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

[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.

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.

Just how fucking backwoods retarded are you?? Bush's Great Recession didn't end until the second half of 2009 and we're only 1 month into 2014. Yet here you are, idiotically counting 17 months as part of the recovery that actually doesn't count.

Hell, using your [il]logic, you can also include years 2015, 2016, 2017, and 2018, and call it an even decade.

 

[racewright]

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

Go ahead. I'll wait.

Solyndra: Politics infused Obama energy programs - The Washington Post

I win. You lose.

Ummm...didn't Bush sign off on Solyndra during his administration?

(Yes)

Did the program that funded the Solyndra loan start under George W. Bush? David Plouffe says so | PolitiFact

So let me get this straight Bush and Obama worked together to get Solyndra funded .

Or in you and most who point to another screw up it is now OK for Obama to be a screw up because Bush was a screw up. So two screws up makes a clean up???? Fill me in on this type of logic.

 

[Dirk the Daring]

Solyndra: Politics infused Obama energy programs - The Washington Post

I win. You lose.

Ummm...didn't Bush sign off on Solyndra during his administration?

(Yes)

Did the program that funded the Solyndra loan start under George W. Bush? David Plouffe says so | PolitiFact

So let me get this straight Bush and Obama worked together to get Solyndra funded .

Or in you and most who point to another screw up it is now OK for Obama to be a screw up because Bush was a screw up. So two screws up makes a clean up???? Fill me in on this type of logic.

The biggest issue with Solyndra btw was not the loan itself, but how it was restructured to favor the investors over the tax payers.

Treasury officials: Never saw a loan like Solyndra - BusinessWeek

The half-billion dollar loan to Solyndra Inc. was restructured earlier this year so that private investors moved ahead of taxpayers for repayment on part of the loan in case of a default.

But remember, Obama's never given any money to the RICH™

 

[Avorysuds]

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.

The FedR has spent 3.7 trillion you moron... Then add in Obama's stimulus, subsidies, bailouts and hell even military spending and you have TRILLIONS dumped on the rich.

Do you realize how retarded you sound?

Obama is the worst version of a the type of Republican you claim to hate, ever.

 

[Faun]

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.

Complete bullshit.

Here are the net gain/losses in employment (numbers in black represent growth):

2008 ... -2,904,000
2009 ... -5,356,000
2010 ..... 1,253,000
2011 ..... 1,570,000
2012 ..... 2,376,000
2013 ..... 1,374,000

Bureau of Labor Statistics Data

Here are the net gain/losses in unemployment (numbers in black represent decline):

2008 .... 3,641,000
2009 .... 3,812,000
2010 ...... -725,000
2011 ... -1,283,000
2012 ...... -817,000
2013 ... -1,922,000

Bureau of Labor Statistics Data

The only way you can claim that we're losing more jobs than we're gaining is to include people who choose not to work; such as people who retire and people who are collecting disability. When you look at the job market based on who wants a job and who has a job, the job market is growing.

 

[Avorysuds]

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.

Complete bullshit.

Here are the net gain/losses in employment (numbers in black represent growth):

2008 ... -2,904,000
2009 ... -5,356,000
2010 ..... 1,253,000
2011 ..... 1,570,000
2012 ..... 2,376,000
2013 ..... 1,374,000

Bureau of Labor Statistics Data

Here are the net gain/losses in unemployment (numbers in black represent decline):

2008 .... 3,641,000
2009 .... 3,812,000
2010 ...... -725,000
2011 ... -1,283,000
2012 ...... -817,000
2013 ... -1,922,000

Bureau of Labor Statistics Data

The only way you can claim that we're losing more jobs than we're gaining is to include people who choose not to work; such as people who retire and people who are collecting disability. When you look at the job market based on who wants a job and who has a job, the job market is growing.

lol, the dishonesty runs deep in you.

I love how you simply don't count people that have always been counted to make the numbers look the way you want.

Yes, if you actually include everyone into the equation as they have always done, we run a loss every year. If you remove entire groups just for Obama, it's still not easy to make it look like you have an actual growth in jobs. But do it anyways, you don;t want things to get better, you want Obama and Dems to look kinda okish... but not really....

 

[Faun]

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.

Complete bullshit.

Here are the net gain/losses in employment (numbers in black represent growth):

2008 ... -2,904,000
2009 ... -5,356,000
2010 ..... 1,253,000
2011 ..... 1,570,000
2012 ..... 2,376,000
2013 ..... 1,374,000

Bureau of Labor Statistics Data

Here are the net gain/losses in unemployment (numbers in black represent decline):

2008 .... 3,641,000
2009 .... 3,812,000
2010 ...... -725,000
2011 ... -1,283,000
2012 ...... -817,000
2013 ... -1,922,000

Bureau of Labor Statistics Data

The only way you can claim that we're losing more jobs than we're gaining is to include people who choose not to work; such as people who retire and people who are collecting disability. When you look at the job market based on who wants a job and who has a job, the job market is growing.

lol, the dishonesty runs deep in you.

I love how you simply don't count people that have always been counted to make the numbers look the way you want.

Yes, if you actually include everyone into the equation as they have always done, we run a loss every year. If you remove entire groups just for Obama, it's still not easy to make it look like you have an actual growth in jobs. But do it anyways, you don;t want things to get better, you want Obama and Dems to look kinda okish... but not really....

The dishonest ones are rightards like you. You're the ones who are trying the change how we calculate employment figures as you are the one's who are now trying to factor in the labor force participation rate -- something you rightards never did before Obama became president.

It's also dishonest to factor in the labor force participation rate since the increase in those not in the labor force is mostly due to folks who don't want a job. Only liars and imbeciles on the right think it's normal to count people who don't want to work along with those who do.

 

[HelenaHandbag]

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?

Oh, button it, troll boy.

 

[pinqy]

I love how you simply don't count people that have always been counted to make the numbers look the way you want.

Yes, if you actually include everyone into the equation as they have always done, we run a loss every year. If you remove entire groups just for Obama, it's still not easy to make it look like you have an actual growth in jobs. But do it anyways, you don;t want things to get better, you want Obama and Dems to look kinda okish... but not really....

Can you show your math? I have no idea what people you're claiming are no longer in the equation. The methodology has n't changed under On a ma. No groups have been removed.

 

[Faun]

I love how you simply don't count people that have always been counted to make the numbers look the way you want.

Yes, if you actually include everyone into the equation as they have always done, we run a loss every year. If you remove entire groups just for Obama, it's still not easy to make it look like you have an actual growth in jobs. But do it anyways, you don;t want things to get better, you want Obama and Dems to look kinda okish... but not really....

Can you show your math? I have no idea what people you're claiming are no longer in the equation. The methodology has n't changed under On a ma. No groups have been removed.

He, like many brain-dead rightards, are trying to include folks who left the workforce into the unemployment rate (the vast majority of whom left voluntarily) -- which has never been done before since it's not an indicator of the job market's health.

That has never been a metric used before Obama became president to calculate the unemployment rate, but that shit stain idiotically claims it's "always" been a factor in the "equation."

Too bad for him, that is not a claim he can prove.

 

[pinqy]

I love how you simply don't count people that have always been counted to make the numbers look the way you want.

Yes, if you actually include everyone into the equation as they have always done, we run a loss every year. If you remove entire groups just for Obama, it's still not easy to make it look like you have an actual growth in jobs. But do it anyways, you don;t want things to get better, you want Obama and Dems to look kinda okish... but not really....

Can you show your math? I have no idea what people you're claiming are no longer in the equation. The methodology has n't changed under On a ma. No groups have been removed.

He, like many brain-dead rightards, are trying to include folks who left the workforce into the unemployment rate (the vast majority of whom left voluntarily) -- which has never been done before since it's not an indicator of the job market's health.

That has never been a metric used before Obama became president to calculate the unemployment rate, but that shit stain idiotically claims it's "always" been a factor in the "equation."

Too bad for him, that is not a claim he can prove.

I just want to see him try to do the math. That should be funny.

 

[Faun]

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.

Complete bullshit.

Here are the net gain/losses in employment (numbers in black represent growth):

2008 ... -2,904,000
2009 ... -5,356,000
2010 ..... 1,253,000
2011 ..... 1,570,000
2012 ..... 2,376,000
2013 ..... 1,374,000

Bureau of Labor Statistics Data

Here are the net gain/losses in unemployment (numbers in black represent decline):

2008 .... 3,641,000
2009 .... 3,812,000
2010 ...... -725,000
2011 ... -1,283,000
2012 ...... -817,000
2013 ... -1,922,000

Bureau of Labor Statistics Data

The only way you can claim that we're losing more jobs than we're gaining is to include people who choose not to work; such as people who retire and people who are collecting disability. When you look at the job market based on who wants a job and who has a job, the job market is growing.

lol, the dishonesty runs deep in you.

I love how you simply don't count people that have always been counted to make the numbers look the way you want.

Yes, if you actually include everyone into the equation as they have always done, we run a loss every year. If you remove entire groups just for Obama, it's still not easy to make it look like you have an actual growth in jobs. But do it anyways, you don;t want things to get better, you want Obama and Dems to look kinda okish... but not really....

By the way -- to highlight your ignorance ...

... since Obama's been president (which includes a period where we in a deep recession that he inherited), the total number of people leaving the work force went from 80,529,000 to 91,808,000 ...

Bureau of Labor Statistics Data

However, of those not in the labor force, only about 7% of them actually want a job. That number went from 5,708,000 when Obama became president to 6,111,000 now, an increase of just 403,000.

Bureau of Labor Statistics Data

In other words, of the 92 million people who are not in the workforce, you are moronically trying to hold Obama responsible for 86 million of them who choose not to work.

And of the 11.3 million additional folks not in the workforce since Obama became president, you are idiotically trying to hold Obama responsible for addition of 10.9 million of them who choose not to work.

An equation better known as ... rightardism.

And no, despite your delusional claim to the contrary, this is not how the "equation" was always calculated. It's an equation that was started by the brain-dead right when employment began turning positive under Obama and it drove the right insane to the point they made up that ridiculous "equation." After all, y'all can't stand another Democrat coming in to clean up a Republican mess.

 

[The Rabbi]

I'm sure you asked every single one of them.

ANyway, in any recovery what happens is the UE rate initially goes up as people who were out of the workforce ("chose not to work") become tempted to get back in and start looking for a job again.
That didnt happen this time because the job market remains so dismal the prospect of disability or early retirement is better than job prospects.
Of course the Left still thinks this is all Bush's fault. Incredibly. Then they yammer about the Right being retarded.

 

[Faun]

I'm sure you asked every single one of them.

ANyway, in any recovery what happens is the UE rate initially goes up as people who were out of the workforce ("chose not to work") become tempted to get back in and start looking for a job again.
That didnt happen this time because the job market remains so dismal the prospect of disability or early retirement is better than job prospects.
Of course the Left still thinks this is all Bush's fault. Incredibly. Then they yammer about the Right being retarded.

It's not my problem you are too rightarded to understand those numbers. Of the 92 million not in the labor force, only 6 million want to work. Percentage wise, that is lower than before Obama became president.

As far as asking every single one of them ... no, I didn't, but the BLS did; and it's their numbers I'm posting.

 

[The Rabbi]

I'm sure you asked every single one of them.

ANyway, in any recovery what happens is the UE rate initially goes up as people who were out of the workforce ("chose not to work") become tempted to get back in and start looking for a job again.
That didnt happen this time because the job market remains so dismal the prospect of disability or early retirement is better than job prospects.
Of course the Left still thinks this is all Bush's fault. Incredibly. Then they yammer about the Right being retarded.

It's not my problem you are too rightarded to understand those numbers. Of the 92 million not in the labor force, only 6 million want to work. Percentage wise, that is lower than before Obama became president.

As far as asking every single one of them ... no, I didn't, but the BLS did; and it's their numbers I'm posting.

The BLS asked every one of them, sure.

 

[Faun]

I'm sure you asked every single one of them.

ANyway, in any recovery what happens is the UE rate initially goes up as people who were out of the workforce ("chose not to work") become tempted to get back in and start looking for a job again.
That didnt happen this time because the job market remains so dismal the prospect of disability or early retirement is better than job prospects.
Of course the Left still thinks this is all Bush's fault. Incredibly. Then they yammer about the Right being retarded.

It's not my problem you are too rightarded to understand those numbers. Of the 92 million not in the labor force, only 6 million want to work. Percentage wise, that is lower than before Obama became president.

As far as asking every single one of them ... no, I didn't, but the BLS did; and it's their numbers I'm posting.

The BLS asked every one of them, sure.

Dayam! Talk about abject ignorance. Obviously, you have no idea what the household survey is; and obviously, you have no idea how the data for it is collected; and obviously, you have no qualms about discussing matters of which you know nothing about.

On that note, allow me to point out, your ignorance does nothing to discredit BLS statistics; nor does it alter the number of about 6 million people who are not in the workforce who actually want to work.

 

[Moonglow]

The only way I have found work is to be self employed, at my age they throw away your resumes and applications.

 

[The Rabbi]

It's not my problem you are too rightarded to understand those numbers. Of the 92 million not in the labor force, only 6 million want to work. Percentage wise, that is lower than before Obama became president.

As far as asking every single one of them ... no, I didn't, but the BLS did; and it's their numbers I'm posting.

The BLS asked every one of them, sure.

Dayam! Talk about abject ignorance. Obviously, you have no idea what the household survey is; and obviously, you have no idea how the data for it is collected; and obviously, you have no qualms about discussing matters of which you know nothing about.

On that note, allow me to point out, your ignorance does nothing to discredit BLS statistics; nor does it alter the number of about 6 million people who are not in the workforce who actually want to work.

It is hysterical watching your unintended irony in calling people ignorant when you don't have a clue what you're talking about.

 

[Faun]

The BLS asked every one of them, sure.

Dayam! Talk about abject ignorance. Obviously, you have no idea what the household survey is; and obviously, you have no idea how the data for it is collected; and obviously, you have no qualms about discussing matters of which you know nothing about.

On that note, allow me to point out, your ignorance does nothing to discredit BLS statistics; nor does it alter the number of about 6 million people who are not in the workforce who actually want to work.

It is hysterical watching your unintended irony in calling people ignorant when you don't have a clue what you're talking about.

I honestly believe you are stupid enough to think you can bluff your way out of ignorance.

You can't and you've already demonstrated abject ignorance as to how the BLS collects their data.

You have also failed miserably in demonstrating their 6 million figure of people not in the workforce who want to work, out of 92 million total who are not in the workforce, is not accurate.

Basically, you're just a miserable failure.

 

[The Rabbi]

Dayam! Talk about abject ignorance. Obviously, you have no idea what the household survey is; and obviously, you have no idea how the data for it is collected; and obviously, you have no qualms about discussing matters of which you know nothing about.

On that note, allow me to point out, your ignorance does nothing to discredit BLS statistics; nor does it alter the number of about 6 million people who are not in the workforce who actually want to work.

It is hysterical watching your unintended irony in calling people ignorant when you don't have a clue what you're talking about.

I honestly believe you are stupid enough to think you can bluff your way out of ignorance.

You can't and you've already demonstrated abject ignorance as to how the BLS collects their data.

You have also failed miserably in demonstrating their 6 million figure of people not in the workforce who want to work, out of 92 million total who are not in the workforce, is not accurate.

Basically, you're just a miserable failure.

Says the guy who couldn't interpret a stat to save his life.
Yeah, the truth remains: people aren't looking for jobs because the Obama economy has everyone so discouraged they'd rather reture early, go on disability, or just give up. Truth.