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

[Faun]

Anyone else notice...? The better the jobs report, the loonier the rightwingnuts get.

 

[Andylusion]

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.

So while the number of deployed troops was going up, the participation rate remained steady. While the number of deployed troops decreased before the surge, the participation rate remained steady.

So clearly the reason the participation rate remained stead is because of troop deployments.

You are an idiot.

 

[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?

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.

I could have been hit in the head with a hammer and I still wouldn't be as stupid as a Bush voter like you. Again, putz, the labor force participation rate doesn't gauge workers. Unfortunately for you, you're too rightarded to know that.

And you're only fooling yourself if you think anyone buys your wimpy excuse for why you refuse to answer questions. The reality is that you can't answer them, not that you won't answer them. So you feign outrage as the reason so you hope no one will notice you're too stupid to answer .... imbecile ... it's been noticed.

Which leads me to my next question you won't answer ... let's say, for argument's sake, there are 1,000 people in the labor force and 2,000 people in the civilian noninstitutional population ... that would make the labor force participation rate 50%. QUESTION --> how many people in that example are working?

 

[Andylusion]

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.

I could have been hit in the head with a hammer and I still wouldn't be as stupid as a Bush voter like you.

Oh shut up. Forest Gump makes you look like a retard, with the idiotic stupidity you spew on here.

 

[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?

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.

I could have been hit in the head with a hammer and I still wouldn't be as stupid as a Bush voter like you.

Oh shut up. Forest Gump makes you look like a retard, with the idiotic stupidity you spew on here.

Did you mean "Forrest," you dumbass? A forest has trees in it. But thanks for proving post #761 correct. I appreciate it.

 

[Carla_Danger]

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.

I could have been hit in the head with a hammer and I still wouldn't be as stupid as a Bush voter like you.

Oh shut up. Forest Gump makes you look like a retard, with the idiotic stupidity you spew on here.

Did you mean "Forrest," you dumbass? A forest has trees in it. But thanks for proving post #761 correct. I appreciate it.

Aha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha!

 

[pinqy]

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.

I could have been hit in the head with a hammer and I still wouldn't be as stupid as a Bush voter like you. Again, putz, the labor force participation rate doesn't gauge workers. Unfortunately for you, you're too rightarded to know that.

And you're only fooling yourself if you think anyone buys your wimpy excuse for why you refuse to answer questions. The reality is that you can't answer them, not that you won't answer them. So you feign outrage as the reason so you hope no one will notice you're too stupid to answer .... imbecile ... it's been noticed.

Which leads me to my next question you won't answer ... let's say, for argument's sake, there are 1,000 people in the labor force and 2,000 people in the civilian noninstitutional population ... that would make the labor force participation rate 50%. QUESTION --> how many people in that example are working?

Ooooh! I know the answer! Pick me!

 

[Andylusion]

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.

I could have been hit in the head with a hammer and I still wouldn't be as stupid as a Bush voter like you.

Oh shut up. Forest Gump makes you look like a retard, with the idiotic stupidity you spew on here.

Did you mean "Forrest," you dumbass? A forest has trees in it. But thanks for proving post #761 correct. I appreciate it.

LOL

So now your only come back, is to start acting like the spielbing polce? You act like a jerk, get treated like the jerk you are, and now "I'm going to check your typos!"....

Your entire post was "I'm a 10-year-old now!". Ok 10-year-old. Now run along. This is a forum for adults. *pats Faun's head*. Be a good boy, and play outside.

 

[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?

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.

I could have been hit in the head with a hammer and I still wouldn't be as stupid as a Bush voter like you. Again, putz, the labor force participation rate doesn't gauge workers. Unfortunately for you, you're too rightarded to know that.

And you're only fooling yourself if you think anyone buys your wimpy excuse for why you refuse to answer questions. The reality is that you can't answer them, not that you won't answer them. So you feign outrage as the reason so you hope no one will notice you're too stupid to answer .... imbecile ... it's been noticed.

Which leads me to my next question you won't answer ... let's say, for argument's sake, there are 1,000 people in the labor force and 2,000 people in the civilian noninstitutional population ... that would make the labor force participation rate 50%. QUESTION --> how many people in that example are working?

Ooooh! I know the answer! Pick me!

Sorry, but that question is for the brain-dead conservative Bush voter. He needs to answer it or show that he has no fucking clue what he's talking about. (Which everyone here already knows anyway).

 

[Faun]

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.

I could have been hit in the head with a hammer and I still wouldn't be as stupid as a Bush voter like you.

Oh shut up. Forest Gump makes you look like a retard, with the idiotic stupidity you spew on here.

Did you mean "Forrest," you dumbass? A forest has trees in it. But thanks for proving post #761 correct. I appreciate it.

LOL

So now your only come back, is to start acting like the spielbing polce? You act like a jerk, get treated like the jerk you are, and now "I'm going to check your typos!"....

Your entire post was "I'm a 10-year-old now!". Ok 10-year-old. Now run along. This is a forum for adults. *pats Faun's head*. Be a good boy, and play outside.

Like I needed more to demonstrate you're not even as intelligent as the person you're calling a retard?? I note you couldn't attack any of my posts on the thread topic, so you just hurled insults to fluff your fellow Conservative who's taking quite the ass-kicking on this thread.

 

[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?

He did dumb ass

YOU are just a troll Bubba, multiple CREDIBLE links have shown you are full of it. Typical conservative today who denies reality!

 

[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......................

Speaking of "static and simplistic" views:

Krugman vs. Bartlett A Tale of Two Charts Seeking Alpha

The stimulus by ALL credible sources say it lifted US by nearly 3 million jobs and probably kept US out of a second GOP great depression

 

[edthecynic]

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.

Just because they "think" they won't retire at 65 does not mean they actually work past 65. Here is the % who actually DO work past 65.

Not letting go Companies hang on to their baby boomers - Fortune
In 1985, 10.8% of people over 65 worked full-time or part-time. By 2011, that figure rose to over 18%, according to the AARP Public Policy Institute.

 

[edthecynic]

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.

So while the number of deployed troops was going up, the participation rate remained steady. While the number of deployed troops decreased before the surge, the participation rate remained steady.

So clearly the reason the participation rate remained stead is because of troop deployments.

You are an idiot.

More like, the LPR was falling until Bush started his wars and remained steady until the surge when it improved slightly and then steadily declined as the troops have gradually come home.

 

[Dad2three]

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

100% % more than Dubya/GOP's Medicare expansion that didn't have a single penny in revenues to fund it!!!!

Weird how conservatives whined about the $1+ trillion in new taxes that were funding Obamacares

All told, CBO and JCT now anticipate that, in each year during the period from 2017 through 2024, as a result of the ACA:

• About 24 million or 25 million people will obtain health insurance each year through exchanges;
• About 12 million or 13 million people will be added to the Medicaid and CHIP rolls;
• About 6 million or 7 million fewer people will obtain insurance through their employer;
• About 5 million fewer people will have nongroup or other coverage; and
• About 25 million fewer people will be uninsured.

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

 

[Dad2three]

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

YOUR 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."

 

[Andylusion]

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.

Just because they "think" they won't retire at 65 does not mean they actually work past 65. Here is the % who actually DO work past 65.

Not letting go Companies hang on to their baby boomers - Fortune
In 1985, 10.8% of people over 65 worked full-time or part-time. By 2011, that figure rose to over 18%, according to the AARP Public Policy Institute.

You do realize that even that figure, accurate or not, doesn't actually tell us much, right?

Where did this idea that everyone is supposed to stop working, and live like a vegetable come from?

People stay at their jobs, often because they....... *LIKE* to work.

I worked at a gas station long ago, and the owner who ran it, retired, and gave it to his son. In a month, he came right back, put on his mechanics cloths, and was out changing oil again, like he never left.

Many many people actually *LIKE* their jobs. Now just to be transparent, I have never had that really. Most of the jobs I've had, including the one I have now, I really hate. However, I can tell you for certain, that if you gave me the option of sitting at home watching daytime soap operas, or going to the job I have now, that I hate... I'd still work. I'd much rather be working, then farting around somewhere, or playing golf.

My parents are both in their mid 70s, and both retired after working 40 years, and turned right around and went back in to the exact work they were doing before. They did that for a few years, then did some other jobs, and then started working with kids at correction institutions, and tutoring, and charity work. All but the charity work, they were paid for.

But did they *need* to work? No, my parents have a net worth over a million dollars. They did it, because they *LIKE* to work.

Further, there are other reason people stay working, or go back to work.

Sometimes, its merely a matter of feeling needed. We have a guy named John, where I work. He's in his 70s. The dude retired from AEP? or something like that. He's set. He could rent a beach on an Island somewhere, and drink beer on the beach for the rest of his life, if he really wanted to.

But he really wants to feel needed. Like someone somewhere give a crap that he exists. He likes people saying "we need you to...." whatever. So he comes in, 3 days a week, and boxes up, and ships out our product.

And lastly, to be perfectly honest, some people are lonely. It's been about 10 years now, but a lady in the Condo area I live in, she was retired, and mildly wealthy... comfortable is the best word. She bought a ton of pills, and killed herself. She was all by herself, and never left her home, and no one noticed she was gone for weeks.

Some people they just want to be around other people, and if that requires working at Walmart, or Wendy's, or doing piece work at a little warehouse, they'll do it just to be around other people.

I think this is due to the 60s generation getting rid of G-d and Church. It used to be that you spent tons of time working, or socializing at your church, after you retired. Now people don't go to church, and they need up isolated and alone like the lady in my condo area.

All of that to say this.....

I'm not against the concepts being pushed about people over 65 working. It's possible that those people are going to work because they have no choice.

But have you accounted for the idea that some may want to keep working, or are working for other reasons? I'd suggest that the majority are working because they want to, not because they have to.

If you have any evidence to suggest either way, I"d love to read it.

 

[Andylusion]

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.

So while the number of deployed troops was going up, the participation rate remained steady. While the number of deployed troops decreased before the surge, the participation rate remained steady.

So clearly the reason the participation rate remained stead is because of troop deployments.

You are an idiot.

More like, the LPR was falling until Bush started his wars and remained steady until the surge when it improved slightly and then steadily declined as the troops have gradually come home.

So you are suggesting that the majority, if not all, of the troops that come home, have remained unemployed?

Do you have any evidence to support that theory? Other than correlation equals causation....

Because... honestly, having worked with dozens of companies, companies LOVE to hire military personnel. If there is any fast-track to employment, it's having a military record on your resume.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

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.

Just because they "think" they won't retire at 65 does not mean they actually work past 65. Here is the % who actually DO work past 65.

Not letting go Companies hang on to their baby boomers - Fortune
In 1985, 10.8% of people over 65 worked full-time or part-time. By 2011, that figure rose to over 18%, according to the AARP Public Policy Institute.

They didn't retire dumb ass give it up you've lost.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

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

YOU are just a troll Bubba, multiple CREDIBLE links have shown you are full of it. Typical conservative today who denies reality!

Go fuck yourself dumb ass America grew even with a bad Cater economy and did great until Clinton came along.
You are one god damn stupid son of a bitch.