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

[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.

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!

You've been wrong so many times idiot.
And if you want more So fucking be it.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

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

Cooked numbers always look good to you freaks

 

[Carla_Danger]

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.

What's a Cater economy, you big dummy? You need help, seriously.

 

[pinqy]

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.

Unemployment rate for Veterans who have served after 9/11:

Series ID LNU04066408 BLS Series Report U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics
Current rate is 6.2%

Labor Force Participation Rate for Veterans who have served after 9/11

Current rate is 78.4%
Series ID LNU01349526 BLS Series Report U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics
Note that these data are not seasonally adjusted, so seasonal hiring patterns are present.

While overall veterans are better off (4.7% unemployment) they also have a lower participation rate (due to age) of 51.4%

 

[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!

You've been wrong so many times idiot.
And if you want more So fucking be it.

Show me once where I've been wrong. I double-dog dare you.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

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...

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.

We prefer "Americans".

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.

What's a Cater economy, you big dummy? You need help, seriously.

What's a carter economy?
Gas rationing long lines at the pump 7.5% unemployment rate Inflation of 15% Misery index of 24.5% The closest to Carter is obama at 14.9% But that is what an cater economy looks like.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

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!

You've been wrong so many times idiot.
And if you want more So fucking be it.

Show me once where I've been wrong. I double-dog dare you.

I'm telling you are wrong and have been wrong and no I'm not going to post any post but I do have a good memory.
So shit stain move along.

 

[pinqy]

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!

You've been wrong so many times idiot.
And if you want more So fucking be it.

Show me once where I've been wrong. I double-dog dare you.

I'm telling you are wrong and have been wrong and no I'm not going to post any post but I do have a good memory.
So shit stain move along.

You think the labor force participation rate tells us the number of employed and you're trying to say I'm wrong. Too funny.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

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!

You've been wrong so many times idiot.
And if you want more So fucking be it.

Show me once where I've been wrong. I double-dog dare you.

I'm telling you are wrong and have been wrong and no I'm not going to post any post but I do have a good memory.
So shit stain move along.

You think the labor force participation rate tells us the number of employed and you're trying to say I'm wrong. Too funny.

Why wouldn't it? yeah I know yada yada yada from you it's all bull shit. Do you work for the department of labor? Are you job scare and need to feed the lie?

 

[Carla_Danger]

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.

What's a Cater economy, you big dummy? You need help, seriously.

What's a carter economy?
Gas rationing long lines at the pump 7.5% unemployment rate Inflation of 15% Misery index of 24.5% The closest to Carter is obama at 14.9% But that is what an cater economy looks like.

How about that Bush economy? LOL! He took Clinton's good economy and flushed it down a commode. When he left office, we were losing approximately 800,000 jobs a month.

 

[nodoginnafight]

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

Yes, I have noticed that

 

[deltex1]

Great day today...pissed 5k down my leg.

 

[Faun]

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

Cooked numbers always look good to you freaks

You're posting "cooked" numbers???

Holyfuckingshit!!!

 

[bigrebnc1775]

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

Cooked numbers always look good to you freaks

You're posting "cooked" numbers???

Holyfuckingshit!!!

No dumb ass obama supporters have been doing that since 2009

 

[bigrebnc1775]

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.

What's a Cater economy, you big dummy? You need help, seriously.

What's a carter economy?
Gas rationing long lines at the pump 7.5% unemployment rate Inflation of 15% Misery index of 24.5% The closest to Carter is obama at 14.9% But that is what an cater economy looks like.

How about that Bush economy? LOL! He took Clinton's good economy and flushed it down a commode. When he left office, we were losing approximately 800,000 jobs a month.

Sr sucked dick Jr did ok until democrats came along

 

[Faun]

Ooooh! I know the answer! Pick me!

You've been wrong so many times idiot.
And if you want more So fucking be it.

Show me once where I've been wrong. I double-dog dare you.

I'm telling you are wrong and have been wrong and no I'm not going to post any post but I do have a good memory.
So shit stain move along.

You think the labor force participation rate tells us the number of employed and you're trying to say I'm wrong. Too funny.

Why wouldn't it? yeah I know yada yada yada from you it's all bull shit. Do you work for the department of labor? Are you job scare and need to feed the lie?

Is this true, you think the labor force participation rate tells us the number of people employed?

 

[Faun]

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

Cooked numbers always look good to you freaks

You're posting "cooked" numbers???

Holyfuckingshit!!!

No dumb ass obama supporters have been doing that since 2009

Are you saying I'm using cooked numbers but you're not?

 

[nodoginnafight]

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

Cooked numbers always look good to you freaks

You're posting "cooked" numbers???

Holyfuckingshit!!!

No dumb ass obama supporters have been doing that since 2009

Are you saying I'm using cooked numbers but you're not?

He's desperately trying to divert attention away from good news. It's what the far right mouth-breathers do.

 

[Faun]

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

Cooked numbers always look good to you freaks

You're posting "cooked" numbers???

Holyfuckingshit!!!

No dumb ass obama supporters have been doing that since 2009

Are you saying I'm using cooked numbers but you're not?

He's desperately trying to divert attention away from good news. It's what the far right mouth-breathers do.

As the U.S. inches closer and closer to full employment, what else can the brain-dead righties do?

 

[Carla_Danger]

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.

What's a Cater economy, you big dummy? You need help, seriously.

What's a carter economy?
Gas rationing long lines at the pump 7.5% unemployment rate Inflation of 15% Misery index of 24.5% The closest to Carter is obama at 14.9% But that is what an cater economy looks like.

How about that Bush economy? LOL! He took Clinton's good economy and flushed it down a commode. When he left office, we were losing approximately 800,000 jobs a month.

Sr sucked dick Jr did ok until democrats came along