US has the highest corporate tax rate in the world and is presently failing due ENTIRELY, WHOLLY, UTTERLY, THOROUGHLY to socialism.

Conservatives just ignore facts and reality. They have "faith" that their ideology is correct.


You know what happens when you have a very static and simplistic view of a very dynamic and complex system? You find yourself being wrong almost all the time.


Neo-Liberalism/Conservatives is/has destroyed the American Economy in favor of the so called "Job Creator"... In reality are "Job Exporters"


"We can have democracy in this country, or we can have great wealth concentrated in the hands of a few, but we can't have both." - Louis D. Brandeis


I would love to see a 90% tax on any individual making $50 MILLION dollars or more a year. I'm not anti rich but I am anti money hoarding, tax dodging, and legislative manipulating country destroying fool. Pay your fair share!



CBO: Bush Tax Cuts Responsible For Almost A Third Of Deficit 2001-2010



How the Deficit Got This Big

In 2001, President George W. Bush inherited a surplus, with projections by the Congressional Budget Office for ever-increasing surpluses, assuming continuation of the good economy and President Bill Clinton’s policies.

Bush, tax cuts and war spending were the biggest policy drivers of the swing from projected surpluses to deficits from 2002 to 2009.
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/24/opinion/sunday/24sun4.html


Never in the history of this country have we started a war, let alone two wars and cut taxes. Until......................

 

[Dad2three]

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?

Only in every instance... more notable examples: Lowering Standards lowers performance; paying people to not work, undermines the incentive to work; removing the focus upon good promotes evil...

I thought the 'job creators' were using the lowest SUSTAINED effective tax burden in 80 years to 'create jobs'?

They did... then Bush the elder increased that burden, which reduced performance, Clinton increased it more, lowering performance more... Bush the W, reduced it, increased performance and obama increased it, while paying people to not work significantly more and performance plummeted.

Why are we rewarding the 'job creators'?

We prefer "Americans".

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?

You're conflating profits with subsidized investment... lower taxes with tax deferments, social-corporate subsidies due to 'progressive' (fascist) {Crony-capitalist} policy.

.

.

.

OH! LOL!... And you're delusional. The US has the highest corporate tax rate in the world and is presently failing due ENTIRELY, WHOLLY, UTTERLY, THOROUGHLY to socialism.

How the FUKKK could Ronnie Reagan have a successful economy his first 6 years when the top tax rate was 50%+

I wish I could live in fantasyland like the GOP. Sadly, I have to live with facts and reality.

Bush Lead During Weakest Economy in Decades

"The expansion was a continuation of the way the U.S. has grown for too long, which was a consumer-led expansion that was heavily concentrated in housing," said Douglas Holtz-Eakin, a onetime Bush White House staffer and one of Sen. John McCain's top economic advisers for his presidential campaign. "There was very little of the kind of saving and export-led growth that would be more sustainable."

"For a group that claims it wants to be judged by history, there is no evidence on the economic policy front that that was the view," Holtz-Eakin said. "It was all Band-Aids."

Bush Lead During Weakest Economy in Decades


December 2007 (PRE Dubya's great recession)

The Economic Consequences of Mr. Bush

The next president will have to deal with yet another crippling legacy of George W. Bush: the economy. A Nobel laureate, Joseph E. Stiglitz, sees a generation-long struggle to recoup.



The Economic Consequences of Mr. Bush Vanity Fair



ONCE MORE:

ONE policy conservatives have EVER been on the correct side of history on?

 

[Carla_Danger]

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?

Only in every instance... more notable examples: Lowering Standards lowers performance; paying people to not work, undermines the incentive to work; removing the focus upon good promotes evil...

I thought the 'job creators' were using the lowest SUSTAINED effective tax burden in 80 years to 'create jobs'?

They did... then Bush the elder increased that burden, which reduced performance, Clinton increased it more, lowering performance more... Bush the W, reduced it, increased performance and obama increased it, while paying people to not work significantly more and performance plummeted.

Why are we rewarding the 'job creators'?

We prefer "Americans".

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?

You're conflating profits with subsidized investment... lower taxes with tax deferments, social-corporate subsidies due to 'progressive' (fascist) {Crony-capitalist} policy.

.

.

.

OH! LOL!... And you're delusional. The US has the highest corporate tax rate in the world and is presently failing due ENTIRELY, WHOLLY, UTTERLY, THOROUGHLY to socialism.

Huh? Clinton lowered performance? You do know there were more jobs created during his presidency than any other, before or since, don't you?

I've never seen a bigger bunch of anti-American boobs. They want the economy to fail.

I even heard one NeoClown bitching that all the new jobs are low pay, but then say they are against raising the minimum wage, while supporting "right to get paid less" laws. I've never seen anything like it.

 

[edthecynic]

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.


.

It must be you dumb asses are going bat shit crazy over it.
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 back
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?

And by a "good portion" you mean 18%

 

[edthecynic]

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

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.


.

It must be you dumb asses are going bat shit crazy over it.
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

Because of Bush's 2 wars + his surge playing havoc with the demographic of the non institutional population.

 

[asterism]

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!!!

The Affordable Care Act was not 100% funded.

CBO and JCT Estimate That the Coverage Provisions of the ACA Will Have a Net Cost to the Federal Government of $1.5 Trillion Over the 2015–2024 Period

Updated Estimates of the Insurance Coverage Provisions of the Affordable Care Act Congressional Budget Office

 

[asterism]

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?

Only in every instance... more notable examples: Lowering Standards lowers performance; paying people to not work, undermines the incentive to work; removing the focus upon good promotes evil...

I thought the 'job creators' were using the lowest SUSTAINED effective tax burden in 80 years to 'create jobs'?

They did... then Bush the elder increased that burden, which reduced performance, Clinton increased it more, lowering performance more... Bush the W, reduced it, increased performance and obama increased it, while paying people to not work significantly more and performance plummeted.

Why are we rewarding the 'job creators'?

We prefer "Americans".

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?

You're conflating profits with subsidized investment... lower taxes with tax deferments, social-corporate subsidies due to 'progressive' (fascist) {Crony-capitalist} policy.

.

.

.

OH! LOL!... And you're delusional. The US has the highest corporate tax rate in the world and is presently failing due ENTIRELY, WHOLLY, UTTERLY, THOROUGHLY to socialism.

Conservatives just ignore facts and reality. They have "faith" that their ideology is correct.


You know what happens when you have a very static and simplistic view of a very dynamic and complex system? You find yourself being wrong almost all the time.


Neo-Liberalism/Conservatives is/has destroyed the American Economy in favor of the so called "Job Creator"... In reality are "Job Exporters"


"We can have democracy in this country, or we can have great wealth concentrated in the hands of a few, but we can't have both." - Louis D. Brandeis


I would love to see a 90% tax on any individual making $50 MILLION dollars or more a year. I'm not anti rich but I am anti money hoarding, tax dodging, and legislative manipulating country destroying fool. Pay your fair share!



CBO: Bush Tax Cuts Responsible For Almost A Third Of Deficit 2001-2010



How the Deficit Got This Big

In 2001, President George W. Bush inherited a surplus, with projections by the Congressional Budget Office for ever-increasing surpluses, assuming continuation of the good economy and President Bill Clinton’s policies.

Bush, tax cuts and war spending were the biggest policy drivers of the swing from projected surpluses to deficits from 2002 to 2009.
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/24/opinion/sunday/24sun4.html


Never in the history of this country have we started a war, let alone two wars and cut taxes. Until......................

Speaking of "static and simplistic" views:

Krugman vs. Bartlett A Tale of Two Charts Seeking Alpha

 

[bigrebnc1775]

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

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.


.

It must be you dumb asses are going bat shit crazy over it.
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

Because of Bush's 2 wars + his surge playing havoc with the demographic of the non institutional population.

Dumb ass Bush has nothing to do with obama's stupidity and your dumb ass support for obama

 

[bigrebnc1775]

It must be you dumb asses are going bat shit crazy over it.
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 back
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?

And by a "good portion" you mean 18%

You are a stupid fuck for openly lying to me
Baby Boomer Retirement Confidence Slips Again Signs of Optimism Spotted newsroom IRI

• A quarter of Boomers postponed their plans to retire during the past year.
• 28 percent of Boomers plan to retire at age 70 or later.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

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?

Only in every instance... more notable examples: Lowering Standards lowers performance; paying people to not work, undermines the incentive to work; removing the focus upon good promotes evil...

I thought the 'job creators' were using the lowest SUSTAINED effective tax burden in 80 years to 'create jobs'?

They did... then Bush the elder increased that burden, which reduced performance, Clinton increased it more, lowering performance more... Bush the W, reduced it, increased performance and obama increased it, while paying people to not work significantly more and performance plummeted.

Why are we rewarding the 'job creators'?

We prefer "Americans".

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?

You're conflating profits with subsidized investment... lower taxes with tax deferments, social-corporate subsidies due to 'progressive' (fascist) {Crony-capitalist} policy.

.

.

.

OH! LOL!... And you're delusional. The US has the highest corporate tax rate in the world and is presently failing due ENTIRELY, WHOLLY, UTTERLY, THOROUGHLY to socialism.

Huh? Clinton lowered performance? You do know there were more jobs created during his presidency than any other, before or since, don't you?

I've never seen a bigger bunch of anti-American boobs. They want the economy to fail.

I even heard one NeoClown bitching that all the new jobs are low pay, but then say they are against raising the minimum wage, while supporting "right to get paid less" laws. I've never seen anything like it.

I haven't either you need to take that piece of shit in the white house with you when you leave this country

 

[bigrebnc1775]

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?

Only in every instance... more notable examples: Lowering Standards lowers performance; paying people to not work, undermines the incentive to work; removing the focus upon good promotes evil...

I thought the 'job creators' were using the lowest SUSTAINED effective tax burden in 80 years to 'create jobs'?

They did... then Bush the elder increased that burden, which reduced performance, Clinton increased it more, lowering performance more... Bush the W, reduced it, increased performance and obama increased it, while paying people to not work significantly more and performance plummeted.

Why are we rewarding the 'job creators'?

We prefer "Americans".

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?

You're conflating profits with subsidized investment... lower taxes with tax deferments, social-corporate subsidies due to 'progressive' (fascist) {Crony-capitalist} policy.

.

.

.

OH! LOL!... And you're delusional. The US has the highest corporate tax rate in the world and is presently failing due ENTIRELY, WHOLLY, UTTERLY, THOROUGHLY to socialism.

How the FUKKK could Ronnie Reagan have a successful economy his first 6 years when the top tax rate was 50%+

I wish I could live in fantasyland like the GOP. Sadly, I have to live with facts and reality.

Bush Lead During Weakest Economy in Decades

"The expansion was a continuation of the way the U.S. has grown for too long, which was a consumer-led expansion that was heavily concentrated in housing," said Douglas Holtz-Eakin, a onetime Bush White House staffer and one of Sen. John McCain's top economic advisers for his presidential campaign. "There was very little of the kind of saving and export-led growth that would be more sustainable."

"For a group that claims it wants to be judged by history, there is no evidence on the economic policy front that that was the view," Holtz-Eakin said. "It was all Band-Aids."

Bush Lead During Weakest Economy in Decades


December 2007 (PRE Dubya's great recession)

The Economic Consequences of Mr. Bush

The next president will have to deal with yet another crippling legacy of George W. Bush: the economy. A Nobel laureate, Joseph E. Stiglitz, sees a generation-long struggle to recoup.



The Economic Consequences of Mr. Bush Vanity Fair



ONCE MORE:

ONE policy conservatives have EVER been on the correct side of history on?

He did dumb ass

 

[bigrebnc1775]

The problem with ya'll dumb ass obama supporters argument is the numbers don't match
The unemployment rate for the same years

Now that chart that yall hate

ob ama's unemployment numbers for 2014 was 5.9 with a participation rate of 62.7
Going to the year and month that bush had the same unemployment numbers
july 2008 5.8 with a participation rate of 66.1
If we have more jobs now why isn't the participation rate up at the same level of july 2008?

My G-d, you can't possibly be this retarded?? Even for a Bush voter, you under perform. Again, the answer to your question is ... the labor force participation rate doesn't measure workers. So yes, that is why we have more people working today even though the LFPR has declined. Which it began declining around 2001 before accelerating around 2008 when the economy cratered and baby boomers began hitting the retirement age of 62.

Now here's another question you don't possess the stones to answer ... do retiring baby boomers cause a strain on the labor force participation rate? Yes or no?

Were you dropped on your head at birth?
Yes I think you were that would explain a lot You don't get to ask the questions because giving support to obama makes you irrelevant FUCKING STUPID IDIOT.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

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?

Only in every instance... more notable examples: Lowering Standards lowers performance; paying people to not work, undermines the incentive to work; removing the focus upon good promotes evil...

I thought the 'job creators' were using the lowest SUSTAINED effective tax burden in 80 years to 'create jobs'?

They did... then Bush the elder increased that burden, which reduced performance, Clinton increased it more, lowering performance more... Bush the W, reduced it, increased performance and obama increased it, while paying people to not work significantly more and performance plummeted.

Why are we rewarding the 'job creators'?

We prefer "Americans".

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?

You're conflating profits with subsidized investment... lower taxes with tax deferments, social-corporate subsidies due to 'progressive' (fascist) {Crony-capitalist} policy.

.

.

.

OH! LOL!... And you're delusional. The US has the highest corporate tax rate in the world and is presently failing due ENTIRELY, WHOLLY, UTTERLY, THOROUGHLY to socialism.

Huh? Clinton lowered performance? You do know there were more jobs created during his presidency than any other, before or since, don't you?

IDIOT OBAMA SUPPORTER

 

[bigrebnc1775]

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?

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.

It didn't drop like it is now stay around 66% but did go higher dumb ass.

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.

Nor will the coward answer the question of why no one on the right ever once mentioned the labor force participation rate while Duhbya was president even though the decline in the rate started while he was president.

Question was answered dumb ass you're to god damn stupid to understand it your support for obama has made you irrelevant I am your betters and your master shut the fuck up dumb ass.

 

[AceRothstein]

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?

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.

It didn't drop like it is now stay around 66% but did go higher dumb ass.

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.

Nor will the coward answer the question of why no one on the right ever once mentioned the labor force participation rate while Duhbya was president even though the decline in the rate started while he was president.

Question was answered dumb ass you're to god damn stupid to understand it your support for obama has made you irrelevant I am your betters and your master shut the fuck up dumb ass.

Put down the bottle, ya drunk.

 

[Greenbeard]

The Affordable Care Act was not 100% funded.

CBO and JCT Estimate That the Coverage Provisions of the ACA Will Have a Net Cost to the Federal Government of $1.5 Trillion Over the 2015–2024 Period

Updated Estimates of the Insurance Coverage Provisions of the Affordable Care Act Congressional Budget Office

Yes, it was. From your own link:

"Those estimates address only the insurance coverage provisions of the ACA; they do not constitute all of the act’s budgetary effects. Many other provisions, on net, are projected to reduce budget deficits. Considering all of the coverage provisions and the other provisions together, CBO and JCT estimated in July 2012 (the most recent comprehensive estimates) that the total effect of the ACA would be to reduce federal deficits."