Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Unlock unbeatable offers today. Shop here: https://amzn.to/4cEkqYs 🎁
But that would only explain the increase in PT work for NONeconomic reasons, Boomers cutting their hours upon reaching retirement age, it does not explain the DECLINE in PT work for economic reasons like Obamacare.No matter how many times you gullible SUCKERS parrot that GOP scripted lie, it will STILL be a lie, not that you care.many businesses have cut employee hours in response to Obamacare
When Obamacare was passed there were 9,233,000 working PT for economic reasons and there are 6,810,000 now, over 2.4 million LESS.
In spite of being exposed to the facts, I'm sure you will keep on parroting the lie you love to parrot.
the baby boomers are retiring now days Ed. Try to keep up.
The U-6 was NEVER the "real" unemployment rate, and Bush's U-6 was never 10%, bush had the BLS cook the numbers. See that knife cuts both ways!!!
The U-6 gives you the whole story about the employment situation. The regular jobless number, the U-3, can be very misleading, especially when many businesses have cut employee hours in response to Obamacare, and especially when we have so many people who are severely under-employed.
How would Bush have gotten the Department of Labor to cook the numbers? Do you have any evidence for that claim? How have the reporting criteria changed from when, or before, Bush was in office? Doesn't the BLS report the same types of numbers? So how could Bush have "cooked the numbers"?
Anyway, the central point is that when you consider the U-6, it becomes clear that the economy under Obama is performing markedly worse than it did under Bush--or under Clinton, or Bush Sr., or Reagan, or Carter.
Forbes is actually a liberal mouthpiece.The U-6 was NEVER the "real" unemployment rate, and Bush's U-6 was never 10%, bush had the BLS cook the numbers. See that knife cuts both ways!!!
The U-6 gives you the whole story about the employment situation. The regular jobless number, the U-3, can be very misleading, especially when many businesses have cut employee hours in response to Obamacare, and especially when we have so many people who are severely under-employed.
How would Bush have gotten the Department of Labor to cook the numbers? Do you have any evidence for that claim? How have the reporting criteria changed from when, or before, Bush was in office? Doesn't the BLS report the same types of numbers? So how could Bush have "cooked the numbers"?
Anyway, the central point is that when you consider the U-6, it becomes clear that the economy under Obama is performing markedly worse than it did under Bush--or under Clinton, or Bush Sr., or Reagan, or Carter.
Since Reagan is generally considered the gold standard in right wing ideology, I doubt you would argue that any of the others you list would compare to him, so lets start at the top. Nobody, even you, can accuse Forbes of being a liberal mouthpiece, but they say Obama Outperforms Reagan On Jobs, Growth And Investing.
Obama Outperforms Reagan On Jobs Growth And Investing - Forbes
Complete BULLSHIT!Forbes is actually a liberal mouthpiece.The U-6 was NEVER the "real" unemployment rate, and Bush's U-6 was never 10%, bush had the BLS cook the numbers. See that knife cuts both ways!!!
The U-6 gives you the whole story about the employment situation. The regular jobless number, the U-3, can be very misleading, especially when many businesses have cut employee hours in response to Obamacare, and especially when we have so many people who are severely under-employed.
How would Bush have gotten the Department of Labor to cook the numbers? Do you have any evidence for that claim? How have the reporting criteria changed from when, or before, Bush was in office? Doesn't the BLS report the same types of numbers? So how could Bush have "cooked the numbers"?
Anyway, the central point is that when you consider the U-6, it becomes clear that the economy under Obama is performing markedly worse than it did under Bush--or under Clinton, or Bush Sr., or Reagan, or Carter.
Since Reagan is generally considered the gold standard in right wing ideology, I doubt you would argue that any of the others you list would compare to him, so lets start at the top. Nobody, even you, can accuse Forbes of being a liberal mouthpiece, but they say Obama Outperforms Reagan On Jobs, Growth And Investing.
Obama Outperforms Reagan On Jobs Growth And Investing - Forbes
Next.
Both. You could cherry pick some factoid and show that Herbert Hoover's economic record was better than Reagan's if you wanted to.To cut through all the bullshit....Obama's job record sucks. Anyone who argues otherwise is a fool or a dupe.....or both.
Hell, everyone's economic record is better than St Ronnie's, all his numbers are cooked.Both. You could cherry pick some factoid and show that Herbert Hoover's economic record was better than Reagan's if you wanted to.To cut through all the bullshit....Obama's job record sucks. Anyone who argues otherwise is a fool or a dupe.....or both.
And who controlled Congress in the Summer of 2000, you fucking dipshit. You stupid fucking moron. You fucking hack.Bush burst the dot com bubble and then he burst the housing bubble, both created by the GOP Congress.Bush inherited a recession
The dotcom bubble burst in the Summer of 2000, you fucking dipshit. You stupid fucking moron. You fucking hack.
Forbes is actually a liberal mouthpiece.The U-6 was NEVER the "real" unemployment rate, and Bush's U-6 was never 10%, bush had the BLS cook the numbers. See that knife cuts both ways!!!
The U-6 gives you the whole story about the employment situation. The regular jobless number, the U-3, can be very misleading, especially when many businesses have cut employee hours in response to Obamacare, and especially when we have so many people who are severely under-employed.
How would Bush have gotten the Department of Labor to cook the numbers? Do you have any evidence for that claim? How have the reporting criteria changed from when, or before, Bush was in office? Doesn't the BLS report the same types of numbers? So how could Bush have "cooked the numbers"?
Anyway, the central point is that when you consider the U-6, it becomes clear that the economy under Obama is performing markedly worse than it did under Bush--or under Clinton, or Bush Sr., or Reagan, or Carter.
Since Reagan is generally considered the gold standard in right wing ideology, I doubt you would argue that any of the others you list would compare to him, so lets start at the top. Nobody, even you, can accuse Forbes of being a liberal mouthpiece, but they say Obama Outperforms Reagan On Jobs, Growth And Investing.
Obama Outperforms Reagan On Jobs Growth And Investing - Forbes
Next.
To cut through all the bullshit....Obama's job record sucks. Anyone who argues otherwise is a fool or a dupe.....or both.
But that would only explain the increase in PT work for NONeconomic reasons, Boomers cutting their hours upon reaching retirement age, it does not explain the DECLINE in PT work for economic reasons like Obamacare.No matter how many times you gullible SUCKERS parrot that GOP scripted lie, it will STILL be a lie, not that you care.many businesses have cut employee hours in response to Obamacare
When Obamacare was passed there were 9,233,000 working PT for economic reasons and there are 6,810,000 now, over 2.4 million LESS.
In spite of being exposed to the facts, I'm sure you will keep on parroting the lie you love to parrot.
the baby boomers are retiring now days Ed. Try to keep up.
I see that you're an idiot. Is that the point you were trying to make?Hell, everyone's economic record is better than St Ronnie's, all his numbers are cooked.Both. You could cherry pick some factoid and show that Herbert Hoover's economic record was better than Reagan's if you wanted to.To cut through all the bullshit....Obama's job record sucks. Anyone who argues otherwise is a fool or a dupe.....or both.
See how that works!
Wrong. People retiring is part of the picture, but the largest number of people outside the workforce are under 30.But that would only explain the increase in PT work for NONeconomic reasons, Boomers cutting their hours upon reaching retirement age, it does not explain the DECLINE in PT work for economic reasons like Obamacare.No matter how many times you gullible SUCKERS parrot that GOP scripted lie, it will STILL be a lie, not that you care.many businesses have cut employee hours in response to Obamacare
When Obamacare was passed there were 9,233,000 working PT for economic reasons and there are 6,810,000 now, over 2.4 million LESS.
In spite of being exposed to the facts, I'm sure you will keep on parroting the lie you love to parrot.
the baby boomers are retiring now days Ed. Try to keep up.
no part time to it. Boomers retire and leave the work force completely.
Ok, what standard of measurement do you suggest would be a fair evaluation of Obama's job record or a fair comparison with some other President?Both. You could cherry pick some factoid and show that Herbert Hoover's economic record was better than Reagan's if you wanted to.To cut through all the bullshit....Obama's job record sucks. Anyone who argues otherwise is a fool or a dupe.....or both.
The same way the Right claims the Dem Congress caused the housing crash of the Bush Depression, and just like the Right said Obama controlled the economy well BEFORE he was elected, the SAME "logic" applies to Bush.And who controlled Congress in the Summer of 2000, you fucking dipshit. You stupid fucking moron. You fucking hack.Bush burst the dot com bubble and then he burst the housing bubble, both created by the GOP Congress.Bush inherited a recession
The dotcom bubble burst in the Summer of 2000, you fucking dipshit. You stupid fucking moron. You fucking hack.
Oh, so congress caused the tech bubble to burst? Lol. You are stupid. Please explain how they did that.
Besides, you miserable sack of left wing shit, you said the tech bubble happened under bush. The fucking tech bubble burst under Clinton.
I will be waiting for you to explain to all of us how congress caused the bubble to burst on the tech stocks.
You ignorant pile of shit.
Wrong. People retiring is part of the picture, but the largest number of people outside the workforce are under 30.But that would only explain the increase in PT work for NONeconomic reasons, Boomers cutting their hours upon reaching retirement age, it does not explain the DECLINE in PT work for economic reasons like Obamacare.No matter how many times you gullible SUCKERS parrot that GOP scripted lie, it will STILL be a lie, not that you care.many businesses have cut employee hours in response to Obamacare
When Obamacare was passed there were 9,233,000 working PT for economic reasons and there are 6,810,000 now, over 2.4 million LESS.
In spite of being exposed to the facts, I'm sure you will keep on parroting the lie you love to parrot.
the baby boomers are retiring now days Ed. Try to keep up.
no part time to it. Boomers retire and leave the work force completely.
Not all, some choose to reduce their hours.But that would only explain the increase in PT work for NONeconomic reasons, Boomers cutting their hours upon reaching retirement age, it does not explain the DECLINE in PT work for economic reasons like Obamacare.No matter how many times you gullible SUCKERS parrot that GOP scripted lie, it will STILL be a lie, not that you care.many businesses have cut employee hours in response to Obamacare
When Obamacare was passed there were 9,233,000 working PT for economic reasons and there are 6,810,000 now, over 2.4 million LESS.
In spite of being exposed to the facts, I'm sure you will keep on parroting the lie you love to parrot.
the baby boomers are retiring now days Ed. Try to keep up.
no part time to it. Boomers retire and leave the work force completely.
Do you just make your own numbers up? A-38. Persons not in the labor force by desire and availability for work age and sexWrong. People retiring is part of the picture, but the largest number of people outside the workforce are under 30.
To cut through all the bullshit....Obama's job record sucks. Anyone who argues otherwise is a fool or a dupe.....or both.
Typical teabagger response. "Don't bother me with facts. Rush told me, so facts don't matter"
And every single liberal politician and their supporters deny this.The real unemployment rate, the one that most media talking heads rarely mention, is called the U-6, and according to the Department of Labor, the U-6 rate is now 11.3%. Under Obama the U-6 has been as high as 17%. See:
Chart What s the real unemployment rate
U6 Unemployment Rate Portal Seven
The Big Lie 5.6 Unemployment
In contrast, under George W. Bush, the U-6 stayed below 10% for the vast majority of his presidency, and it didn't go above 12% until the last three months of his second term. That sharp upswing came because of the Great Recession in 2008, which was largely caused by massive--and disastrous--federal intervention in the home loan industry (via Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, and the CRA), which led to the housing crisis, which in turn triggered--and largely caused--the Great Recession. See:
Did Deregulation and Capitalism Cause the Financial Crisis
(And it's worth noting that the Great Recession was needlessly made worse by senseless federal regulations such as the ridiculous federal mark-to-market regulations. Those regulations were later quietly changed, in recognition of the damage they had done during the early stages of the recession. For more on the damage done by the federal mark-to-market restrictions, see Suspend Mark-To-Market Now - Forbes and The mark to market fiasco.)
