Does the GOP wish Obama left the country the way Bush left it.

[Faun]

Yes, full employment. What a shame you're too delirious to recognize reality.

Over a third of Americans were not looking for work before Obama became president. 94% of that third of Americans don't want a job. And the labor force participation rate is not an indicator of the health of the job markets; whereas, the unemployment rate is. And despite your ignorance, it indicates we are at full employment.

Just for you public school victims, let's try this again:

The more people that drop out of the workforce, the lower the unemployment numbers go. The lower the unemployment numbers, you will eventually cross that threshold of what is considered Full Employment.

If you take away those who dropped out of the workforce, we are nowhere near Full Employment.

View attachment 88327

The labor force participation rate is not an indicator of the health of the job market. If it was, that would mean we had a horrible economy in the 50's and 60's when the LFPR was even lower than it is now. It reflects demographics.

But even worse for your idiocy is that full employment represents the saturation rate among those who want to work and 94% of those not in the labor force don't want to work.

Can you comprehend that? It's not above your paygrade, is it? It means the labor force participation rate has absolutely fucking nothing to do with full employment. That's how ignorant you are.

Capiche?

Government says we are close to full employment, yet 95 million Americans of working age are not working.

Only a dupe would believe the government.

Ummm... and where does that 95 million figure come from?

 

[Freewill]

Bush left behind a disaster, and no amount of spin, deflection or denial can change that fact.

To blame that mess entirely on Bush is asinine

Indeed, the way partisans blame everything bad that happens on the other party's President is ridiculous.

But what's good for the goose...
.

Out of the three parties, the other party seldom gets it right.

 

[Freewill]

 

[Wilbur Right]

Any of you right whiners work? If so, is it someone else's fault you have a job? Or don't have a job? Whose fault is it when you have a job? Seeing as how you want to blame somebody.

All I know is if I want to work, I do. If I don't want to work, I don't. Isn't that "freedom" you all are always going on about?

 

[nat4900]

Its fun to watch you stomp your bunny slippers and pout.

Well, low-life Bear.....you know what's worse than being stupid??? Its not even realizing how fucking stupid you are.

Smarter right wingers fully realize that this election is virtually over.....but YOU and most of your ilk on this forum are not quite that "smart".....

 

[Faun]

Ray

You apparently have no idea what full employment means....

And you apparently don't understand the impact of the labor participate rate in relation to the so-called unemployment figures.

The more people that drop out of the workforce, the lower the unemployment numbers go even if one job was not created. In other words, the unemployment numbers are phony.

Oh, I fully understand the shortcomings of U3........but that doesn't change the technical definition of "full employment"...

Yea I am sure those workers love their new part time obama care jobs



.

What an achievement...



.

The real achievement is your bullshitting...

Bureau of Labor Statistics Data

 

[gipper]

Yes, full employment. What a shame you're too delirious to recognize reality.

Over a third of Americans were not looking for work before Obama became president. 94% of that third of Americans don't want a job. And the labor force participation rate is not an indicator of the health of the job markets; whereas, the unemployment rate is. And despite your ignorance, it indicates we are at full employment.

Just for you public school victims, let's try this again:

The more people that drop out of the workforce, the lower the unemployment numbers go. The lower the unemployment numbers, you will eventually cross that threshold of what is considered Full Employment.

If you take away those who dropped out of the workforce, we are nowhere near Full Employment.

View attachment 88327

The labor force participation rate is not an indicator of the health of the job market. If it was, that would mean we had a horrible economy in the 50's and 60's when the LFPR was even lower than it is now. It reflects demographics.

But even worse for your idiocy is that full employment represents the saturation rate among those who want to work and 94% of those not in the labor force don't want to work.

Can you comprehend that? It's not above your paygrade, is it? It means the labor force participation rate has absolutely fucking nothing to do with full employment. That's how ignorant you are.

Capiche?

Government says we are close to full employment, yet 95 million Americans of working age are not working.

Only a dupe would believe the government.

Only a dupe would bleat

yet 95 million Americans of working age are not working.

yeah the truth is just dumb, when it does not fit your dogma.

 

[rdean]

Stop kazzing. The labor force participation rate has nothing to do with full employment.

The problem.on this board as I see it is this.

The right wingers on here have made tens of thousands of posts about how bad things are.

The left and independents have made thousands of posts in response.

So why is it that the right wingers have the time to make tens of thousands of posts and the left doesn't?

Simple. The left wingers work. The right wingers don't..so no wonder the right thinks things are so bad. They won't get off their lazy asses and.WORK.

I'm retired so I can post all I want. I already worked hard. Thank God I'm a liberal.

 

[kaz]

Yeah, I just don't know how this country can survive with full employment and a record high stock market.

Full employment? We have a record low labor participation rate. That means over one-third of Americans of working age are not working nor looking for a job, plus the Americans who are not working and looking for a job.

Ray

You apparently have no idea what full employment means....

If you don't understand what he said, obviously you don't know what "full employment" means. He told you in his sentence both what it means and what's misleading about it

So you don't have any idea either.....

I'm not surprised...

Btw, the denominator of LFPR is everyone over 16 who is not in an institution.....calling them all "working age" is a bit idiotic, don't you think?

LOL, Full employment and LFPR are different things. As I said, Ray "told you in his sentence both what it means and what's misleading about it."

He was agreeing with you that by the general economic definition have full labor participation as you claimed, but he was pointing out that LFPR is very low. In other words, "unemployment" was low because of people who left the labor force, making "full participation" misleadingly low. LOL, wow, you really need the obvious to be explained to you ...

 

[Al Azar]

Yes, full employment. What a shame you're too delirious to recognize reality.

Over a third of Americans were not looking for work before Obama became president. 94% of that third of Americans don't want a job. And the labor force participation rate is not an indicator of the health of the job markets; whereas, the unemployment rate is. And despite your ignorance, it indicates we are at full employment.

Just for you public school victims, let's try this again:

The more people that drop out of the workforce, the lower the unemployment numbers go. The lower the unemployment numbers, you will eventually cross that threshold of what is considered Full Employment.

If you take away those who dropped out of the workforce, we are nowhere near Full Employment.

View attachment 88327

The labor force participation rate is not an indicator of the health of the job market. If it was, that would mean we had a horrible economy in the 50's and 60's when the LFPR was even lower than it is now. It reflects demographics.

But even worse for your idiocy is that full employment represents the saturation rate among those who want to work and 94% of those not in the labor force don't want to work.

Can you comprehend that? It's not above your paygrade, is it? It means the labor force participation rate has absolutely fucking nothing to do with full employment. That's how ignorant you are.

Capiche?

Government says we are close to full employment, yet 95 million Americans of working age are not working.

Only a dupe would believe the government.

Just curious, who provided you with that 95 million figure?

 

[Freewill]

Any of you right whiners work? If so, is it someone else's fault you have a job? Or don't have a job? Whose fault is it when you have a job? Seeing as how you want to blame somebody.

All I know is if I want to work, I do. If I don't want to work, I don't. Isn't that "freedom" you all are always going on about?

As long as when you "don't want to work," you are not living off the public dole, no one cares.

 

[kaz]

It's like explaining economics to an eight year old, isn't it? You just can't dumb down the concepts enough

You have to laugh otherwise you'd cry. It's just like Faun bragging about our stock market. He (she) doesn't realize that the stock market is what it is due to the trillions of dollars the feds pumped into it. The market is not reflective of our economic success. Like the housing bubble, it's just an artificial bubble. All bubbles burst.

Yes, that's why the market rallied when the job numbers were disappointing which lead the Fed to soften on raising interest rates. Interest rates were more important than economic data, at least in the short run.

Unfortunately, it's only good for the market in the short run. Because of the time value of money, short term positive profits due to low debt rates dominate long term profitability numbers which are not great because companies are investing so little, and what they do invest is largely overseas away from the malignant Federal government here

 

[rdean]

You don't even need to go look anything up when it comes to labor participation and the work force. It's such common knowledge.

No matter what state the economy is in, baby boomers are retiring. That's just a fact everyone knows.

We knew there are 5.8 million unfilled jobs. The highest in history as far as I know. Those jobs aren't filled because people don't have the skills.

Many younger adults are staying in college longer (probably not Republicans) so they can get a good and well paying jobs.

With such a large population and people retiring, of course there are more disabled than ever before. Disabled who aren't working.

Many liberal women have dropped out of the labor force to stay at home and raise their children because their well educated husband makes enough.

I've known three well educated women over the last couple of years who's husbands stay at home to raise the kids because the wife makes much more.

Then many of those youngsters Republicans sent off to Iraq have come back disabled.

And I'm sure there are many more reasons I never thought of. But I suspect I got the bulk.

 

[Wyatt earp]

Ray

You apparently have no idea what full employment means....

And you apparently don't understand the impact of the labor participate rate in relation to the so-called unemployment figures.

The more people that drop out of the workforce, the lower the unemployment numbers go even if one job was not created. In other words, the unemployment numbers are phony.

Oh, I fully understand the shortcomings of U3........but that doesn't change the technical definition of "full employment"...

Yea I am sure those workers love their new part time obama care jobs



.

What an achievement...



.

In the month that ACA became law, there were 9.126 million people working part time "for economic reasons"..........in May 2016 that number was 6.372 million....

You have a link? stupid lying fuck

America's part-time problem may be permanent

By Patrick Gillespie April 25, 2016 13:25PM EDT


America has a huge part-time workforce problem.

And it's Worry Number One for Federal Reserve Chair Janet Yellen. She has talked about part-timers at each of her last three press conferences, at nearly every speech in the last six months and at both of her past two testimonies to Congress.

Yellen's worries stem from the fact that the part-time U.S. workforce is at "very high levels."

 

[IcebergSlim]

Do you understand the fundamentals of equity valuation?

No, why don't you explain it to us?

The basic method involves earnings and a multiple........

SO what has happened to S&P earnings since the waning days of Supply Side Idiocy, Parte Deux?

So assuming that the multiple has stayed constant, what MUST have happened to equity valuation - even in the absence of Fed policy?

Please note, there IS a value to the "Fed Put".......I'm guessing that it might be as much as 20%.......but it won't surprise me to learn that it is less...

 

[rdean]

Ray

You apparently have no idea what full employment means....

And you apparently don't understand the impact of the labor participate rate in relation to the so-called unemployment figures.

The more people that drop out of the workforce, the lower the unemployment numbers go even if one job was not created. In other words, the unemployment numbers are phony.

Oh, I fully understand the shortcomings of U3........but that doesn't change the technical definition of "full employment"...

Yea I am sure those workers love their new part time obama care jobs



.

What an achievement...



.

Either Liberals in college or Republicans barely making ends meet because they hate Obama.

 

[kaz]

Yeah...making the 1% richer, is what Big Ears is all about...and the dumb average leftist gets duped again.

No president can stop the concentration of wealth at the top. But congress can. Who's in charge there, anyway?

You mindless leftists endlessly repeat that inane point without ever saying your plan for how an economy that removes the incentive from job providers to work won't kill jobs down the chain. Why are you so much more obsessed with what others have rather than what you have?

What incentive for job providers to work has been removed?

Redistribution of the money we earn for working more. I mean duh, Larry

Where do they find you Idiots?

How does the current federal tax burden compare to the average of the past 50 years?

If job creators are so disincentivized, why are we seeing higher rates of job growth than at any time during Supply Side Idiocy, Parte Deux?

Strawman. But I'll respond to your points for kicks.

1) What you said is a strawman because I was addressing a point that wanted to change "concentration of wealth at the top." That implies more government action to do that, it's not a statement about what's happening today. You have little reading comprehension and call me an "idiot," classic

2) As for the tax burden currently, it's about the same. However, Obamacare is looming large over the future and there's no telling what the increasingly belligerent Federal government will do on behalf of you and your greedy, wealth envying brethren who want to plunder them. Get used to them investing more and more overseas to run away from you.

That companies are moving to socialist countries should show you how far your greed has gotten out of hand. Yet it doesn't phase you at all, you just work on your plans to plunder them there

 

[IcebergSlim]

Ray

You apparently have no idea what full employment means....

And you apparently don't understand the impact of the labor participate rate in relation to the so-called unemployment figures.

The more people that drop out of the workforce, the lower the unemployment numbers go even if one job was not created. In other words, the unemployment numbers are phony.

Oh, I fully understand the shortcomings of U3........but that doesn't change the technical definition of "full employment"...

Yea I am sure those workers love their new part time obama care jobs



.

What an achievement...



.

In the month that ACA became law, there were 9.126 million people working part time "for economic reasons"..........in May 2016 that number was 6.372 million....

You have a link? stupid lying fuck



By Patrick Gillespie April 25, 2016 13:25PM EDT


America has a huge part-time workforce problem.

And it's Worry Number One for Federal Reserve Chair Janet Yellen. She has talked about part-timers at each of her last three press conferences, at nearly every speech in the last six months and at both of her past two testimonies to Congress.

Yellen's worries stem from the fact that the part-time U.S. workforce is at "very high levels."

Always....

Employment Level: Part-Time for Economic Reasons, Nonagricultural Industries

 

[Wilbur Right]

As long as when you "don't want to work," you are not living off the public dole, no one cares.

Exactly. Now how many in that LPR that right wingers love to cite, are in a situation similar to mine?

You including social security income as "public dole"?
Rental income where the tenant is receiving their social security?. What? I have tenants who work and receive SNAP.
Helps them pay rent. By God I must be on the dole too. LMAO.
Oh well, works for me.

 

[nat4900]

because companies are investing so little, and what they do invest is largely overseas away from the malignant Federal government here

So, the result of the above is....?????

Right wingers FULLY supporting even more tax breaks to these errant companies, correct???

(BTW, name the huge US companies that are actually paying the stated "high" tax rate)