Unemployment rates were made worse by Bush, not Obama!

[Faun]

Then let me remind you of your lunacy, Bush voter ......

"obama's war on women continues Benefit inequality" ~ a brain-dead Bush voter​

See that? No mention whatsoever about baby boomers. Just a reference to retired folks collecting social security. An no one on the left said every senior retiring is a baby boomer.

You're just a demented Bush voter.

sucking on obama's shit has you so fucked up, dude what does that have to do with baby boomers?
obama's war on women continues Benefit inequality

Once again, let's review the dialog to reveal your insanity, Bush voter...

bigrebnc1775: "obama's war on women continues. Benefit inequality"

Faun: "I can actually believe you are stupid enough to think that 75 years of paying into social security can be reversed in just 5 years."

bigrebnc1775: "Where do you get 75 years? baby boomers aren't 75 and it is your claim baby boomers are retiring and that would be 64"

Faun: "Actually, my reference was to 80 years (75 + 5) and that goes back to when people started paying in to social security. And who said I was talking about baby boomers? That's your delusion."

bigrebnc1775: "Bull shit nice bait and switch as you said."

Faun: "Really? Then show me where you said anything about baby boomers?"

bigrebnc1775: "I'm not the one that uses baby boomers for defending obama and his record numbers out of work force Your side uses them. I just reminded you missed them on this."

Faun: "Then let me remind you of your lunacy, Bush voter ...... See that? No mention whatsoever about baby boomers. Just a reference to retired folks collecting social security. An no one on the left said every senior retiring is a baby boomer."

bigrebnc1775: "sucking on obama's shit has you so fucked up, dude what does that have to do with baby boomers?"​

See that? You're the one who injected "baby boomers" into this, not me. This is why you come off as a raving lunatic to then ask what this has to do with baby boomers?

How would I know? You're the one who made this about baby boomers.

Still, you're one fucked up individual. You actually think Obama can fix 75 years worth of inequality among the sexes in just 5 years. You actually said that.

Crazy.

Batshit crazy.

You dumb fucking whiny ass bitch Here's what I said dumb ass.
Your side uses them. I just reminded you missed them on this.

Yes, that's my point, you raving lunatic. you injected baby boomers into this argument, not me. Which is why you look crazier than most rightards by asking, "what does that have to do with baby boomers?"

The obvious answer to that question is, you should know, not me, since you're the one who made it about baby boomers.

Capiche?

Fuck you boomers are only good when you can fit them nicely in your argument. but when they can't be used they don't exist to a fucked up liberal base
Capiche you cock sucking son of a bitch?

LMAO!

You're senile, gramps. Who said they don't exist? I'm merely pointing out that it was you, not me, who used them. Which is why you look even crazier by asking what they have to do with this. If you don't know what they have to do with this, why did YOU inject them into the argument?

Oh, and thanks for proving me right when I point out you're nothing but a raving lunatic.

Capiche?

 

[Conservative65]

Starting in Jan. 20, 2001, at the beginning of George W. Bush’s administration, the rate was 2.4 percent, but by the time he left in January 2009 it had reached 7 percent. The rate now is 5.9% and is on track to get even lower.

During the Obama administration, they went over 10% despite his claim they wouldn't climb over 8%.

If you really think it's 5.9%, you should reapply the KY jelly because you're really taking one on his behalf.

Starting in Jan. 20, 2001, at the beginning of George W. Bush’s administration, the rate was 2.4 percent, but by the time he left in January 2009 it had reached 7 percent. The rate now is 5.9% and is on track to get even lower.

During the Obama administration, they went over 10% despite his claim they wouldn't climb over 8%.

If you really think it's 5.9%, you should reapply the KY jelly because you're really taking one on his behalf.

: link:

Will Obama said stimulus would cap unemployment at 8 percent PolitiFact
As for your claim about it being 2.4% in January, 2001, absolutely false.

My claim is linked!If that's not good enough go ahead and read about 10 posts into the thread to discover that this whole matter has been settled. the actual reported rate at the time Bush took office was about 4.2%. My link was incorrect but only in regards to the 2.4% UE. According to BLS the UE figure today is 5.9%. Here's a link for verification.

Starting in Jan. 20, 2001, at the beginning of George W. Bush’s administration, the rate was 2.4 percent, but by the time he left in January 2009 it had reached 7 percent. The rate now is 5.9% and is on track to get even lower.

During the Obama administration, they went over 10% despite his claim they wouldn't climb over 8%.

If you really think it's 5.9%, you should reapply the KY jelly because you're really taking one on his behalf.

Starting in Jan. 20, 2001, at the beginning of George W. Bush’s administration, the rate was 2.4 percent, but by the time he left in January 2009 it had reached 7 percent. The rate now is 5.9% and is on track to get even lower.

During the Obama administration, they went over 10% despite his claim they wouldn't climb over 8%.

If you really think it's 5.9%, you should reapply the KY jelly because you're really taking one on his behalf.

: link:

Will Obama said stimulus would cap unemployment at 8 percent PolitiFact
As for your claim about it being 2.4% in January, 2001, absolutely
false.

Yep! The 2.4% figure was quoted in the link but the link is incorrect. If you had read further you would have seen that I was taken to task for it. You can see the subsequent post where I owned up to it a long time ago. Also click on the hyperlink (2.4%) to view the link that got me in trouble.

However, whether you accept it or not, the present figure of 5.9 percent for the unemployment rate stands. The Bureau of Labor Statistics website is the source and here is the link:

Total nonfarm payroll employment increased by 248,000 in September, and the unemployment rate declined to 5.9 percent, the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics reported today. Employment increased in professional and business services, retail trade, and health care., Employment Situation Summary

Agreeing with what it says doesn't equate to truth. You accept it for no other reason than you like it. My disagreement with it's truthfulness is based on factors that simply don't add up.

 

[Faun]

Starting in Jan. 20, 2001, at the beginning of George W. Bush’s administration, the rate was 2.4 percent, but by the time he left in January 2009 it had reached 7 percent. The rate now is 5.9% and is on track to get even lower.

During the Obama administration, they went over 10% despite his claim they wouldn't climb over 8%.

If you really think it's 5.9%, you should reapply the KY jelly because you're really taking one on his behalf.

Starting in Jan. 20, 2001, at the beginning of George W. Bush’s administration, the rate was 2.4 percent, but by the time he left in January 2009 it had reached 7 percent. The rate now is 5.9% and is on track to get even lower.

During the Obama administration, they went over 10% despite his claim they wouldn't climb over 8%.

If you really think it's 5.9%, you should reapply the KY jelly because you're really taking one on his behalf.

: link:

Will Obama said stimulus would cap unemployment at 8 percent PolitiFact
As for your claim about it being 2.4% in January, 2001, absolutely false.

My claim is linked!If that's not good enough go ahead and read about 10 posts into the thread to discover that this whole matter has been settled. the actual reported rate at the time Bush took office was about 4.2%. My link was incorrect but only in regards to the 2.4% UE. According to BLS the UE figure today is 5.9%. Here's a link for verification.

Starting in Jan. 20, 2001, at the beginning of George W. Bush’s administration, the rate was 2.4 percent, but by the time he left in January 2009 it had reached 7 percent. The rate now is 5.9% and is on track to get even lower.

During the Obama administration, they went over 10% despite his claim they wouldn't climb over 8%.

If you really think it's 5.9%, you should reapply the KY jelly because you're really taking one on his behalf.

Starting in Jan. 20, 2001, at the beginning of George W. Bush’s administration, the rate was 2.4 percent, but by the time he left in January 2009 it had reached 7 percent. The rate now is 5.9% and is on track to get even lower.

During the Obama administration, they went over 10% despite his claim they wouldn't climb over 8%.

If you really think it's 5.9%, you should reapply the KY jelly because you're really taking one on his behalf.

: link:

Will Obama said stimulus would cap unemployment at 8 percent PolitiFact
As for your claim about it being 2.4% in January, 2001, absolutely
false.

Yep! The 2.4% figure was quoted in the link but the link is incorrect. If you had read further you would have seen that I was taken to task for it. You can see the subsequent post where I owned up to it a long time ago. Also click on the hyperlink (2.4%) to view the link that got me in trouble.

However, whether you accept it or not, the present figure of 5.9 percent for the unemployment rate stands. The Bureau of Labor Statistics website is the source and here is the link:

Total nonfarm payroll employment increased by 248,000 in September, and the unemployment rate declined to 5.9 percent, the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics reported today. Employment increased in professional and business services, retail trade, and health care., Employment Situation Summary

Agreeing with what it says doesn't equate to truth. You accept it for no other reason than you like it. My disagreement with it's truthfulness is based on factors that simply don't add up.

Oh? And what factors would those be?

 

[JQPublic1]

Starting in Jan. 20, 2001, at the beginning of George W. Bush’s administration, the rate was 2.4 percent, but by the time he left in January 2009 it had reached 7 percent. The rate now is 5.9% and is on track to get even lower.

During the Obama administration, they went over 10% despite his claim they wouldn't climb over 8%.

If you really think it's 5.9%, you should reapply the KY jelly because you're really taking one on his behalf.

Starting in Jan. 20, 2001, at the beginning of George W. Bush’s administration, the rate was 2.4 percent, but by the time he left in January 2009 it had reached 7 percent. The rate now is 5.9% and is on track to get even lower.

During the Obama administration, they went over 10% despite his claim they wouldn't climb over 8%.

If you really think it's 5.9%, you should reapply the KY jelly because you're really taking one on his behalf.

: link:

Will Obama said stimulus would cap unemployment at 8 percent PolitiFact
As for your claim about it being 2.4% in January, 2001, absolutely false.

My claim is linked!If that's not good enough go ahead and read about 10 posts into the thread to discover that this whole matter has been settled. the actual reported rate at the time Bush took office was about 4.2%. My link was incorrect but only in regards to the 2.4% UE. According to BLS the UE figure today is 5.9%. Here's a link for verification.

Starting in Jan. 20, 2001, at the beginning of George W. Bush’s administration, the rate was 2.4 percent, but by the time he left in January 2009 it had reached 7 percent. The rate now is 5.9% and is on track to get even lower.

During the Obama administration, they went over 10% despite his claim they wouldn't climb over 8%.

If you really think it's 5.9%, you should reapply the KY jelly because you're really taking one on his behalf.

Starting in Jan. 20, 2001, at the beginning of George W. Bush’s administration, the rate was 2.4 percent, but by the time he left in January 2009 it had reached 7 percent. The rate now is 5.9% and is on track to get even lower.

During the Obama administration, they went over 10% despite his claim they wouldn't climb over 8%.

If you really think it's 5.9%, you should reapply the KY jelly because you're really taking one on his behalf.

: link:

Will Obama said stimulus would cap unemployment at 8 percent PolitiFact
As for your claim about it being 2.4% in January, 2001, absolutely
false.

Yep! The 2.4% figure was quoted in the link but the link is incorrect. If you had read further you would have seen that I was taken to task for it. You can see the subsequent post where I owned up to it a long time ago. Also click on the hyperlink (2.4%) to view the link that got me in trouble.

However, whether you accept it or not, the present figure of 5.9 percent for the unemployment rate stands. The Bureau of Labor Statistics website is the source and here is the link:

Total nonfarm payroll employment increased by 248,000 in September, and the unemployment rate declined to 5.9 percent, the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics reported today. Employment increased in professional and business services, retail trade, and health care., Employment Situation Summary

Agreeing with what it says doesn't equate to truth. You accept it for no other reason than you like it. My disagreement with it's truthfulness is based on factors that simply don't add up.

BAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! I can't believe the incredible stupidity of RW idiots that are showing up to "challenge" the Bureau of Labor Statistic's data! Even Rick Perry is snickering over his laptop keyboard at you!

 

[Conservative65]

During the Obama administration, they went over 10% despite his claim they wouldn't climb over 8%.

If you really think it's 5.9%, you should reapply the KY jelly because you're really taking one on his behalf.

During the Obama administration, they went over 10% despite his claim they wouldn't climb over 8%.

If you really think it's 5.9%, you should reapply the KY jelly because you're really taking one on his behalf.

: link:

Will Obama said stimulus would cap unemployment at 8 percent PolitiFact
As for your claim about it being 2.4% in January, 2001, absolutely false.

My claim is linked!If that's not good enough go ahead and read about 10 posts into the thread to discover that this whole matter has been settled. the actual reported rate at the time Bush took office was about 4.2%. My link was incorrect but only in regards to the 2.4% UE. According to BLS the UE figure today is 5.9%. Here's a link for verification.

During the Obama administration, they went over 10% despite his claim they wouldn't climb over 8%.

If you really think it's 5.9%, you should reapply the KY jelly because you're really taking one on his behalf.

During the Obama administration, they went over 10% despite his claim they wouldn't climb over 8%.

If you really think it's 5.9%, you should reapply the KY jelly because you're really taking one on his behalf.

: link:

Will Obama said stimulus would cap unemployment at 8 percent PolitiFact
As for your claim about it being 2.4% in January, 2001, absolutely
false.

Yep! The 2.4% figure was quoted in the link but the link is incorrect. If you had read further you would have seen that I was taken to task for it. You can see the subsequent post where I owned up to it a long time ago. Also click on the hyperlink (2.4%) to view the link that got me in trouble.

However, whether you accept it or not, the present figure of 5.9 percent for the unemployment rate stands. The Bureau of Labor Statistics website is the source and here is the link:

Total nonfarm payroll employment increased by 248,000 in September, and the unemployment rate declined to 5.9 percent, the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics reported today. Employment increased in professional and business services, retail trade, and health care., Employment Situation Summary

Agreeing with what it says doesn't equate to truth. You accept it for no other reason than you like it. My disagreement with it's truthfulness is based on factors that simply don't add up.

BAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! I can't believe the incredible stupidity of RW idiots that are showing up to "challenge" the Bureau of Labor Statistic's data! Even Rick Perry is snickering over his laptop keyboard at you!

I can believe that you LW idiots continue to pucker up and kiss Obama's ass. It's seem that's about the only thing you have left.

 

[Conservative65]

During the Obama administration, they went over 10% despite his claim they wouldn't climb over 8%.

If you really think it's 5.9%, you should reapply the KY jelly because you're really taking one on his behalf.

During the Obama administration, they went over 10% despite his claim they wouldn't climb over 8%.

If you really think it's 5.9%, you should reapply the KY jelly because you're really taking one on his behalf.

: link:

Will Obama said stimulus would cap unemployment at 8 percent PolitiFact
As for your claim about it being 2.4% in January, 2001, absolutely false.

My claim is linked!If that's not good enough go ahead and read about 10 posts into the thread to discover that this whole matter has been settled. the actual reported rate at the time Bush took office was about 4.2%. My link was incorrect but only in regards to the 2.4% UE. According to BLS the UE figure today is 5.9%. Here's a link for verification.

During the Obama administration, they went over 10% despite his claim they wouldn't climb over 8%.

If you really think it's 5.9%, you should reapply the KY jelly because you're really taking one on his behalf.

During the Obama administration, they went over 10% despite his claim they wouldn't climb over 8%.

If you really think it's 5.9%, you should reapply the KY jelly because you're really taking one on his behalf.

: link:

Will Obama said stimulus would cap unemployment at 8 percent PolitiFact
As for your claim about it being 2.4% in January, 2001, absolutely
false.

Yep! The 2.4% figure was quoted in the link but the link is incorrect. If you had read further you would have seen that I was taken to task for it. You can see the subsequent post where I owned up to it a long time ago. Also click on the hyperlink (2.4%) to view the link that got me in trouble.

However, whether you accept it or not, the present figure of 5.9 percent for the unemployment rate stands. The Bureau of Labor Statistics website is the source and here is the link:

Total nonfarm payroll employment increased by 248,000 in September, and the unemployment rate declined to 5.9 percent, the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics reported today. Employment increased in professional and business services, retail trade, and health care., Employment Situation Summary

Agreeing with what it says doesn't equate to truth. You accept it for no other reason than you like it. My disagreement with it's truthfulness is based on factors that simply don't add up.

Oh? And what factors would those be?

Record numbers not participating in the labor force. Record numbers on social welfare programs. All you lefties claiming people are working because job aren't available while blaming the Republicans. All that does not add up to a declining unemployment number. If unemployment was going down, so would those numbers. You might be retarded enough to believe it but those of us who know better don't simply bend over, grab out ankles, and blindly accept what your boy in the White House says.

 

[JQPublic1]

: link:

Will Obama said stimulus would cap unemployment at 8 percent PolitiFact
As for your claim about it being 2.4% in January, 2001, absolutely false.

My claim is linked!If that's not good enough go ahead and read about 10 posts into the thread to discover that this whole matter has been settled. the actual reported rate at the time Bush took office was about 4.2%. My link was incorrect but only in regards to the 2.4% UE. According to BLS the UE figure today is 5.9%. Here's a link for verification.

: link:

Will Obama said stimulus would cap unemployment at 8 percent PolitiFact
As for your claim about it being 2.4% in January, 2001, absolutely
false.

Yep! The 2.4% figure was quoted in the link but the link is incorrect. If you had read further you would have seen that I was taken to task for it. You can see the subsequent post where I owned up to it a long time ago. Also click on the hyperlink (2.4%) to view the link that got me in trouble.

However, whether you accept it or not, the present figure of 5.9 percent for the unemployment rate stands. The Bureau of Labor Statistics website is the source and here is the link:

Total nonfarm payroll employment increased by 248,000 in September, and the unemployment rate declined to 5.9 percent, the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics reported today. Employment increased in professional and business services, retail trade, and health care., Employment Situation Summary

Agreeing with what it says doesn't equate to truth. You accept it for no other reason than you like it. My disagreement with it's truthfulness is based on factors that simply don't add up.

BAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! I can't believe the incredible stupidity of RW idiots that are showing up to "challenge" the Bureau of Labor Statistic's data! Even Rick Perry is snickering over his laptop keyboard at you!

I can believe that you LW idiots continue to pucker up and kiss Obama's ass. It's seem that's about the only thing you have left.

Yeah...yawwwwnnnn! But why should I kiss Obama's ass? He hasn't damn a damn thing for me. I just prefer him over the right wing scum that hate the common folk! He has helped the poor to get healthcafre coverage and he has helped the rich get richer. Those two groups owe him a real good ass kissing!

 

[bigrebnc1775]

sucking on obama's shit has you so fucked up, dude what does that have to do with baby boomers?
obama's war on women continues Benefit inequality

Once again, let's review the dialog to reveal your insanity, Bush voter...

bigrebnc1775: "obama's war on women continues. Benefit inequality"

Faun: "I can actually believe you are stupid enough to think that 75 years of paying into social security can be reversed in just 5 years."

bigrebnc1775: "Where do you get 75 years? baby boomers aren't 75 and it is your claim baby boomers are retiring and that would be 64"

Faun: "Actually, my reference was to 80 years (75 + 5) and that goes back to when people started paying in to social security. And who said I was talking about baby boomers? That's your delusion."

bigrebnc1775: "Bull shit nice bait and switch as you said."

Faun: "Really? Then show me where you said anything about baby boomers?"

bigrebnc1775: "I'm not the one that uses baby boomers for defending obama and his record numbers out of work force Your side uses them. I just reminded you missed them on this."

Faun: "Then let me remind you of your lunacy, Bush voter ...... See that? No mention whatsoever about baby boomers. Just a reference to retired folks collecting social security. An no one on the left said every senior retiring is a baby boomer."

bigrebnc1775: "sucking on obama's shit has you so fucked up, dude what does that have to do with baby boomers?"​

See that? You're the one who injected "baby boomers" into this, not me. This is why you come off as a raving lunatic to then ask what this has to do with baby boomers?

How would I know? You're the one who made this about baby boomers.

Still, you're one fucked up individual. You actually think Obama can fix 75 years worth of inequality among the sexes in just 5 years. You actually said that.

Crazy.

Batshit crazy.

You dumb fucking whiny ass bitch Here's what I said dumb ass.
Your side uses them. I just reminded you missed them on this.

Yes, that's my point, you raving lunatic. you injected baby boomers into this argument, not me. Which is why you look crazier than most rightards by asking, "what does that have to do with baby boomers?"

The obvious answer to that question is, you should know, not me, since you're the one who made it about baby boomers.

Capiche?

Fuck you boomers are only good when you can fit them nicely in your argument. but when they can't be used they don't exist to a fucked up liberal base
Capiche you cock sucking son of a bitch?

LMAO!

You're senile, gramps. Who said they don't exist? I'm merely pointing out that it was you, not me, who used them. Which is why you look even crazier by asking what they have to do with this. If you don't know what they have to do with this, why did YOU inject them into the argument?

Oh, and thanks for proving me right when I point out you're nothing but a raving lunatic.

Capiche?

You shot your blank long ago you blooming idiot you are done stop making a fool of yourself trying to one up me

 

[JQPublic1]

: link:

Will Obama said stimulus would cap unemployment at 8 percent PolitiFact
As for your claim about it being 2.4% in January, 2001, absolutely false.

My claim is linked!If that's not good enough go ahead and read about 10 posts into the thread to discover that this whole matter has been settled. the actual reported rate at the time Bush took office was about 4.2%. My link was incorrect but only in regards to the 2.4% UE. According to BLS the UE figure today is 5.9%. Here's a link for verification.

: link:

Will Obama said stimulus would cap unemployment at 8 percent PolitiFact
As for your claim about it being 2.4% in January, 2001, absolutely
false.

Yep! The 2.4% figure was quoted in the link but the link is incorrect. If you had read further you would have seen that I was taken to task for it. You can see the subsequent post where I owned up to it a long time ago. Also click on the hyperlink (2.4%) to view the link that got me in trouble.

However, whether you accept it or not, the present figure of 5.9 percent for the unemployment rate stands. The Bureau of Labor Statistics website is the source and here is the link:

Total nonfarm payroll employment increased by 248,000 in September, and the unemployment rate declined to 5.9 percent, the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics reported today. Employment increased in professional and business services, retail trade, and health care., Employment Situation Summary

Agreeing with what it says doesn't equate to truth. You accept it for no other reason than you like it. My disagreement with it's truthfulness is based on factors that simply don't add up.

Oh? And what factors would those be?

Record numbers not participating in the labor force. Record numbers on social welfare programs. All you lefties claiming people are working because job aren't available while blaming the Republicans. All that does not add up to a declining unemployment number. If unemployment was going down, so would those numbers. You might be retarded enough to believe it but those of us who know better don't simply bend over, grab out ankles, and blindly accept what your boy in the White House says.

What is it with you lame brain Republican dorks? Even after several very bright Left wing patriots spelled out the differences between the UE and Labor workforce participation rates you are still confused . If you still believe they are interchangeable that simply underlines your cluelessness.
Go back and read the incredible knowledge deposited in this thread by the left erudite. Go my son and wallow in ignorance no more!

 

[Faun]

: link:

Will Obama said stimulus would cap unemployment at 8 percent PolitiFact
As for your claim about it being 2.4% in January, 2001, absolutely false.

My claim is linked!If that's not good enough go ahead and read about 10 posts into the thread to discover that this whole matter has been settled. the actual reported rate at the time Bush took office was about 4.2%. My link was incorrect but only in regards to the 2.4% UE. According to BLS the UE figure today is 5.9%. Here's a link for verification.

: link:

Will Obama said stimulus would cap unemployment at 8 percent PolitiFact
As for your claim about it being 2.4% in January, 2001, absolutely
false.

Yep! The 2.4% figure was quoted in the link but the link is incorrect. If you had read further you would have seen that I was taken to task for it. You can see the subsequent post where I owned up to it a long time ago. Also click on the hyperlink (2.4%) to view the link that got me in trouble.

However, whether you accept it or not, the present figure of 5.9 percent for the unemployment rate stands. The Bureau of Labor Statistics website is the source and here is the link:

Total nonfarm payroll employment increased by 248,000 in September, and the unemployment rate declined to 5.9 percent, the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics reported today. Employment increased in professional and business services, retail trade, and health care., Employment Situation Summary

Agreeing with what it says doesn't equate to truth. You accept it for no other reason than you like it. My disagreement with it's truthfulness is based on factors that simply don't add up.

Oh? And what factors would those be?

Record numbers not participating in the labor force. Record numbers on social welfare programs. All you lefties claiming people are working because job aren't available while blaming the Republicans. All that does not add up to a declining unemployment number. If unemployment was going down, so would those numbers. You might be retarded enough to believe it but those of us who know better don't simply bend over, grab out ankles, and blindly accept what your boy in the White House says.

I see, so you have your own definition of the unemployment rate. Well that certainly explains why you disagree with the BLS. But it also shows why they're right and you're nothing but a rightie imbecile.

The unemployment rate measures how many people who want to work are unemployed. By design, it does not include people who don't want to work. Understandably, you, being a rightwing loon can't accept that because we have a Democrat president, so you seek to include people who have no desire to work as "unemployed," even though they're not.

Now you could have reasonably pointed to the U4 and U5 rates, 6.4% and 7.3% respectively, as inclusionary evidence of people who can be considered "unemployed"; but regrettably, you're nothing but a knee-jerk reactionary who rejected reason and common sense in favor of hyper-partisan talking points.

 

[Faun]

Once again, let's review the dialog to reveal your insanity, Bush voter...

bigrebnc1775: "obama's war on women continues. Benefit inequality"

Faun: "I can actually believe you are stupid enough to think that 75 years of paying into social security can be reversed in just 5 years."

bigrebnc1775: "Where do you get 75 years? baby boomers aren't 75 and it is your claim baby boomers are retiring and that would be 64"

Faun: "Actually, my reference was to 80 years (75 + 5) and that goes back to when people started paying in to social security. And who said I was talking about baby boomers? That's your delusion."

bigrebnc1775: "Bull shit nice bait and switch as you said."

Faun: "Really? Then show me where you said anything about baby boomers?"

bigrebnc1775: "I'm not the one that uses baby boomers for defending obama and his record numbers out of work force Your side uses them. I just reminded you missed them on this."

Faun: "Then let me remind you of your lunacy, Bush voter ...... See that? No mention whatsoever about baby boomers. Just a reference to retired folks collecting social security. An no one on the left said every senior retiring is a baby boomer."

bigrebnc1775: "sucking on obama's shit has you so fucked up, dude what does that have to do with baby boomers?"​

See that? You're the one who injected "baby boomers" into this, not me. This is why you come off as a raving lunatic to then ask what this has to do with baby boomers?

How would I know? You're the one who made this about baby boomers.

Still, you're one fucked up individual. You actually think Obama can fix 75 years worth of inequality among the sexes in just 5 years. You actually said that.

Crazy.

Batshit crazy.

You dumb fucking whiny ass bitch Here's what I said dumb ass.
Your side uses them. I just reminded you missed them on this.

Yes, that's my point, you raving lunatic. you injected baby boomers into this argument, not me. Which is why you look crazier than most rightards by asking, "what does that have to do with baby boomers?"

The obvious answer to that question is, you should know, not me, since you're the one who made it about baby boomers.

Capiche?

Fuck you boomers are only good when you can fit them nicely in your argument. but when they can't be used they don't exist to a fucked up liberal base
Capiche you cock sucking son of a bitch?

LMAO!

You're senile, gramps. Who said they don't exist? I'm merely pointing out that it was you, not me, who used them. Which is why you look even crazier by asking what they have to do with this. If you don't know what they have to do with this, why did YOU inject them into the argument?

Oh, and thanks for proving me right when I point out you're nothing but a raving lunatic.

Capiche?

You shot your blank long ago you blooming idiot you are done stop making a fool of yourself trying to one up me

I posted the dialog so anyone reading it can see how insane you are. If you wanna call that, shooting blanks, so be it. That provides you no aid in dispelling how nuts you are.

 

[Conservative65]

Will Obama said stimulus would cap unemployment at 8 percent PolitiFact
As for your claim about it being 2.4% in January, 2001, absolutely false.

My claim is linked!If that's not good enough go ahead and read about 10 posts into the thread to discover that this whole matter has been settled. the actual reported rate at the time Bush took office was about 4.2%. My link was incorrect but only in regards to the 2.4% UE. According to BLS the UE figure today is 5.9%. Here's a link for verification.

Will Obama said stimulus would cap unemployment at 8 percent PolitiFact
As for your claim about it being 2.4% in January, 2001, absolutely
false.

Yep! The 2.4% figure was quoted in the link but the link is incorrect. If you had read further you would have seen that I was taken to task for it. You can see the subsequent post where I owned up to it a long time ago. Also click on the hyperlink (2.4%) to view the link that got me in trouble.

However, whether you accept it or not, the present figure of 5.9 percent for the unemployment rate stands. The Bureau of Labor Statistics website is the source and here is the link:

Total nonfarm payroll employment increased by 248,000 in September, and the unemployment rate declined to 5.9 percent, the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics reported today. Employment increased in professional and business services, retail trade, and health care., Employment Situation Summary

Agreeing with what it says doesn't equate to truth. You accept it for no other reason than you like it. My disagreement with it's truthfulness is based on factors that simply don't add up.

Oh? And what factors would those be?

Record numbers not participating in the labor force. Record numbers on social welfare programs. All you lefties claiming people are working because job aren't available while blaming the Republicans. All that does not add up to a declining unemployment number. If unemployment was going down, so would those numbers. You might be retarded enough to believe it but those of us who know better don't simply bend over, grab out ankles, and blindly accept what your boy in the White House says.

I see, so you have your own definition of the unemployment rate. Well that certainly explains why you disagree with the BLS. But it also shows why they're right and you're nothing but a rightie imbecile.

The unemployment rate measures how many people who want to work are unemployed. By design, it does not include people who don't want to work. Understandably, you, being a rightwing loon can't accept that because we have a Democrat president, so you seek to include people who have no desire to work as "unemployed," even though they're not.

Now you could have reasonably pointed to the U4 and U5 rates, 6.4% and 7.3% respectively, as inclusionary evidence of people who can be considered "unemployed"; but regrettably, you're nothing but a knee-jerk reactionary who rejected reason and common sense in favor of hyper-partisan talking points.

If you're not going to count those out of work but only those out AND looking, it's not a realistic calculation. If you don't want to count those out of work but aren't looking, do so but don't be surprised if the rest of us who look at reality consider you a dumbass. Because someone doesn't want to work doesn't mean they don't count as being out of work. They can have all the desire not to work they want, let them starve. You probably think they deserve welfare, too.

 

[Faun]

My claim is linked!If that's not good enough go ahead and read about 10 posts into the thread to discover that this whole matter has been settled. the actual reported rate at the time Bush took office was about 4.2%. My link was incorrect but only in regards to the 2.4% UE. According to BLS the UE figure today is 5.9%. Here's a link for verification.

Yep! The 2.4% figure was quoted in the link but the link is incorrect. If you had read further you would have seen that I was taken to task for it. You can see the subsequent post where I owned up to it a long time ago. Also click on the hyperlink (2.4%) to view the link that got me in trouble.

However, whether you accept it or not, the present figure of 5.9 percent for the unemployment rate stands. The Bureau of Labor Statistics website is the source and here is the link:

Agreeing with what it says doesn't equate to truth. You accept it for no other reason than you like it. My disagreement with it's truthfulness is based on factors that simply don't add up.

Oh? And what factors would those be?

Record numbers not participating in the labor force. Record numbers on social welfare programs. All you lefties claiming people are working because job aren't available while blaming the Republicans. All that does not add up to a declining unemployment number. If unemployment was going down, so would those numbers. You might be retarded enough to believe it but those of us who know better don't simply bend over, grab out ankles, and blindly accept what your boy in the White House says.

I see, so you have your own definition of the unemployment rate. Well that certainly explains why you disagree with the BLS. But it also shows why they're right and you're nothing but a rightie imbecile.

The unemployment rate measures how many people who want to work are unemployed. By design, it does not include people who don't want to work. Understandably, you, being a rightwing loon can't accept that because we have a Democrat president, so you seek to include people who have no desire to work as "unemployed," even though they're not.

Now you could have reasonably pointed to the U4 and U5 rates, 6.4% and 7.3% respectively, as inclusionary evidence of people who can be considered "unemployed"; but regrettably, you're nothing but a knee-jerk reactionary who rejected reason and common sense in favor of hyper-partisan talking points.

If you're not going to count those out of work but only those out AND looking, it's not a realistic calculation. If you don't want to count those out of work but aren't looking, do so but don't be surprised if the rest of us who look at reality consider you a dumbass. Because someone doesn't want to work doesn't mean they don't count as being out of work. They can have all the desire not to work they want, let them starve. You probably think they deserve welfare, too.

Absolute unadulterated idiocy. 94% of the folks you identify as "out of work" don't actually want to work. This is why your ignorance on the subject outweighs your opinion.

 

[Conservative65]

Agreeing with what it says doesn't equate to truth. You accept it for no other reason than you like it. My disagreement with it's truthfulness is based on factors that simply don't add up.

Oh? And what factors would those be?

Record numbers not participating in the labor force. Record numbers on social welfare programs. All you lefties claiming people are working because job aren't available while blaming the Republicans. All that does not add up to a declining unemployment number. If unemployment was going down, so would those numbers. You might be retarded enough to believe it but those of us who know better don't simply bend over, grab out ankles, and blindly accept what your boy in the White House says.

I see, so you have your own definition of the unemployment rate. Well that certainly explains why you disagree with the BLS. But it also shows why they're right and you're nothing but a rightie imbecile.

The unemployment rate measures how many people who want to work are unemployed. By design, it does not include people who don't want to work. Understandably, you, being a rightwing loon can't accept that because we have a Democrat president, so you seek to include people who have no desire to work as "unemployed," even though they're not.

Now you could have reasonably pointed to the U4 and U5 rates, 6.4% and 7.3% respectively, as inclusionary evidence of people who can be considered "unemployed"; but regrettably, you're nothing but a knee-jerk reactionary who rejected reason and common sense in favor of hyper-partisan talking points.

If you're not going to count those out of work but only those out AND looking, it's not a realistic calculation. If you don't want to count those out of work but aren't looking, do so but don't be surprised if the rest of us who look at reality consider you a dumbass. Because someone doesn't want to work doesn't mean they don't count as being out of work. They can have all the desire not to work they want, let them starve. You probably think they deserve welfare, too.

Absolute unadulterated idiocy. 94% of the folks you identify as "out of work" don't actually want to work. This is why your ignorance on the subject outweighs your opinion.

Only an idiot like you would think someone out of work because they can 't find a job and someone out of work because they don't want a job is different. The RESULT, and that's what matters, is they are UNEMPLOYED and that's what an unemployment rate is supposed to measure.

I'm willing to bet you think the taxpayers should support those that don't want to work. I'll take your failure to respond to my claim that you do as proof that you do.

 

[Faun]

Oh? And what factors would those be?

Record numbers not participating in the labor force. Record numbers on social welfare programs. All you lefties claiming people are working because job aren't available while blaming the Republicans. All that does not add up to a declining unemployment number. If unemployment was going down, so would those numbers. You might be retarded enough to believe it but those of us who know better don't simply bend over, grab out ankles, and blindly accept what your boy in the White House says.

I see, so you have your own definition of the unemployment rate. Well that certainly explains why you disagree with the BLS. But it also shows why they're right and you're nothing but a rightie imbecile.

The unemployment rate measures how many people who want to work are unemployed. By design, it does not include people who don't want to work. Understandably, you, being a rightwing loon can't accept that because we have a Democrat president, so you seek to include people who have no desire to work as "unemployed," even though they're not.

Now you could have reasonably pointed to the U4 and U5 rates, 6.4% and 7.3% respectively, as inclusionary evidence of people who can be considered "unemployed"; but regrettably, you're nothing but a knee-jerk reactionary who rejected reason and common sense in favor of hyper-partisan talking points.

If you're not going to count those out of work but only those out AND looking, it's not a realistic calculation. If you don't want to count those out of work but aren't looking, do so but don't be surprised if the rest of us who look at reality consider you a dumbass. Because someone doesn't want to work doesn't mean they don't count as being out of work. They can have all the desire not to work they want, let them starve. You probably think they deserve welfare, too.

Absolute unadulterated idiocy. 94% of the folks you identify as "out of work" don't actually want to work. This is why your ignorance on the subject outweighs your opinion.

Only an idiot like you would think someone out of work because they can 't find a job and someone out of work because they don't want a job is different. The RESULT, and that's what matters, is they are UNEMPLOYED and that's what an unemployment rate is supposed to measure.

I'm willing to bet you think the taxpayers should support those that don't want to work. I'll take your failure to respond to my claim that you do as proof that you do.

Figures you're a Conservative as that is the dumbest shit I've ever heard on the subject of unemployment. I'm fortunate enough to make a good living so that my wife doesn't have to work. Not that taking care of the house and kids isn't work, it's a 24/7 job that's harder than what I do, but it's not a job that shows up in the BLS's statistics in the labor force. At any rate, my wife loves what she does and neither wants a job outside our home nor needs one. You're so fucking stupid (typical Conservative), you equate someone like my wife with a homeless guy holding a 'will work for food' sign, as though they are both in the same dire "out of work" predicament. That is beyond ignorant, which is why you assert it; you're a Conservative and can't help yourself. Look, I get why you are incapable of comprehending why the BLS breaks down folks not in the labor force into two categories; one of people who want to work and another of folks who don't want to, but your ineducable ignorance is your problem and no one else's. There really is a difference between someone down on their luck and unable to find a job after a long period of time, but they still want to work even though they're discouraged ... with a house wife who doesn't want to work, or a senior citizen retiring who doesn't want to work, or a high school student who lives at home and doesn't want to work. Everyone not working are all the same. Go sell that idiocy elsewhere.

 

[edthecynic]

Oh? And what factors would those be?

Record numbers not participating in the labor force. Record numbers on social welfare programs. All you lefties claiming people are working because job aren't available while blaming the Republicans. All that does not add up to a declining unemployment number. If unemployment was going down, so would those numbers. You might be retarded enough to believe it but those of us who know better don't simply bend over, grab out ankles, and blindly accept what your boy in the White House says.

I see, so you have your own definition of the unemployment rate. Well that certainly explains why you disagree with the BLS. But it also shows why they're right and you're nothing but a rightie imbecile.

The unemployment rate measures how many people who want to work are unemployed. By design, it does not include people who don't want to work. Understandably, you, being a rightwing loon can't accept that because we have a Democrat president, so you seek to include people who have no desire to work as "unemployed," even though they're not.

Now you could have reasonably pointed to the U4 and U5 rates, 6.4% and 7.3% respectively, as inclusionary evidence of people who can be considered "unemployed"; but regrettably, you're nothing but a knee-jerk reactionary who rejected reason and common sense in favor of hyper-partisan talking points.

If you're not going to count those out of work but only those out AND looking, it's not a realistic calculation. If you don't want to count those out of work but aren't looking, do so but don't be surprised if the rest of us who look at reality consider you a dumbass. Because someone doesn't want to work doesn't mean they don't count as being out of work. They can have all the desire not to work they want, let them starve. You probably think they deserve welfare, too.

Absolute unadulterated idiocy. 94% of the folks you identify as "out of work" don't actually want to work. This is why your ignorance on the subject outweighs your opinion.

Only an idiot like you would think someone out of work because they can 't find a job and someone out of work because they don't want a job is different. The RESULT, and that's what matters, is they are UNEMPLOYED and that's what an unemployment rate is supposed to measure.

I'm willing to bet you think the taxpayers should support those that don't want to work. I'll take your failure to respond to my claim that you do as proof that you do.

So were you bitching about Bush's 50% unemployment rate according to your standard?

 

[Conservative65]

Record numbers not participating in the labor force. Record numbers on social welfare programs. All you lefties claiming people are working because job aren't available while blaming the Republicans. All that does not add up to a declining unemployment number. If unemployment was going down, so would those numbers. You might be retarded enough to believe it but those of us who know better don't simply bend over, grab out ankles, and blindly accept what your boy in the White House says.

I see, so you have your own definition of the unemployment rate. Well that certainly explains why you disagree with the BLS. But it also shows why they're right and you're nothing but a rightie imbecile.

The unemployment rate measures how many people who want to work are unemployed. By design, it does not include people who don't want to work. Understandably, you, being a rightwing loon can't accept that because we have a Democrat president, so you seek to include people who have no desire to work as "unemployed," even though they're not.

Now you could have reasonably pointed to the U4 and U5 rates, 6.4% and 7.3% respectively, as inclusionary evidence of people who can be considered "unemployed"; but regrettably, you're nothing but a knee-jerk reactionary who rejected reason and common sense in favor of hyper-partisan talking points.

If you're not going to count those out of work but only those out AND looking, it's not a realistic calculation. If you don't want to count those out of work but aren't looking, do so but don't be surprised if the rest of us who look at reality consider you a dumbass. Because someone doesn't want to work doesn't mean they don't count as being out of work. They can have all the desire not to work they want, let them starve. You probably think they deserve welfare, too.

Absolute unadulterated idiocy. 94% of the folks you identify as "out of work" don't actually want to work. This is why your ignorance on the subject outweighs your opinion.

Only an idiot like you would think someone out of work because they can 't find a job and someone out of work because they don't want a job is different. The RESULT, and that's what matters, is they are UNEMPLOYED and that's what an unemployment rate is supposed to measure.

I'm willing to bet you think the taxpayers should support those that don't want to work. I'll take your failure to respond to my claim that you do as proof that you do.

So were you bitching about Bush's 50% unemployment rate according to your standard?[/QUOTE

Never reached that level except to retards like you.

 

[edthecynic]

Only an idiot like you would think someone out of work because they can 't find a job and someone out of work because they don't want a job is different. The RESULT, and that's what matters, is they are UNEMPLOYED and that's what an unemployment rate is supposed to measure.

I'm willing to bet you think the taxpayers should support those that don't want to work. I'll take your failure to respond to my claim that you do as proof that you do.

So were you bitching about Bush's 50% unemployment rate according to your standard?

Never reached that level except to retards like you.

When you include Bush's 80 million not in the labor force as out of work unemployed, as you say should be done, in addition to those who make up the U-6 rate you get a 50% unemployment rate for Bush.[/QUOTE]

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Never reached that level except to retards like you.

When you include Bush's 80 million not in the labor force as out of work unemployed, as you say should be done, in addition to those who make up the U-6 rate you get a 50% unemployment rate for Bush.

You're such a dumb ass obama holds the record for not participating in the work force it has never been this high not even close

 

[edthecynic]

I see, so you have your own definition of the unemployment rate. Well that certainly explains why you disagree with the BLS. But it also shows why they're right and you're nothing but a rightie imbecile.

The unemployment rate measures how many people who want to work are unemployed. By design, it does not include people who don't want to work. Understandably, you, being a rightwing loon can't accept that because we have a Democrat president, so you seek to include people who have no desire to work as "unemployed," even though they're not.

Now you could have reasonably pointed to the U4 and U5 rates, 6.4% and 7.3% respectively, as inclusionary evidence of people who can be considered "unemployed"; but regrettably, you're nothing but a knee-jerk reactionary who rejected reason and common sense in favor of hyper-partisan talking points.

If you're not going to count those out of work but only those out AND looking, it's not a realistic calculation. If you don't want to count those out of work but aren't looking, do so but don't be surprised if the rest of us who look at reality consider you a dumbass. Because someone doesn't want to work doesn't mean they don't count as being out of work. They can have all the desire not to work they want, let them starve. You probably think they deserve welfare, too.

Absolute unadulterated idiocy. 94% of the folks you identify as "out of work" don't actually want to work. This is why your ignorance on the subject outweighs your opinion.

Only an idiot like you would think someone out of work because they can 't find a job and someone out of work because they don't want a job is different. The RESULT, and that's what matters, is they are UNEMPLOYED and that's what an unemployment rate is supposed to measure.

I'm willing to bet you think the taxpayers should support those that don't want to work. I'll take your failure to respond to my claim that you do as proof that you do.

So were you bitching about Bush's 50% unemployment rate according to your standard?[/QUOTE

Never reached that level except to retards like you.

Never reached that level except to retards like you.

When you include Bush's 80 million not in the labor force as out of work unemployed, as you say should be done, in addition to those who make up the U-6 rate you get a 50% unemployment rate for Bush.

You're such a dumb ass obama holds the record for not participating in the work force it has never been this high not even close

Yeah, he broke Bush II's record, who broke Clinton's record, who broke Bush I's record who broke St Ronnie's record, and the next president will break Obama's record, no matter which Party they belong to and the following president will break that record also.

It is a meaningless record for a worthless stat, but it is all the worthless Right has.