Factcheck: "discouraged workers" hardly the only factor of th low labor participation

[Billy000]

My God, if that's not the pot calling the kettle black.



No, dipshit, it isn't. The Depression of 1920 was brutal and put us in a deflationary spin and Harding lead a full recovery by the middle of 1921. In roughly 18 months things were back to normal because aside from some minor tax cuts, Harding pretty much did NOTHING and let the market self correct, the complete opposite of what Keynesian stooges like Hoover, FDR, and the current dill weed is doing with their intrusive central planning that never has and never will work, thus dragging out the economic stagnation that we are experiencing now and did during the Great Depression.

Now shut your fucking yap and try reading a book you ignorant dipshit

The Recovery Act was responsible for 2.5 million jobs. That massive job loss rate turned to job growth within months.

And yet every year we lose more jobs than we gain... Trillions spent for less jobs, you might want to look into that. As DTMB said, and history clearly shows, Harding cut spending and gave tax cuts and got the country out of a depression. Obama has the FedR spending 1+ trillion a year + Obama's deficits of 1. whatever Trillion a year and we are at a net loss in jobs each year.

The only recovery under Obama has been for the rich, made possible by Obama showering trillions on them... Then ironically claiming to want to somehow tax the top 1% ( that Obama is a part of) more. Maybe sometime during this week yu can start another thread on the growing income inequality, and naturally forget Obama and his policies for the last 6 years that progressed that problem by leaps and bounds.

"Showering trillions on the rich"

Do you not realize how retarded that sounds? I know making things up helps you righties feel secure in your delusions, but that is just idiotic.

Obama biggest expense has been on DEFENSE.

 

[hazlnut]

What hasn't changed is the shifting of the blame.

We're now six years into the "recovery" and it is still Bush's fault.

You are either blatantly dishonest or dumb as a stump. Or both.

You really don't know anything about economics, do you?

 

[Geaux4it]

 

[The Rabbi]

What hasn't changed is the shifting of the blame.

We're now six years into the "recovery" and it is still Bush's fault.

You are either blatantly dishonest or dumb as a stump. Or both.

You really don't know anything about economics, do you?

If she knew absolutely nothing about economics, it would still be more than you know.

Yeah, the blatant apologies for thsi administration's failures are verging on the pathetic. Either everything is hunky dory or it's all Bush's fault.
The truth is that people are discouraged about finding a job. So either they drop out, get themselves on disability, or retire early. People are discouraged because this is the worst recovery in history,and that is completely because of policies by Obama and the Democrats.

 

[Billy000]

What hasn't changed is the shifting of the blame.

We're now six years into the "recovery" and it is still Bush's fault.

You are either blatantly dishonest or dumb as a stump. Or both.

You really don't know anything about economics, do you?

If she knew absolutely nothing about economics, it would still be more than you know.

Yeah, the blatant apologies for thsi administration's failures are verging on the pathetic. Either everything is hunky dory or it's all Bush's fault.
The truth is that people are discouraged about finding a job. So either they drop out, get themselves on disability, or retire early. People are discouraged because this is the worst recovery in history,and that is completely because of policies by Obama and the Democrats.

Are you actually suggesting that the reason why people are going on disability and retiring is because they are discouraged from finding work? That may be the most moronic thing you have ever said.

 

[The T]

You really don't know anything about economics, do you?

If she knew absolutely nothing about economics, it would still be more than you know.

Yeah, the blatant apologies for thsi administration's failures are verging on the pathetic. Either everything is hunky dory or it's all Bush's fault.
The truth is that people are discouraged about finding a job. So either they drop out, get themselves on disability, or retire early. People are discouraged because this is the worst recovery in history,and that is completely because of policies by Obama and the Democrats.

Are you actually suggesting that the reason why people are going on disability and retiring is because they are discouraged from finding work? That may be the most moronic thing you have ever said.

He's correct Billy. It's reality.

 

[gipper]

This pretty much explains it....

 

[midcan5]

Wingnuts are a funny breed. History, memory has no place in their world. Coolidge/Hoover, Reagan/Bush, and Bush Jr all required massive government intervention to prevent economic chaos. Great Depression, Saving&Loan scandal, Great Recession. But when a democrat does well, the praise is somehow over the top? I guess maybe when your party has been a failure for one hundred years it so warps your mind the best you can do is throw stones and whine.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/polit...-ideology-through-history-10.html#post7684195

"Throughout the nineteenth century, the loans which financed large American capital investment programs, mounted by private consortia, were continually defaulted on. The history of the American railroads is a history of default. More specifically, the history of American capitalism is one of default. This happened in a spectacular manner during the Panics of 1837, 1857, 1873, 1892-93 and 1907. None of this reneging happened in the civilized manner organized by a Solon or a Sully. Rather it involved a panic and a crash, which created massive bankruptcies, which in turn wiped out massive debts. Because of the disordered way in which each ripping up of obligations came, the result was always a short period of widespread depression before the cleansed economy took off again with renewed force. In the Panic of 1892-93 alone, four thousand banks and fourteen thousand commercial enterprises collapsed. In other words, the nonpayment of debt was central to the construction of the United States.... The great depressions of the last hundred and fifty years can be seen as the default mechanisms of middle-class societies. Depressions free the citizens by making the paper worthless. The method was and is awkward and painful, particularly for the poor, but it destroys the paper chains and permits a new equilibrium to be built out of the pain and disorder of collapse.... One of the most surprising innovations of the late twentieth century has been not only the rationalization of speculation but, beyond that, the attachment of moral value, with vaguely religious origins, to the repayment of debts. This probably has something to do with the insertion of God as an official supporter of capitalism and democracy." p403 John Ralston Saul, 'Voltaire's Bastards'


'Contrary To GOP Claims, Small Businesses Say Taxes And Regulation Aren’t Holding Back Hiring' Contrary To GOP Claims, Small Businesses Say Taxes And Regulation Aren't Holding Back Hiring | ThinkProgress

 

[TooTall]

The other two chief reasons are more people going on disability and more baby boomers retiring. Not only that, but the decline in participation began before Obama came into office.

Obama?s Numbers (January 2014 Update)


The reality is that over 3 million new jobs have been added to the economy (net job creation. 8 million jobs in total created since he came into office). 2.5 million of those jobs are directly related to the Recovery Act. Altogether 2.5x more jobs have been created in his 5 years than the previous 8.

Since you are big on statistics, how many of those jobs were part time and how many full timers have been put on part time since Obamacare was implemented?

 

[TooTall]

Wingnuts are a funny breed. History, memory has no place in their world. Coolidge/Hoover, Reagan/Bush, and Bush Jr all required massive government intervention to prevent economic chaos. Great Depression, Saving&Loan scandal, Great Recession. But when a democrat does well, the praise is somehow over the top? I guess maybe when your party has been a failure for one hundred years it so warps your mind the best you can do is throw stones and whine.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/polit...-ideology-through-history-10.html#post7684195

"Throughout the nineteenth century, the loans which financed large American capital investment programs, mounted by private consortia, were continually defaulted on. The history of the American railroads is a history of default. More specifically, the history of American capitalism is one of default. This happened in a spectacular manner during the Panics of 1837, 1857, 1873, 1892-93 and 1907. None of this reneging happened in the civilized manner organized by a Solon or a Sully. Rather it involved a panic and a crash, which created massive bankruptcies, which in turn wiped out massive debts. Because of the disordered way in which each ripping up of obligations came, the result was always a short period of widespread depression before the cleansed economy took off again with renewed force. In the Panic of 1892-93 alone, four thousand banks and fourteen thousand commercial enterprises collapsed. In other words, the nonpayment of debt was central to the construction of the United States.... The great depressions of the last hundred and fifty years can be seen as the default mechanisms of middle-class societies. Depressions free the citizens by making the paper worthless. The method was and is awkward and painful, particularly for the poor, but it destroys the paper chains and permits a new equilibrium to be built out of the pain and disorder of collapse.... One of the most surprising innovations of the late twentieth century has been not only the rationalization of speculation but, beyond that, the attachment of moral value, with vaguely religious origins, to the repayment of debts. This probably has something to do with the insertion of God as an official supporter of capitalism and democracy." p403 John Ralston Saul, 'Voltaire's Bastards'


'Contrary To GOP Claims, Small Businesses Say Taxes And Regulation Aren’t Holding Back Hiring' Contrary To GOP Claims, Small Businesses Say Taxes And Regulation Aren't Holding Back Hiring | ThinkProgress

Interesting article. Are you suggesting that Bush should NOT have got Congress to pass TARP and bail out the banks and Obama should NOT have bailed out GM and Chrysler?

 

[blackhawk]

Did anyone bother to read the link? First it states the statistics are showing what has happened since Obama took office not what happened before he took office meaning it's not about Bush and second while they do show some good things in the last five years the overall look of things since Obama took office is pretty sorry.

I'm not the one who brought Bush up. Helena did.

I didn't say you did I ask did anyone read the link and though you didn't mention Bush by name you stated the decline began before Obama took office the implication being under Bush.

 

[zeke]

Did anyone bother to read the link? First it states the statistics are showing what has happened since Obama took office not what happened before he took office meaning it's not about Bush and second while they do show some good things in the last five years the overall look of things since Obama took office is pretty sorry.

Seems to me that I have read on here how government does not create jobs. Then I read how Bush isn't responsible for the job losses that occurred during his presidency. Then I read how it is Obama's fault that the recovery has been so slow.

Which is it. Does government create jobs or not? Are presidents responsible for what happens to the economy during their time in office, or not? Just curious.

Can't have it both ways unless you are at Burger King or something.

 

[blackhawk]

Did anyone bother to read the link? First it states the statistics are showing what has happened since Obama took office not what happened before he took office meaning it's not about Bush and second while they do show some good things in the last five years the overall look of things since Obama took office is pretty sorry.

Seems to me that I have read on here how government does not create jobs. Then I read how Bush isn't responsible for the job losses that occurred during his presidency. Then I read how it is Obama's fault that the recovery has been so slow.

Which is it. Does government create jobs or not? Are presidents responsible for what happens to the economy during their time in office, or not? Just curious.

Can't have it both ways unless you are at Burger King or something.

Government tends to create government jobs yes Presidents are responsible for what happens on their watch I hold Bush responsible for what happened under his presidency however I do not hold him responsible for what has happened under Obamas as so many on the left want to do.

 

[Faun]

What hasn't changed is the shifting of the blame.

We're now six years into the "recovery" and it is still Bush's fault.

You are either blatantly dishonest or dumb as a stump. Or both.

Bush's Great Recession ended 4.5 years ago. How the hell are we "six years" into the recovery?

Conservatives should stay away from numbers.

 

[Billy000]

The other two chief reasons are more people going on disability and more baby boomers retiring. Not only that, but the decline in participation began before Obama came into office.

Obama?s Numbers (January 2014 Update)


The reality is that over 3 million new jobs have been added to the economy (net job creation. 8 million jobs in total created since he came into office). 2.5 million of those jobs are directly related to the Recovery Act. Altogether 2.5x more jobs have been created in his 5 years than the previous 8.

Since you are big on statistics, how many of those jobs were part time and how many full timers have been put on part time since Obamacare was implemented?

Regardless what Fox News and republicans are telling you, ObamaCare is not affecting job growth.

 

[zeke]

Did anyone bother to read the link? First it states the statistics are showing what has happened since Obama took office not what happened before he took office meaning it's not about Bush and second while they do show some good things in the last five years the overall look of things since Obama took office is pretty sorry.

Seems to me that I have read on here how government does not create jobs. Then I read how Bush isn't responsible for the job losses that occurred during his presidency. Then I read how it is Obama's fault that the recovery has been so slow.

Which is it. Does government create jobs or not? Are presidents responsible for what happens to the economy during their time in office, or not? Just curious.

Can't have it both ways unless you are at Burger King or something.

Government tends to create government jobs yes Presidents are responsible for what happens on their watch I hold Bush responsible for what happened under his presidency however I do not hold him responsible for what has happened under Obamas as so many on the left want to do.

That being the case, this particular government has not done a very good job creating government jobs. Reagan did a much better job of creating government jobs didn't he?

But it is good to know that if a Republican wins the next presidential election and the economy goes to shit, that Repubs won't be blaming Obama for the fall.

I always thought it was like Obama said, the current President is dealing with ALL the decisions made by not only his immediate predecessor but also dealing with decisions presidents made in terms past.

I still think that is the way it works. It ain't like each new president coming into office has a clean slate to start all over again, is it?

 

[LordBrownTrout]

What hasn't changed is the shifting of the blame.

We're now six years into the "recovery" and it is still Bush's fault.

You are either blatantly dishonest or dumb as a stump. Or both.

Bush's Great Recession ended 4.5 years ago. How the hell are we "six years" into the recovery?

Conservatives should stay away from numbers.

2009, 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014. That's six. We're now into our sixth year of this great recovery in which 90 plus million are out of the work force, 47 million are on food stamps. A glowing success for dems.

 

[Billy000]

Did anyone bother to read the link? First it states the statistics are showing what has happened since Obama took office not what happened before he took office meaning it's not about Bush and second while they do show some good things in the last five years the overall look of things since Obama took office is pretty sorry.

Seems to me that I have read on here how government does not create jobs. Then I read how Bush isn't responsible for the job losses that occurred during his presidency. Then I read how it is Obama's fault that the recovery has been so slow.

Which is it. Does government create jobs or not? Are presidents responsible for what happens to the economy during their time in office, or not? Just curious.

Can't have it both ways unless you are at Burger King or something.

Government tends to create government jobs yes Presidents are responsible for what happens on their watch I hold Bush responsible for what happened under his presidency however I do not hold him responsible for what has happened under Obamas as so many on the left want to do.

I'm not blaming Bush for what happens under Obama. However, the millions of jobs lost in Obama's very first few months are not his fault. Many things contributed to the 2008 crisis, not just Bush however.

 

[racewright]

Um yeah history doesn't change.

Um history? Don't you really mean hysteria (rewritten history)?

You're cute with egg on your face, Billy.

So you're actually suggesting the financial crisis didn't happen under Bush's watch?

So what was the major thing Obama does he throws a bone to rich Unions,Auto Companies and Insurance companies ALL TO HELP THE RICH. Yes Rich Unions do you think that the unions are not your boss guess again. Andrew Carnage was nicer to his employees than the Union grabbing bosses Are to there people.
Where does anyone get 350,000,000.00 of other peoples money to spend but a union.
Should be illegal, all union money should be spent on union benefits, and not political parties campaigns

And then he spends the next 4 years saying the rich are evil do you not understand bait and switch what a bunch of fools.
I still have that bridge for sale in Brooklyn and when I close the sale it will not be the first time it was sold in liberal NYC

 

[Billy000]

Um history? Don't you really mean hysteria (rewritten history)?

You're cute with egg on your face, Billy.

So you're actually suggesting the financial crisis didn't happen under Bush's watch?

So what was the major thing Obama does he throws a bone to rich Unions,Auto Companies and Insurance companies ALL TO HELP THE RICH. Yes Rich Unions do you think that the unions are not your boss guess again. Andrew Carnage was nicer to his employees than the Union grabbing bosses Are to there people.
Where does anyone get 350,000,000.00 of other peoples money to spend but a union.
Should be illegal, all union money should be spent on union benefits, and political parties campaigns

And then he spends the next 4 years saying the rich are evil do you not understand bait and switch what a bunch of fools.
I still have that bridge for sale in Brooklyn and when I close the sale it will not be the first time it was sold in liberal NYC

I want substantive proof Obama has given money to rich people.

Go ahead. I'll wait.